A four-year-old victim of neglect and domestic violence suffered years of uncertainty about her foster care because of “the most extreme example of institutional failure” witnessed in the courts, a senior family judge has ruled.
In a damning assessment of Gloucestershire county council’s failures, Judge Stephen Wildblood QC said he had no confidence the authority would “take any effective steps to support any family relationships” and was making the rare decision not to issue a placement order.
The girl, who cannot be named, had endured the repeated upheaval of changes to her foster placement over two and a half years because previous orders of the court had been ignored, the judge said. He described a deliberate decision by children’s services not to assess the girl’s father properly as “contemptuous”.
As a result of the mismanagement of her case, the girl is entering the category of “hard to adopt” – a child that nobody wants. Now at school, she is about to lose her relationship with her most longstanding foster carers.
Slating the council for delay after delay, poor evidence gathering and a lack of willingness to consider – as is required by law – options other than adoption, Wildblood said he did not believe that Gloucestershire’s adoption team would act according to the girl’s needs if she was placed for adoption. “I have never said that before in a judgment about any authority,” the judge added.
In his strongly worded judgement, Wildblood listed the council’s multiple mistakes point by point and warned that the child’s chance of a permanent family had been irretrievably shattered.
Gloucestershire council said that it accepted the ruling and had ordered an investigation into the case.
The girl, who was two years and three months old when care proceedings started, is described in the judgement as having become progressively more disturbed over the two and a half years it has taken to agree her care plan.
Although Gloucestershire asked the court to trust it to act appropriately in future if an adoption order was made, Claire Rowsell, representing the council, accepted there was little reason, given social workers’ bunglings, for the judge to do so.
The adoption placement order was refused. Judge Wildblood said that, in many cases, a few points of bad practice became obvious as evidence unfolds, but it was “very rare that so many such points should be gathered into one case”.
There were repeated delays caused by four final hearings having to be adjourned because of the inadequacy of the local authority’s evidence. The fifth was eventually heard in front of Judge Wildblood on 2 March, having been referred to him as the most senior family judge for Avon, Gloucestershire and North Somerset.
Another criticism described the council acting in breach of an agreement with the court, about which the judge stated: “Quite simply it did not do what it had agreed to do and it is inexcusable for a public authority to behave in this way.”
Delay in finalising a permanent plan for a “looked-after child” is known to compound the harm caused by abuse in the family home.
The government now insists that local authorities work to a strict 26-week timescale for social workers to make a decision for a child’s future. Adoption agencies acknowledge and statistics confirm that it is far easier to find adoptive families for children under the age of four.
Prospective adopters shy away from older children who have had longer to accumulate emotional and behavioural difficulties caused by living with neglectful or abusive birth parents, problems which are frequently compounded by numerous disrupted foster placements.
Referring to the assessment by the appointed clinical psychologist, Judge Wildblood pointed out that, because of numerous delays by the local authority in managing the girl’s case, it was “unsurprising but pitiful” that the attachment difficulties that the psychologist had foreseen had now become manifest.
In a statement, Kathy O’Mahony, director of children’s safeguarding and care forGloucestershire county council, said: “This child has been in our care for some time after suffering neglect in her parents’ care and our professional judgement was that adoption would give her the stable and caring family life she needs. Whilst very disappointed, we respect Judge Wildblood’s decision.
“Judge Wildblood has repeatedly praised Gloucestershire Children’s Services over the past nine months. We take this criticism very seriously. I have asked for a comprehensive investigation into this case, including the role of other agencies and previous court decisions, to help ensure the best future for this child.”
