Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

[MissFM]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Hi Colin,

I do agree with you that social workers have exaggerated powers and don't find it hard to believe that in some cases they are selective with the truth and that this can carry undue weight in court.

If you are correct in your assessment of what has happened to your friend and her children then I also agree that it's in everyone's interests if the truth comes to light.

With the greatest of respect, emotive though the subject is, IMO you do need to calm down a bit and moderate your language if you are to succeed. If you have a good lawyer experienced in family law and the operation of the family courts then your best bet is to get them to review all the evidence you have. You may also need to collect more evidence - and it needs to be reviewed coldly and pragmatically as to how it should be presented to redress this heartbreaking situation in the children's best interests.

You may also find it helpful to read the following with relation to private prosecutions and the CPS (I'm not altogether in agreement with what has been said above on the subject):

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/p...ecutions/#an06

How old are the children? x

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Hi Colin,

I do agree with you that social workers have exaggerated powers and don't find it hard to believe that in some cases they are selective with the truth and that this can carry undue weight in court.

If you are correct in your assessment of what has happened to your friend and her children then I also agree that it's in everyone's interests if the truth comes to light.

With the greatest of respect, emotive though the subject is, IMO you do need to calm down a bit and moderate your language if you are to succeed. If you have a good lawyer experienced in family law and the operation of the family courts then your best bet is to get them to review all the evidence you have. You may also need to collect more evidence - and it needs to be reviewed coldly and pragmatically as to how it should be presented to redress this heartbreaking situation in the children's best interests.

You may also find it helpful to read the following with relation to private prosecutions and the CPS (I'm not altogether in agreement with what has been said above on the subject):

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/p...ecutions/#an06

How old are the children? x

Thanks for your helpful post. The children (twin boys) are 2.5 years old. Up to now they have screamed the place down when their father has picked them up, yet ran happily to her when she picked them up from him. I accept that this doesn't make him a bad parent, but is clearly because he has made no attempt to bond with them. its ironic that, up until this judgement, they shared custody 50:50, alternate weeks and the Social services referred to the week they were with him as "*****'s week" (***** is the name of the au pair!). i.e.,, even they know that he has nothing to do with their care other than to pay the au pair. She does everything for them when they are in his house. He goes out and drinks, until he can only just drive his £157,000 supercar home, then drinks more until he passes out; he has a serious drink (which he even admitted in court!) and drug problem, as well as mental issues, all of which the SW knows about but has not mentioned in the reports; when my friend constantly brought these (and many other issues) up they ignored her and kept accusing her of not focusing on the children!

Anyway. I appreciate your comments. Thank you. I might sound like I am ranting, but trust me, I am not. I am being perfectly focussed on facts and not emotions! :-)

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

IMO you do need moderate your language if you are to succeed.

Wasn't sure what you meant by this... have I used bad language somewhere? If I did I apologise! I certainly don't mean to offend anyone, except maybe the SW in question! :-) x

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

On reflection, perhaps you meant the "don't have the intelligence..." comment? If so, then I stand wholeheartedly by that comment. Many of these people (but not all of them) are, in my opinion, of low intelligence (very low paid by average wage comparison, not much above the minimum wage); I've met some of these people (again I am not saying it's all of them) and the power seems to go to their heads because they don't have the intellect to cope with the power fairly. Sorry if that sounds wrong, but it's my opinion, based on my experience. I am sure there are plenty of excellent, honest, hard working social workers who do their best to protect children, I just wish they had been involved in my friends case, instead of the person she got. This social worker has been involved in 15 other court cases; my heart goes out to those children if they were removed from their family or either parent unjustly due to her lies and/or omissions!

[MissFM]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

It doesn't mean a great deal if children of that age appear to prefer one parent over the other from time to time (again, just my opinion, FWIW!) and as all parents are imperfect in themselves the drug and drink issues would only be significant if they could be demonstrated to interfere with priorities over care of the children.

The problem here is that "official" evidence/opinion has been found by the courts to indicate that, for some reason, the children are considered to be better off resident with the father. You have to produce very strong objective legal grounds/evidence to overturn that decision.

The best route would be for you to seek, and follow, the considered advice of an appropriate legal professional - the stakes are way too high to make any mistakes.

I hope that your friend - and particularly her children - do have a happy resolution. x

[MissFM]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Wasn't sure what you meant by this... have I used bad language somewhere? If I did I apologise! I certainly don't mean to offend anyone, except maybe the SW in question! :-) x

Sorry - crossed posts.

I meant that you are using very emotional and judgmental language. It may, or may not, be justified - but it's not likely to go down well in court x

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

It doesn't mean a great deal if children of that age appear to prefer one parent over the other from time to time (again, just my opinion, FWIW!) and as all parents are imperfect in themselves the drug and drink issues would only be significant if they interfered with priorities over care of the children.

The problem here is that "official" evidence/opinion has been found by the courts to indicate that, for some reason, the children are considered to be better off resident with the father. You have to produce very strong objective legal grounds/evidence to overturn that decision.

The best route would be for you to seek, and follow, the considered advice of an appropriate legal professional - the stakes are way too high to make any mistakes.

I hope that your friend - and particularly her children - do have a happy resolution. x

Thank you for you kind comments and opinion which I respect.

"From time to time" agreed, but for the past year, every weekend, exactly the same reactions!? When he picks them up they screamed (social workers claimed that it was her fault, they said because she didn't focus on them; nothing could be farther from the truth!"), he picked them up, one in each hand by gripping their forearms and dragging them, feet hardly touching the ground (one even lost his shoe; when he bent down to pick it up and let go of the child, the child ran back to his mother!), every time she picked them up, he was holding on to them desperately until he released them at which point they ran across a (private quiet) road to her. She had (covert) video evidence of every hand over that showed how he abused them on each occasion (even though he knew he was being videoed! She was advised by her criminal lawyers to video hand overs, due to the false allegations which she was facing charges for, the social services criticised her for this saying it wasn't child focussed! No one wanted to see the video evidence of the way he abused his children in these videos! It goes on and on, no one would believe it all. Which is why the judge even criticised her for videoing the hand over (the ex also videoed several times, without any genuine excuse, but got no criticism either from the SS or the judge!). The judge rejected two letters of support from her criminal lawyers about their advice to video hand overs and also about her acquittal of the changes.

Obviously the judge made his findings on the SS report (he said so in the judgement; he said he believed the SW over my friend; because of the SW report! A true catch 22 situation!) This report is full of lies and omissions. As you say the stakes are very high for her children and this has to be done right, which is why I am seeking help. I have already contacted a specialist lawyer and although it will likely be very expensive, my friend will take this social worker to court. Hopefully she will win and then will use this to set aside this preposterous judgement. She has no problem with then being assessed again fairly by a proper social services assessment.

[leclerc]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Colin

No disrespect but when every other word in your statement says "Lies"
True objectivity has been lost.

Lies as such are subjective on individual state of mind

I simply cannot converse with someone who has a closed mind to all possibilities

Sorry

With all due to respect to you but go through the process of child protection and then tell me that there are lies, lies and damn lies. Have seen the process first hand and there are a bunch of things that can be done, albeit, not much can change the outcome. I understand the lines between interpretative analysis and factual inaccuracy. I've seen first hand where a final judgement has been appealed on the basis of facts known at the time and after the appeal has failed, further information coming to light which perhaps might have changed the outcome but once your appeal is over then it is over.

I'm sorry Judgemental but I understand where you're coming from but once you have walked inside the process then you know exactly where Colin is coming from. Anyway, I've said my peace to you so save your breath on a comeback cos I'm gonna have a look through what Colin has written and try to help him deal with the situation.

[leclerc]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

What I really need is advice on private criminal prosecutions and whether she can bring one against the social worker; I believe she has sufficient evidence. I also believe that is the only route to take which will have any effect. I hope there is someone here who can help with this aspect? Thanks.

Colin, I am currently at this point in your postings and having posted one thing already have noticed that there are two pages to this thread.

I need you to basically consider a number of things in the Section 7 report:

1) Which things are an interpretation made by the social worker ie what conclusions are made based on their opinion

and

2) What are the factual inaccuracies within the report?

Another question that comes to mind is whether your friend had legal representation when they appeared in court? If they did and they were given sight of the section 7 report whether they conveyed to their solicitor the inaccuracies based solely on 2? If they went to court the solicitor could have challenged the social worker on those point.

I have alluded to something in relation to my first post which is about what facts have come to light after the case was over, ie something that might have been relevant but was not known until after the case. Is there anything like that?

[judgemental24]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Like i said

I did six months with the local Social Services team as part of my studies with the Childrens Act 1989
That included applications to the court and home visits

I do not do cover-ups or maleficence.

I am not saying every Local Authority plays it by the book, but i have yet to complain on what i witnessed with my time with them

Anyway let us move forward and i shall no longer comment on this thread

[leclerc]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Like i said

I did six months with the local Social Services team as part of my studies with the Childrens Act 1989
That included applications to the court and home visits

I do not do cover-ups or maleficence.

I am not saying every Local Authority plays it by the book, but i have yet to complain on what i witnessed with my time with them

Anyway let us move forward and i shall no longer comment on this thread

I have had already one niece adopted, another one on the way to being adopted and my nephew in long term foster care. As a direct result of social care my nephew first foster carer was investigated for abuse in THEIR care and my nieces were moved from one placement due to an allegation of abuse in THEIR care. There have been a number of investigations but the local authority and private fostering agencies in relation to their care AFTER the fact.

I would add that I knew 6 months into this case that the social worker wanted my nieces put up for adoption. I came into the process from a perspective of neutrality in terms of the fact that I had read Ian Joseph's site on forced adoption and what would happen once social services were involved and scoffed at it......and then it happened step by step as described. Judgemental, I come into this arena with a slant and I don't agree with litigation against the social worker but there are other routes that can be taken in relation to Health Care Professional Council complaints processes(those complaints may sometimes stay on the SW employment record if they choose to investigate), there is also Local Government Ombudsman and, I personally think, that if there are Data Protection Issues in relation to the accuracy of the information then that might be a route that could be explored.

I think what Colin also needs to be reminded of is the fact that the Children's Act 1989 is about what is in the interests of the children and that is paramount. It is a very painful process that clearly his friend has gone through but we need to look at the fact that clearly the father is a man of means so the children will have all that they want during their life. At the moment, their views will not be paramount in the court's eyes because of their age. However, they will ultimately make their own choices in the end.

Colin, I take it this was about custody of the children?
How much contact does your friend have?

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

I have had already one niece adopted, another one on the way to being adopted and my nephew in long term foster care. As a direct result of social care my nephew first foster carer was investigated for abuse in THEIR care and my nieces were moved from one placement due to an allegation of abuse in THEIR care. There have been a number of investigations but the local authority and private fostering agencies in relation to their care AFTER the fact.

I would add that I knew 6 months into this case that the social worker wanted my nieces put up for adoption. I came into the process from a perspective of neutrality in terms of the fact that I had read Ian Joseph's site on forced adoption and what would happen once social services were involved and scoffed at it......and then it happened step by step as described. Judgemental, I come into this arena with a slant and I don't agree with litigation against the social worker but there are other routes that can be taken in relation to Health Care Professional Council complaints processes(those complaints may sometimes stay on the SW employment record if they choose to investigate), there is also Local Government Ombudsman and, I personally think, that if there are Data Protection Issues in relation to the accuracy of the information then that might be a route that could be explored.

I think what Colin also needs to be reminded of is the fact that the Children's Act 1989 is about what is in the interests of the children and that is paramount. It is a very painful process that clearly his friend has gone through but we need to look at the fact that clearly the father is a man of means so the children will have all that they want during their life. At the moment, their views will not be paramount in the court's eyes because of their age. However, they will ultimately make their own choices in the end.

Colin, I take it this was about custody of the children?
How much contact does your friend have?

Hi, and thanks for your postings and comments. I agree entirely with everything you have said except about taking legal action against the criminal social worker. I am sure most are honest and trustworthy, but anyone that isn't should not be in a position of such power.

My friend, initially was the primary carer (in fact when they were together he did nothing at all for them, didn't even spend 10 minutes a day with them.). Then when he eventually threw her out of the house and told her to take the children with her, she became the sole primary carer; she managed to get temporary emergency accommodation through the LA (which I wouldn't have housed a dog in, let alone children, but he didn't care about that in the slightest, he was just happy he wasn't having to pay!

Then she made a claim in the court for financial remedy for the children, at which point he realised it could be costly for him in the long run, so he made a claim for full custody and limited contact for her. Meanwhile, at the interim financial hearing she was awarded a 3 bedroom house, which he had to pay rent for until the final hearing, an amount of maintenance for the children and 50:50 shared care of the children on a week on week off basis.

There was, as I mentioned in previous posts the false allegation of domestic violence, which he managed to fabricate. So this was when the social workers became involved. As I have said he can be a very charming person, with lots of money and very persuasive, so somehow he charmed the social worker to report in a very biased manner, they were always on his side in everything; they constantly criticised her for things which he also did, such as videoing hand overs which was a standard feature of every report saying that this meant she was not prioritising the children's needs (she was advised by her lawyers to do this, whilst he had no excuse for doing it!) but yet the SW made no mention of him doing it in any part of any report! I should note that it wasn't that she didn't know about it, we have SAR from the SW where it is mentioned that she knew, but it didn't make it into any report. This is the way most of their lies and omissions can be proved, from their own records obtained by SAR, albeit there was very heavy redaction, so it makes you wonder what else they hid in them, and also from correspondence between my friend and them. She has LOTS of irrefutable evidence that together shows that they deliberately designed the reports to support their recommendation, rather than making any recommendation on the reports and also clearly showing that the report is largely a work of fiction, full of lies and the complete omission of facts which didn't fit their story!

There were lots of allegations made by the social worker (unsubstantiated, without evidence) and real evidence, such as the fact that he already had convictions for theft and domestic violence were left out of the report, as were his alcohol and drug dependency; even though they may not have been concerned by such things, they should still have included them in the report, but they didn't. The report was a one-sided character assassination, even to the extent that when she was acquitted by a jury in less than 10 minutes for his accusations of assault and ABH they even failed to include this information. Obviously my friend had representation by way of direct assess barrister for the final hearing, although on several previous hearings she was unrepresented, such that there was no opportunity for her to obtain disclosures which she should have been entitled to because the judge decided the case was clear cut (on the SW reports) and so he turned a hearing which was an appeal hearing which she had applied for into the pre-trial review hearing without any notice; she had no representation and didn't know what to do! Because of this she basically she sold everything she had, clothing, jewellery, car, etc., in order to pay for the final hearing representation, but the barrister turned out to be worse than useless; they clearly didn't read the files and never dealt with the issues that they should have and did not effectively cross examine the social worker - although the judge was also to blame for a lot of this, he prevented it because he kept saying "I'm not interested in this..." because he had clearly made up his mind just from reading the report. It was actually likely that the outcome would have been the same with the top barrister in the country representing her; I don't think the barrister was really to blame, it was the report which carried so much weight! It outweighed everything else!

My friend introduced over 100 pages of new evidence at the final hearing which she hadn't been able to submit before, because it was being used in her criminal trial defence and which would have prejudiced that trial if it had been disclosed any earlier, and the judge rejected it completely, saying the jury "probably got it wrong"! He said his level of proof was different to the criminal court, implying that he felt that "on the balance of probabilities" (again based on the social workers character assassination report!) that she was probably guilty! It was clear that the social workers report was what lost the children to her ex.

He was awarded full custody and they have given my friend 3 weekends out of 4 for the first month, then its to be just 2 weekends out of 4. With only 2 weeks of school summer holidays! It is extremely punitive, because of the social services report which is do damning, because it is all lies! The children are so happy and well cared for when in her care, to take two little children away from their mother to be looked after by an au pair is a travesty!

Obviously, as you can imagine she is devastated and cannot believe that such injustice could occur. This woman is a wonderful mother, and also a respected GP albeit she hasn't worked since the children were born, firstly because she wanted to be a full-time mother while they were little, but then when he threw her out she obtained a job which she could have worked alternate weeks in, but then was unable to get medical defence insurance due to the false accusations! Did I mention that ever since he has been having the children he has had an au pair to look after them 24/7 because he doesn't want to be involved in their care, and yet the SW reported that he is such a wonderful parent and that he does so much for the children (even though in his own statements he admitted the au pair does everything including things like reading bedtime stories!) I have NEVER heard of a case so bad and would never have believed it if I had experienced it happening to her with my own eyes, but the saddest part is that I am also sure its not the worse! I expect plenty of parents have lost their children to adoption and such like unjustly! The SW's have too much power and it seems that the fact that the courts believe they wouldn't lie is exactly why they do! These SW's need to be exposed and dealt with accordingly. They have committed a criminal offence and deserve to answer for that, as in doing so they have placed the children in possible harm rather than keeping them from it. This man is not concerned about his children, only his money!

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Like i said

I did six months with the local Social Services team as part of my studies with the Childrens Act 1989
That included applications to the court and home visits

I do not do cover-ups or maleficence.

I am not saying every Local Authority plays it by the book, but i have yet to complain on what i witnessed with my time with them

Anyway let us move forward and i shall no longer comment on this thread

I accept that the social workers do a difficult job and I am sure that most of them are totally honest and consumed with doing what is right for the children, some may even get it wrong whilst meaning well. I can accept all that. But I cannot accept that one rogue social worker, who clearly has a personal hidden agenda, should be able to lie in court to pervert the course of justice and get away with it, just because the report is believed by the court without question. Did I emphasise that the judge openly announced that, due to the report my friend was clearly a dreadful and dishonest person (would a dishonest person ever hold down a job as a GP?) and so he would choose to believe the Social worker over her! This is unbelievable, as her self serving report was why he believed her! How could it get any more perverted!?

[leclerc]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Colin, you need to be clear on what The Children's Act 1989 says about the emphasis: it is about what is in the interests of the child and that it is paramount in deciding issues relating to the child.
If her focus is solely on prosecuting the social worker then her focus is being lost because of how she has been treated by the system. Believe me when I say that there are far worse cases than hers in which social workers have been held up by judges as being above everyone, yet, as we all know that is not the case. In fact, in the Family Court system, social workers who do a bad job can now be named since Sir James Mumby became President of the Family Court.

Colin, you need to take a step backwards and simply look at the facts in the report and whether or not the social worker is interpreting these things in a manner that is different to how you view it or whether it is factually inaccurate. Another point I would add is the issue of whether the solicitor who said that the social worker could be sued would be allowed to do so or do you have to pay them to actually do this? Is it no win no fee where there is no liability on your friend?

Another minor point I want to ask is in relation to contact. Does the father drop the children off at her house or at a neutral location?
Are the children hitting the milestones that they are supposed to get to by their age?
What do you expect that the father should be doing to ensure that the children are getting an adequate upbringing?
Do you think that children who tend to get bigger and bigger will not ultimately decide who was the better parent?

The civil court does work on the balance of probabilities and the focus on trying to prove that the father is useless rather than trying to prove that the mother would provide a higher standard of care might be the reason why the report might be stating that your friend does not prioritise the needs of the children. Was the alleged domestic abuse seen by the children?(even though I appreciate their young age)

Colin I can't help in regards to a private prosecution for perjury by a social worker because it's not something that I have seen work with any social worker and I am quite happy to be corrected if you can find any case where that has happened.

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Colin, you need to be clear on what The Children's Act 1989 says about the emphasis: it is about what is in the interests of the child and that it is paramount in deciding issues relating to the child.

Totally agree and understand. Is it in the best interests to be taken away from their mother who has done no harm and really, honestly represents no risk at all to them; she is a model parent. She cares for them better than any mother I have ever come across. The statements made by the social worker were completely unfounded, because she decided the father should have the children. Trust me, the evidence when you look at it is overwhelming.

If her focus is solely on prosecuting the social worker then her focus is being lost because of how she has been treated by the system. Believe me when I say that there are far worse cases than hers in which social workers have been held up by judges as being above everyone, yet, as we all know that is not the case. In fact, in the Family Court system, social workers who do a bad job can now be named since Sir James Mumby became President of the Family Court.

Her focus is and always has been on the welfare of the children. If her ex was the better parent she would not complain or fight, but he isn't. He is interested only in saving himself money and if not for the social services report this would have been seen by everyone. Every bit of evidence of this was ignored by the judge because he believed the social workers assessment that he was a better parent. Her focus is not on prosecuting anyone, her focus is on what is best for the children and that would best be served by justice. The social worker perverted the justice and we both now believe that she should be made to answer for that. Naming and shaming her is not going to serve the children's interest, but proving that she is a liar and that she lied in a manner which perverted the course of justice and placed the children in harm should achieve justice for the children.

Colin, you need to take a step backwards and simply look at the facts in the report and whether or not the social worker is interpreting these things in a manner that is different to how you view it or whether it is factually inaccurate. Another point I would add is the issue of whether the solicitor who said that the social worker could be sued would be allowed to do so or do you have to pay them to actually do this? Is it no win no fee where there is no liability on your friend?

The facts in the report, well there are very few FACTS in the report. It is a work of fiction. This is not "interpretation", it can be proved in the report that time and time again she knew "X", which was a material fact, but said "Y" because it supported her story (and also perpetuated these lies in oral evidence). Of course if we prosecute it would I guess be my friend who would have to do that (perhaps on behalf of her children as guardian), as she is the injured party (the children being too young to bring such an action in their own right). I don't think a no win no fee arrangement would be possible, as I don't see there being any monetary compensation, however, if such a thing might be possible then she would obviously take advantage of it. Her concern is not to get money, her concern is to get a court to judge who should have the children FAIRLY, not making a judgement based on lies, as they have done already.

Another minor point I want to ask is in relation to contact. Does the father drop the children off at her house or at a neutral location?

From this week they are to be collected and dropped off at a school where he has enrolled them (He doesn't want them around the house during the week, so he's sending them to school full time at 2.5 years of age!

Are the children hitting the milestones that they are supposed to get to by their age?

Yes, all except speech development. She is Russian born, although she has been a British citizen for about 10 years and lived in the UK for 13 years. She and her parents, who live with her, speak only Russian at home, so the children's Russian speech development is in line with normal development milestones, but their English development is behind, because the only time they would hear it is when with their father; they have, up until now, spent equal time with each parent, but as the au pair is Hungarian, I doubt she speaks much English with them and as the father never speaks to them, this is the reason for their poor English development.

What do you expect that the father should be doing to ensure that the children are getting an adequate upbringing?

He should provide them with love and support, that's the main thing all children need, he will provide for them financially, but he won't squander money, they will only get the basics they need; he is a miser with his money. This he has proved all the time she has known him and indeed was the reason for him wanting custody. If he didn't have to pay he wouldn't have even considered trying to get custody. But the point is, if he had to provide for them it would cost him up to 40% of his salary (which is approaching £20,000 per month), but by having custody he would save most of that, all it costs him at present is the au pair (£200 per week), over and above what he has had to pay my friend up to now; but that will obviously be reduced drastically, instead of increasing as it would have done had she won custody.

Do you think that children who tend to get bigger and bigger will not ultimately decide who was the better parent?

Of course, but in the meantime they are at risk of being neglected emotionally by the father and since the court have allowed such little contact, they will clearly suffer the pain of missing her.

The civil court does work on the balance of probabilities and the focus on trying to prove that the father is useless rather than trying to prove that the mother would provide a higher standard of care might be the reason why the report might be stating that your friend does not prioritise the needs of the children. Was the alleged domestic abuse seen by the children?(even though I appreciate their young age)

The court just believed the report and the SW lies; what the SW said and reported was just a pack of lies. It was so biased and contained so many lies (which can be proved without doubt with evidence, otherwise we wouldn't be considering such action against the SW). The children did not witness the domestic violence which actually took place (that against her for which he accepted a police caution and which proves he is a violent and dishonest person, but which was not mentioned in the reports), the allegations he made were false, so did not take place.

Colin I can't help in regards to a private prosecution for perjury by a social worker because it's not something that I have seen work with any social worker and I am quite happy to be corrected if you can find any case where that has happened.

Then this may be the first...