In light
of two recent high profile cases; one in the US, and one in the UK, I would
like to share a story from social work, which I feel has some parallels to both
stories.
The case
in the US involved a young white man called Brock Turner. Turner was a young
man from a privileged background and was described in the press as an “All
American Swimmer”. He was at Stanford College, where one evening during a
Fraternity party, he was discovered by two other students on top of an
unconscious young woman. He was sexually assaulting her. He ran from the scene,
but was tackled by the two young men who had discovered him and held until the
police arrived.
The
maximum sentence for Turner’s crime was 14 years; he got 6 months and is due
for release in 3. His father commented that this was “a steep price to pay for
20 minutes of action”. The case sparked widespread outrage and debate, none of
which I am going to enter into here. The point I would like to make is that in
ALL societies, there is a huge imbalance when it comes to dealing with people
from a different economic class.
The
newspapers were quick to bring to the public’s attention several rape and
sexual assault cases where the perpetrators had been from a different economic
background, different ethnic group and class – all had received the maximum
sentence. Not one had been handed such a lenient sentence as Turner.
The
details of the Brock Turner case can be found by following this link;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brock_Turner
The case
in the UK tragically involved the death of a six year old girl called Ellie
Butler. Ellie was killed by her father who had fought to have her returned to
his care after he was released from prison where he had been serving a sentence
for inflicting grievous bodily harm on Ellie, when she was only a few weeks
old. Ellie had suffered severe brain injuries, but Butler began a media
campaign to have Ellie returned to his care.
Astonishingly
he won.
He won
due to the judge, Mrs Justice Hogg finding in his favour and expressing her “joy”
at this “happy ending”. It was not a happy ending for Ellie. She is dead.
Social
workers in Ellie’s case did NOT fail her but were thwarted in their attempts to
protect her.
You can read an account of this case by following the link below;
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2016/jun/22/ellie-butler-judge-took-unwarranted-steps-to-reunite-her-with-violent-parents
The case
I would like to share, thankfully does not involve the tragic death of a child,
neither does it involve rape or sexual assault. It does however involve a young
mother, who like Turner, came from a privileged background. This mother, like
Butler, had her two children returned to her care, despite the recommendations
of their social worker to the contrary. I was the social worker for these
children and this is my account of a frustrating case, which in my opinion was
handled differently to other similar cases due to the mother’s perceived “status”.
I will
call her *Natalie Smith.
Natalie
Smith was a young mother of 28. She had twin sons, *Aaron and *Jake, aged three
at the time of my involvement. Natalie came from a wealthy background; she had
attended private school and was expected to do well for herself. However,
Natalie had developed a problem with alcohol at the age of 16, and had been in
and out of private clinics several times – paid for by her parents.
At the
age of 24, Natalie had an affair with a TV celebrity, which resulted in her
pregnancy with the twins. The father (who was married) wanted nothing to do
with her once he discovered she was pregnant, but he offered to support the
boys financially. The family declined his offer.
Natalie
did not come to the attention of Children’s Services until the twins were six
months old. She was discovered passed out in her car on a country lane. She had
apparently been on her way to the off licence to buy more alcohol. The children
were at home alone and when the police found them, they used their powers to
place them in Local Authority foster care and the case was referred to
Children’s Services.
The
social worker who picked up the case was inexperienced and later stated that
she had been somewhat daunted at having a case involving someone “posh”. She
was not used to dealing with people of Natalie’s class and had felt intimidated
by Natalie and by her formidable parents. Natalie’s family closed ranks, gathered
around her and offered support, telling Children’s Services that they would not
be needed. They refused to co-operate and in an overworked, understaffed
department, the decision was made that Natalie and the boys could be adequately
supported by her family. The drunken incident was described as unfortunate, but accepted as a one off. The twins were returned to her care and the case was
quickly closed with a note of No Further Action on the file.
Eighteen
months later, Natalie was once again found to be intoxicated while caring for
the now two-year old boys. The police had to step in again and place the boys
in foster care. This time, a Core Assessment was undertaken, which suggested (unsurprisingly) that Natalie needed input from the alcohol team and support from the local
Family Centre.
Once
again, her parents came forward and stated that Children’s Services were not
required, and that this time, they would ensure “round the clock support” for
Natalie and the boys. There was no Case Conference, and no application for an
Interim Care Order. The boys remained in foster care under S20 of The Children
Act, with Natalie’s agreement. The Local Authority did not have parental
responsibility for the children, and once again, they went home to Natalie.
This time there was some follow up, with home visits and phone calls. Social
workers found that there were indeed people at Natalie’s home when they called,
but noted that they seemed to do little but drink tea with her. Natalie did not
appear to be assuming much responsibility for the boys, leaving them to her
friends and family to care for. She did not engage with the alcohol team, but
assured the social worker that she had now stopped drinking and was doing much
better. Her friends and family all confirmed this, and some even wrote letters
of support stating how well Natalie was doing.
The case
was closed four weeks after the completion of the Core Assessment, with a note
on file that Children’s Services were “Satisfied” that Natalie had appropriate
support.
Unbeknown
to Children’s Services, the novelty of offering support to Natalie soon wore
thin for her friends and family who had better things to do. They stopped
visiting, though no one in Children’s Services was aware of this as the case
had been closed. In desperation, Natalie’s mother employed a Nanny for the
boys, but she quickly left when she discovered that she was expected to assume
100% care for the children until late at night, and that their mother had a
serious alcohol problem. A string of Nannies came and went – with Children’s
Services still unaware of the growing problem in the home.
When the
boys were two and a half, they were discovered in a park running around on their
own. The police were called yet again and eventually discovered Natalie under a
tree surrounded by four empty bottles of wine. The boys went back into foster
care – their third period of time in care in less than two years. For Natalie,
nothing had changed. Her parents had now washed their hands of her, and her
well to do friends had abandoned her. She was a single mother with a
significant alcohol problem, and she was on her own.
At this
point, I would like to pause and say that I have known several cases similar to
this one, and in every single one, an Initial Child Protection Case Conference was convened to
consider the risk to the children. On the second time of mother being
intoxicated while caring for the children, an Interim Care Order was sought,
and in no case, did the children return to mother’s care if significant changes
had not taken place. However, in ALL of the previous cases I had worked, the
mother’s came from what would be considered an underprivileged background, were
in receipt of benefits and lived a very different kind of life to the one
Natalie should have been enjoying.
I became
involved as I had been employed by this Local Authority as an agency
worker. My line manager was also an
agency worker and a woman of great experience and knowledge. She advised me on
my first day that she had a difficult case to allocate to me, and one with a
significant history. I was told that Natalie had now engaged with an alcohol
programme and was determined to get the twins back again. Natalie was described
to me as highly intelligent and incredibly manipulative.
I was
told that the current social worker had just been dismissed, as she had been
visiting Natalie in the evenings for coffee and had apparently told her, “Don’t
you worry Nat, I’ll get your kids back”.
I was the
latest in a succession of social workers who had yet to engage with Natalie in
any meaningful way.
I
reviewed the case from old files, and completed a chronology, which had never
been done. What was of startling note was that no one had, at any point,
contacted the children’s father. When I made enquiries about why this was, I
was told by other social workers that knew about the case, that it was due to
his celebrity status! I was also told by other social workers in the team that
Natalie “Knew people” and was “Well connected” in the area. I failed to see
what this had to do with the wellbeing of the children and commented that this
was not 1960’s London under the control of the Krays. However, I did take note
of the worrying attitudes surrounding this case, which to me indicated a
culture of “Laissez Faire” or leave well alone.
I wrote
to Natalie by email in the first instance to introduce myself, and to suggest
an office meeting. She wrote back to me almost immediately. Her email was
enthusiastic and friendly. She welcomed me as the children’s new social worker
and agreed to the meeting. She shortened my name, addressing me as if by
nickname. She signed herself Nat.
I wrote
again thanking her for responding so quickly. I addressed the email to Ms Smith
and signed my full professional name.
The
meeting did not go well.
Natalie
seemed upset that I did not see things her way, and failed to understand why I would
not agree to the children being returned to her care the following day. When I
explained to her that I would be undertaking a comprehensive parenting
assessment, which would take many weeks of observation and engagement, she
became angry. The friendly persona of the email disappeared, and Natalie
actually repeated what my colleagues had told me, saying, she “Knew people” and
would make sure I lost my job.
Really?
I had hardly
stepped back into the building when my manager called me into her office.
Apparently Natalie’s solicitor had sent a tersely worded email to say that
Natalie wanted a new social worker as the relationship between us had “broken
down”. My manager sensibly wrote back and said that there was no relationship
established as yet, and so nothing to “break down”. No replacement social
worker would be allocated. The solicitor then wrote again and suggested that I
was not qualified to undertake a parenting assessment; he demanded that someone
else do the assessment. Again, my manager told him politely that I was more
than qualified to undertake a parenting assessment as it was basically what I
did for a living.
Natalie
then avoided me with avengeance. She refused to attend any meetings with me,
and would not allow me to visit the home. I saw the children in foster care on
a regular basis, and had no choice, but to write an assessment based on past
history, and current issues with input from the foster carers, nursery and a
few of Natalie’s friends who agreed to see me. What emerged was a very
different picture to the one Children’s Services had been presented with.
Natalie had managed very well to hide the reality of her alcoholism, shunning
everyone, and relying on paid Nannies to care for the boys. As far as I could
make out, she had never in her life had full time care of the children for more
than a day or two, before someone had stepped in to offer support.
Natalie
was NOT engaged with the alcohol team as she had led us to believe, and as far
as I was able to assess, absolutely nothing had changed. I had managed to track
down the father, who advised me that he wanted nothing to do with the children
or Natalie, so he was out of the picture. Her family had also disowned her, and
she had no friends left to rely on. In
light of Natalie’s refusal to work with Children’s Services, I was of the
opinion that if the children were to return to her care, history would repeat
itself, and they would be at risk of ongoing harm. After several weeks of
gathering information, I wrote my recommendations, which were that the children
remain in foster care, with a plan to free them for adoption. My manager
agreed.
Early the
following morning, I had just arrived at work, when I had a phone call from my
manager. She was upset, and told me that she had been fired and would not be
returning to work. I was stunned and asked why. She said that it was because
she had criticised a decision regarding the twins, which I would hear about
very soon. She warned me that I could expect some opposition and advised me to
be vigilant and “Watch my back”. It was as cryptic a phone call as I had ever
received in social work. Mystified, I went about my business, until I was
called into the office of the Operations Manager.
He told me that he had read
my report and advised me that I would have to change my recommendations.
Puzzled, I asked what I was expected to change. He shuffled about in his seat
and looked uncomfortable. He told me that he had been in discussions with very
senior management and with other individuals, and that the twins would be
returning home to the care of their mother. In light of these discussions, I
would need to “Adjust” my report accordingly to reflect this decision. I sat
open mouthed, but managed to ask why. He rambled on for a while about Natalie
not being given a fair attempt at parenting the children and that this time,
she would have an army of support. He then said that Natalie had “strong ties”
with certain people in the area who had pledged to assist her. I reminded him,
that we had been down this road with her in the past, with round the clock
support, and it had not worked, and as such nothing had changed. I asked who these
people were and why he thought it would it work this time.
He would
not be drawn into a discussion, but told me that an emergency review meeting
had been convened, which I was expected to attend in precisely 30 minutes. I
would hand out copies of my amended report and recommend that the children
return to Natalie’s care forthwith.
It was
his turn to be stunned when I refused.
I told
him that I had no intention of changing my recommendations as I believed that
my assessment was accurate, and my manager had agreed with me. He then told me
what I already knew – my manager no longer worked for this department. I then told him that if he wanted the report
changing, he had better find himself another social worker, as I would not do
it. I refused to put my name on a document, which would mean placing these
children back in a home where I believed they would be at significant risk of
ongoing harm.
I then
did something I have never done in my career as a social worker, no matter how
difficult things had been.
I resigned,
right there and then, I resigned.
Before I
left, I made an official complaint to the Director of Children’s Services, in
regard to the twin’s case and I was subsequently invited to see him. He
listened carefully to what I had to say and then told me they were sorry to
lose me.
I do not
know what became of Natalie or her children after I left. I sincerely hope that
she did succeed in being a parent, but I seriously doubt it.
I have
told this story as a cautionary tale; no one, not a social worker, a manager or
a Director can afford to be manipulated or swayed simply because of someone’s
status, perceived or otherwise. I was horrified at the way Natalie seemed to be
able to manipulate the people around her. I never did find out who she “knew”
but it smacked of corruption. For me as a professional social worker, I felt
bullied and under pressure to change a decision, simply because someone
somewhere seemed to be intimidated by Natalie’s contacts. Whatever or whoever it
was, it got in the way of the safety of those children, which to me was totally
unacceptable.
*All
names have been changed
For more information on me and my writing, please visit my website;
www.freyabarrington.com
Freya