Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

[leclerc]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

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.

You're not taking one step backwards yet. Believe me it takes a lot to do that. Can you give me an example of this so that I can work out whether this is based on fact or opinion. Try and give as small amount of it as possible so that it does not identify anyone?


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.

In terms of her own case, did she ever or was she ever advised about getting a second opinion, ie an independent social worker? Furthermore, was her case based on why her ex was a bad parent or on whether she was a good parent?

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.

If she has appealed and lost then perhaps she needs to deal with the current situation because I doubt a court would look at another case if it is brought so quickly after one has already been decided, in my honest opinion. Prosecuting a social worker will not change the case unless a new case against the ex is brought in regards to residence.


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!

The reason I ask about a neutral venue is because that may be better if there is an issue between the mother and father.

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.

If they are in the UK then the answer might be no in terms of their English language albeit kids can pick up language much faster, the younger they are then later on in life.


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.

It will cost him £1000, roughly, a month plus childcare costs. Is their a maintenance order in place for your friend at the moment?


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.

I am going to say something that may sound harsh and unfortunately, I've learnt a ton of stuff over the last few years. Children tend to form their earliest memory at about 3 or 4 years of age, and whilst, I am not doubting that the changeover in residency, will potentially have negative effects initially, the children may not necessarily have a long term detriment to themselves. As I said, the older that the children are, the more the courts take on their views as to what they want to happen to them.



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.

It's very difficult to comment on the issue of lies because I know what you are saying is right but without knowing the person and seeing the report it is difficult.

Then this may be the first...

Apologies Colin, I write in red because I have never ever got to grips with multi quoting on forums in the almost 10 years of being on forums.
In terms of the last part of what you wrote, I've been around a lot of people who would have gone down the route of private prosecutions for perjury but have never seen one person try. I would personally suggest your friend uses the solicitor she has found who thinks they can win to go down that route if they can afford to do so but they must be 100% certain of victory.

will make another comment shortly.....

[judgemental24]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

I know i said i would not comment anymore but??

You make allegations against an individual through purjury and the court throws it out?

You will almost centainly be on the receiving end of a civil claim for damages.
It will not be the social worker bringing the claim but the Local Authority as you have questioned their integrity PUBLICLY.

They have very deep pockets so a word to the wise

Keep everything privileged between you and your solicitor

[leclerc]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

I know i said i would not comment anymore but??

You make allegations against an individual through purjury and the court throws it out?

You will almost centainly be on the receiving end of a civil claim for damages.
It will not be the social worker bringing the claim but the Local Authority as you have questioned their integrity PUBLICLY.

They have very deep pockets so a word to the wise

Keep everything privileged between you and your solicitor

Explain more(sorry you need to post one more time ). How is a private prosecution for perjury outing someone PUBLICLY? To be honest, it was in a child custody case not a private law case and it does not have that press incentive unless the case is won.

Personally, I'd go down the route of Health Care Professional Council complaint about adequacy of person carrying out assessment cos it will at least string out their complaints team plus potentially complaint to the local authority head of social services(I kinda like the idea of the gatling gun approach....you only need one hit and you get em ).

[MissFM]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but I thought that Colin's friend had been refused permission to appeal rather than had appealed and lost? Presumably this leaves the option to seek permission to appeal to a higher court?

Since there would appear to be an abuse of process by a public body (was the SW a Cafcass officer?) could Judicial Review also be an option?

Whatever you choose to do, Colin, I agree with Leclerc that you should begin to identify and particularise the exact abuses and misrepresentations that you believe to have been made, one by one, including dates etc. where possible - and stripped of all emotional comment. You can then marshal your specific proofs and evidence in refutation in each specific incident. This will be helpful whichever route you take, both to clarify your thoughts and to show your lawyer.

Another possibility might be to apply for a variation on the existing court order.

I do also agree that court action, being extremely costly in more ways than financial, would be best avoided - but I can see your anger and determination.

If you are set on going after the SW personally, then I think it would be worth reading this, which although focussed on a case where the alleged contempt was of a different nature and of course the particulars are very different, does point to some helpful caveats and indicators as to how to/how not to go about the legal process:

http://www.childprotectionresource.o...-professional/

Just looking at possibilities, really - don't mind being shot down in flames xx

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

I know i said i would not comment anymore but??

You make allegations against an individual through purjury and the court throws it out?

To make a private criminal prosecution the case has to meet the same tests as the CPS must apply, so it is unlikely that a case brought properly would just be thrown out, as to allow the prosecution in the first place the court must be satisfied that there is a case to answer. This would not be a frivolous action, it wouldn't be brought unless the facts can be proven beyond any doubt.

You will almost centainly be on the receiving end of a civil claim for damages.
It will not be the social worker bringing the claim but the Local Authority as you have questioned their integrity PUBLICLY.

It sounds to me like you believe the local authority would protect a lying social worker, I believe the local authority believes that their social workers are honest and trustworthy and that if they were shown not to be, then they would be glad that someone had done something about it! Of course I understand that you mean if the case is not successful, but then, see above, and in any case there is always risk in taking any legal action.

They have very deep pockets so a word to the wise

Understood.

Keep everything privileged between you and your solicitor

Of course, that goes without saying.

See my comments in your reply above

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Explain more(sorry you need to post one more time ). How is a private prosecution for perjury outing someone PUBLICLY? To be honest, it was in a child custody case not a private law case and it does not have that press incentive unless the case is won.

Personally, I'd go down the route of Health Care Professional Council complaint about adequacy of person carrying out assessment cos it will at least string out their complaints team plus potentially complaint to the local authority head of social services(I kinda like the idea of the gatling gun approach....you only need one hit and you get em ).

I am at a loss to see how any such complaint to the authorities would help the situation. They always believe their employees and even if it was proved and they took some action against them, I doubt that could be used in any appeal, or affect the judgement in any way. Unless you know better?

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Forgive me if I've misunderstood, but I thought that Colin's friend had been refused permission to appeal rather than had appealed and lost? Presumably this leaves the option to seek permission to appeal to a higher court?

You are right, she was refused permission to appeal, of course she could apply for permission to appeal to the High Court, but whilst this section 7 report is held as gospel truth there is no way any court would allow an appeal, especially given the "finality" of family court actions and even if by some miracle they did, whilst the section 7 report is believed they would come to the same conclusion. The report paints her as the worst person ever to have lived! The father, who I have already described, is made out to be the most honest, trustworthy, caring person in the world. They have made them look poles apart, its no wonder the judge was so punitive with his agreement to the appalling level of contact he allowed her; a convicted child molester would probably have got a better deal!

Since there would appear to be an abuse of process by a public body (was the SW a Cafcass officer?) could Judicial Review also be an option?

As I understand it, a Judicial Review is a High Court action that she would need to bring, and if I am correct, she would also need permission from a judge to make that application. Such an action would have to be brought against the local authority, which they would defend with their deep pockets as already mentioned. If the action was even successful I can't see how this would help the situation. However, this is a route I will look into in more detail and see whether or not it is a sensible course of action to take.

Whatever you choose to do, Colin, I agree with Leclerc that you should begin to identify and particularise the exact abuses and misrepresentations that you believe to have been made, one by one, including dates etc. where possible - and stripped of all emotional comment. You can then marshal your specific proofs and evidence in refutation in each specific incident. This will be helpful whichever route you take, both to clarify your thoughts and to show your lawyer.

That goes without saying. I intend to go through all the records from the local authority and their reports and make a catalogue of their lies and omissions, together with the evidence that proves each point. If there is not sufficient evidence as to make a case without ANY doubt, then the action would be pointless.

Another possibility might be to apply for a variation on the existing court order.

The judge made a Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 order against both parties making further applications! And has reserved applications for permission for any further applications to himself.

I do also agree that court action, being extremely costly in more ways than financial, would be best avoided - but I can see your anger and determination

I know everyone here thinks I am angry and my words sound like I am acting in some sort of rage without thinking, but trust be, I am not angry or in a rage; I am perfectly calm and clear about what I say and do. I am not the sort of person to act in a rage anyway, yes I am enraged about the way this hearing was conducted and a travesty has been committed since the children have been taken away from a loving mother, who cares for them better than anyone else would and not placed with the father, who doesn't care about them anyway, but have actaully been placed with an au pair! In his statement to the court he identified that he spends a total of about an hour a day with the children (though in reality he probably doesn't even do that; when him and my friend were together he spent no more than 10 minutes a day around the children), the rest of the time they are in the au pair's care; he has an au pair rather than a nanny because (and he told this to the social worker, as it appears in their records) "she only costs £200 per week, whereas a proper nanny would cost £100 per day", i.e., £700 per week, as they are needed 7 days a week because he doesn't look after them at all, any day of the week. This is NOT because he can't afford the nanny, its just another example of how this is all about money to him, not the children.

If you are set on going after the SW personally, then I think it would be worth reading this, which although focussed on a case where the alleged contempt was of a different nature and of course the particulars are very different, does point to some helpful caveats and indicators as to how to/how not to go about the legal process:

Thanks, I will take a look.

http://www.childprotectionresource.o...-professional/

Just looking at possibilities, really - don't mind being shot down in flames xx

I appreciate all your comments, Thank you. :-)

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Apologies Colin, I write in red because I have never ever got to grips with multi quoting on forums in the almost 10 years of being on forums.
In terms of the last part of what you wrote, I've been around a lot of people who would have gone down the route of private prosecutions for perjury but have never seen one person try. I would personally suggest your friend uses the solicitor she has found who thinks they can win to go down that route if they can afford to do so but they must be 100% certain of victory.

will make another comment shortly.....

I am sure there are many people who would go down this route if they could. I suspect it is the financial aspects that prevent them (we have been told it would probably cost £100,000-£150,000); it is obviously a serious consideration for my friend. I mentioned that she is a GP and if she was working could probably fund the action, however, at the moment she is unable to work because, due to the false allegations made by her ex, which she was cleared of in court, the GMC now need to carry out their own investigation, which will no doubt take about a year to complete, during this time there are no limitations on her working, however, whilst a GMC investigation is ongoing she is unlikely to be able to take out medical defence indemnity (if she had already been working it wouldn't have stopped her as she would already have had insurance, but she stopped working when the children were born), so this will probably prevent her from working for the next twelve months. However, she is smart and we both have a good grasp of the law, so it may be possible to do a lot of the work ourselves, getting representation in court by a direct access barrister, that would reduce the costs considerably, so it may be possible to do it that way.

I will comment on your other replies separately...

[wales01man]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

If we presume the SW lied in the report one question that needs answering is WHY what would they stand to gain by the lies .
Was there anything in their report that could be backed up as the truth or lies or were they just observations, A Court would need something more than an accusation that the SW lied if it becomes the word of one oerson against another a problem arises without the facts.

[stevemLS]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

If we presume the SW lied in the report one question that needs answering is WHY what would they stand to gain by the lies .
Was there anything in their report that could be backed up as the truth or lies or were they just observations, A Court would need something more than an accusation that the SW lied if it becomes the word of one oerson against another a problem arises without the facts.

Exactly, and courts "prefer" the evidence of one witness over another in pretty much every contested case that they deal with. I really don't run with these huge conspiracy theories and to suggest that the entire system conspired to deprive your friend of her children because their father is wealth is absurd.

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Originally Posted by Colin21958
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.
You're not taking one step backwards yet. Believe me it takes a lot to do that. Can you give me an example of this so that I can work out whether this is based on fact or opinion. Try and give as small amount of it as possible so that it does not identify anyone?We are going to start to go through all the reports tomorrow, as I have been busy with other personal things over the last few days. But once we have started I will give some examples.


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.
In terms of her own case, did she ever or was she ever advised about getting a second opinion, ie an independent social worker? Furthermore, was her case based on why her ex was a bad parent or on whether she was a good parent?
She didn't "make a case" with the social workers as she trusted them to do their jobs properly, she just cared for the children as best she could and expected them to judge her honestly, but it soon became apparent, with their constant accusations which didn't fit the facts, that there was something not right going on. I am not the only person who would tell you that they have never seen a better mother; there are three totally independent people (not family, friends or anything like that) plus family and many friends, who would testify to this had they been given the chance, but the court wouldn't let her put a case, the judge made up his mind on reading the section 7 report and would not see or hear anything from her barrister; I know no one will believe this, but it is the truth I swear! Once it became clear what they were doing she did whatever she could to try to appease them, but whatever she did made no difference to their comments and assessment in the reports. When it came to court the only thing that mattered to the judge was the section 7 report. She was not able to even put a case, the judge attacked her himself, the other side didn't even really need lawyers. The social workers case was that she was a bad person, not a bad parent! There is no criticism of her parenting (they say she clearly loves and cares well for the children) just wild accusations that she is dishonest, dysfunctional, won't follow advice (which is a barefaced lie because she did EVERYTHING they suggested she do; she can easily prove all this, there was not one suggestion they made which she didn't follow). They criticised her for being emotional, just because their actions brought her to tears in a meeting, they accused her of being not child focussed because she had hand overs videoed (this was covert videoing, the children wouldn't have known, even though they love being videoed) the ex complained to the social worker about the videoing, because he was obviously concerned that it showed what a poor parent he is in the way he handled and dealt with the children, but he need't have bothered, they saw most of the videos and only made what criticisms they made about them not beinf child focussed to make sure they never came to light, because they expose him for the poor parent that he actually is. The best bit was that he made videos on a couple of occasions too, and although the social worker knew this (its in the social services records obtained from them by SAR), she didn't criticise him for it. The reason for videoing the hand overs was that she was afraid of her ex, because he had actually assaulted her (and been cautioned for it) and also because of the fact that he had made the false allegations against her, her lawyers advised her to video all hand overs with him. The social services kept making the accusation that she was not child focussed because of this and because of "her feelings for him"! Which is also nonsense. She wrote letters to the social services and his lawyers on at least five occasions, requesting that the location and routine of the hand overs were changes to prevent any face to face contact between them, as it was causing the children distress (they screamed and tried to run away every time he appeared to collect them), she suggested handing over in the church on Sunday, and also made several other similar suggestions when he rejected this, but he kept refusing any attempt to change the hand over, I believe this was because the hand over was a constant criticism in the reports as a source of harm to the children aimed at her (saying that she was focusing on him and not the children), yet they did nothing to facilitate the changes my friend wanted. They didn't seem to take any exception to her ex's refusal to change the hand overs! Sorry, I know I strayed from your question somewhat, but you have to know how determined the social worker was to paint as bleak a picture as she could of my friend. I don't know why she was so biased, but she was. Did I mention he is very rich, I am not making any accusations or allegations, because nothing can be proved, but I'm sure reasonable people could fill in the blanks and come to some conclusion, its the only thing that would really make any sense, either that or for some reason the social worker really hates my friend, though I don't know why that would be either!

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.
If she has appealed and lost then perhaps she needs to deal with the current situation because I doubt a court would look at another case if it is brought so quickly after one has already been decided, in my honest opinion. Prosecuting a social worker will not change the case unless a new case against the ex is brought in regards to residence.

No appeal has been made, but no appeal would succeed whilst the same section 7 report is being believed. To appeal she would have to obtain permission and I doubt that even that would be allowed if they use the section 7 report to consider the permission!


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!

The reason I ask about a neutral venue is because that may be better if there is an issue between the mother and father.

Yes, as I mentioned above, previously the hand overs took place at their respective homes, although my friend constantly campaigned to change this as it was not in the best interests of the children for face to face contacts to take place, as he was always hostile and accordingly treated the children roughly, picking them up and throwing them around like sacks of potatoes. He never once spoke to them, didn't say hello, or console them in any way, he didn't even bring a favourite toy for them to any hand over, except for one hand over. one which was witnessed by the social worker! That hand over was also videoed by a third party, which she criticised, and if you watch the video, then read her report you would think you watched the wrong video! The social worked constantly expressed concerns about the hand overs, but didn't do anything to get them changed, She just said she couldn't do anything about it and that they would have to reach agreement themselves though the solicitors. Yet in her report she stated that the ex was also open to advice from the local authority and always followed such advice!

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.

If they are in the UK then the answer might be no in terms of their English language albeit kids can pick up language much faster, the younger they are then later on in life.

Clearly the lack of development in English is due to their lack of exposure to the language, as he obviously never speaks to them and the Hungarian au pair probably speaks Hungarian not English in the same way a previous Spanish Nanny only spoke to them in Spanish.


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.

It will cost him £1000, roughly, a month plus childcare costs. Is their a maintenance order in place for your friend at the moment?
Yes there is, obviously I can't reveal here how much, etc., but he has, since the court ordered him to at the last financial hearing, had to pay the rent for a house and pay my friend maintenance for the children. However, he was hoping that this will stop now he has parental responsibility and she has so little contact. However, I would think that the court will still make him pay something in maintenance and possibly also continue to pay rent for a house, as she will still be seeing them for what amounts to about 90 days a year and due to his actions with the false allegations, etc., she will still be unable to work for probably the next twelve months as I explained above.


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.

I am going to say something that may sound harsh and unfortunately, I've learnt a ton of stuff over the last few years. Children tend to form their earliest memory at about 3 or 4 years of age, and whilst, I am not doubting that the changeover in residency, will potentially have negative effects initially, the children may not necessarily have a long term detriment to themselves. As I said, the older that the children are, the more the courts take on their views as to what they want to happen to them.


Obviously, you are right and no doubt as my friend is an excellent mother they will be fine, but its really not fair on the children and especially not fair on her; if she was an unfit mother then I would be the first to say it was right as it is the child's interests that should be considered. But if you take out all the lies and fiction from the social workers report there is nothing that makes him a better parent than her (it can easily be argued he is much worse), but even if they were considered to be the same, then surely a the children will receive more love, affection and better care from their mother and from an au pair. It is also a child's right to be with their own family wherever possible, not with an au pair.

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.

It's very difficult to comment on the issue of lies because I know what you are saying is right but without knowing the person and seeing the report it is difficult.

Obviously, and it will no doubt be difficult to produce a cast iron case, but I do think it will be possible. I will know better soon, once I have gone carefully though all the records to see exactly how much we can prove beyond doubt.

Thank you again for your thoughts..


Then this may be the first...

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

If we presume the SW lied in the report one question that needs answering is WHY what would they stand to gain by the lies .
Was there anything in their report that could be backed up as the truth or lies or were they just observations, A Court would need something more than an accusation that the SW lied if it becomes the word of one oerson against another a problem arises without the facts.

Absoluteley agree with you. The question about why is very important and there are two possibilities, which I don't want to reveal on here at the moment, although I have hinted at what one might be, but that would be difficult (but maybe not impossible) to prove.

Believe me, if all this was was a case of interpretation I am not stupid enough to think it could ever succeed. I am not talking about one person saying one thing and someone else saying something else. I am talking about written evidence from the local authority's own records, obtained by SAR, which contradicts the social worker's statements in the report. I am also talking about points which are in the records, which are material facts, which do not appear in the report. Then there are things she said in court which are contradicted by statements in text messages and emails from the same person. These are the sort of things we are talking about. If there was no physical evidence of a clear lie or important omission, which is not indisputable, then there would be no point in even considering a private prosecution.

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Exactly, and courts "prefer" the evidence of one witness over another in pretty much every contested case that they deal with. I really don't run with these huge conspiracy theories and to suggest that the entire system conspired to deprive your friend of her children because their father is wealth is absurd.

Sorry, but PLEASE feel free to point me to where I said anything like you just accused me of saying! I take serious exception to your comment! I have criticised ONE social worker for lying and leaving out important information from an official report (which should have been written fairly and truthfully), in order to make a court decide in accordance with her recommendation that an unfit parent be given parental responsibility and the fit parent to have contact of only 90 days a year! I did NOT suggest there was any conspiracy; a conspiracy requires the collusion of two or more people, one person can't conspire on their own! I am certain that the vast majority of social workers are honest, upstanding, caring, concerned people, who want ONLY to protect children and I for one believe we need that and I applaud them and would do anything I could to support them. I have not in ANY WAY accused the local authority of anything and I do not believe there is any conspiracy! But too much power should not be placed in any one person's hands like this. If this sort of power is given to one rogue social worker who decides, for whatever reason, that she is going to lie to get her way, she will get it with the system like it is at the moment, because she is, it seems, beyond reproach in the eyes of the court; their is no possibility that she could lie, seems to be the attitude! Nothing could be farther from the truth, in fact it even seems like this is your attitude too!

[stevemLS]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

Yes, they even used hearsay against her! Hearsay that was not justified in any way and was not even mentioned until it showed up in the last of 5 section 7 reports which they produced, the 5th of which was received by her at 2pm on the day before the trial! You just don't seem to realise how much the section 7 report is accepted as truth, regardless. As you have nothing constructive to add, and you actually sound like you work for the social services, its probably best that you do stop commenting. I asked for help, which I have already got from other sources, so I don't need you to tell me I can't do what I stated I would do to help my friend. We will expose this social worker for the liar that she is and if possible will then use that to set aside the judgement. My friend is not at all afraid of an honest social worker assessing the situation and reporting facts, as long as any report INCLUDES ALL FACTS AND NO LIES. I don't know if you have children or not, especially very young children who really need to be with their mother and not some foreign au pair who hardly speaks any English, but if you did would YOU sit back and do nothing if a lying social worker took YOUR children away? I think not! I asked for advice and all you have done is try to persuade me that nothing can be done along the lines I suggested, even though an expert private prosecution lawyer has confirmed that it is not hopeless like you suggest! It makes you wonder who is taking part in these forums when you hear some of the responses! You are not the first person I have come across like this in legal forums. I suspect companies/organisations even employ people to try to mislead others; maybe you are one of them?!

- - - Updated - - -

BTW. "Evidence"? There WAS NO EVIDENCE, all just the social workers word! That's it!

OK. Well, the ex partner assaulted my friend. He admitted the assault and was given a police caution for "Assault and sexual touching". He already had convictions for shoplifting. He is a multi-millionaire, so this sort of thing doesn't bother him, obviously. However, he was trying to control her following the birth of their twins, who came between him and her; he obviously didn't really want them, he is 16 years her senior, but to him it was the only way to keep her. So, once the children started to take up her time he became jealous and he rebelled and ended up with the police caution. But he still wanted to control her, how to do this? In order to keep her on his lease he had to stop her from being independent (she is a GP on maternity leave and she had intended to stay off work until she felt comfortable to enlist outside help). However, she decided that following his attitude and the assault that she wanted to end the relationship and, when she made the application for a financial support for the children, he decided it would be cheaper for him to have the children himself and employ an au pair to care for them. So he staged and made false accusations against her for assault. Then the police called the social workers as they claimed there was domestic violence (everyone ignored the fact that HE had ALREADY received a police caution; maybe he paid everyone? Who knows; he could easily afford it!). So, she was charged. The social worker, who seemed besotted with the millionaire (because he IS very charming, not to mention VERY rich!), took his side and made the report seem like she had been convicted of domestic violence against him; no mention of HIS conviction! And then she used EVERYTHING my friend did or said in defence of her children to suggest that she was not child focussed; ignoring ALL of his similar actions! You just couldn't make it all up! So, to answer your question the ONLY reason the social services were involved was this allegation and when she was eventually acquitted unanimously by the jury in less than 10 minutes, they failed to change their report. The judge even said (because of the report) that the jury must have got it wrong!

She has been refused leave to appeal, but to be honest any appeal would be a waste of time whilst the section 7 report is in force, as it is too damning of her (unjustly! There is not truth in the allegations they made of her, and they failed to report the full facts relating to the other side.). If any appeal court reviewed the case, believing the section 7 report they would reach the same conclusion; the only way I see an appeal working is if the social worker has been proven to be a liar and that the section 7 report is a work of fiction; this is not going to happen unless the Social Worker is prosecuted.

She put in formal complaints to the Social services, but they just used this against her as well, saying that she couldn't prioritise the children and couldn't take their advice. And several other fictitious allegations to substantiate their lies and deflect the attention back onto her, instead of their lies. I believe that the problem stems from the fact that they made an initial assessment based on false allegations of her ex partner (he can be very charming), so they believed all the lies he told them and from then on chose to believe only him, and even if they did ever see that he was lying they chose to ignore it rather than admit that they could have got it wrong! Their initial assessment of him was that he was not a competent parent, but given their lies they then started to suggest that he had "grown", when in fact he still does nothing for the children, he employs a cheap au pair to look after them 24/7 because he doesn't want to be a "hands-on" parent. He is also a multi-millionaire; I wonder if this fact has anything to do with their bias in his favour too?

She did, but they were useless! Even though she had paid £15,000, the Judge ignored everything because of the social services report; he had already made up his mind that someone as bad as the SW had painter her, could not be trusted! Its amazing what you can achieve as a lying SW, as everyone BELIEVES you tell the truth!

- - - Updated - - -

You CLEARLY don't believe me!

You fail to mention it is the court that orders a section 7 to be compleated by social services. Why was the report requested by the court??

The report is conducted by an independent Social Worker not familiar with the case so is impartial on the report submitted to the court.

Such orders are asked for contact when parents divorce etc and how the child welfare will be accomodated by both parents and access rights. It comes under the Childrens Act 1989

These are a few of your comments which at least suggest you believe there is some sort of conspiracy against your friend.

Anyway, I am probably not going to be much use, I will say though that it is a rare poster that exhausts [MENTION=70489]judgemental24[/MENTION] 's patience.

[Colin21958]

Re: Social Workers Lied on Section 7 reports

These are a few of your comments which at least suggest you believe there is some sort of conspiracy against your friend.

Anyway, I am probably not going to be much use, I will say though that it is a rare poster that exhausts @judgemental24 's patience.

There is NOTHING anywhere in these quotes where I say there was any conspiracy within the local authority, I only stated that THE social work lied and omitted facts. I believe there is a vendetta by a single lying social worker; I don't know why she has chosen to lie, but the fact remains that SHE did. I am not saying other social works lie, I am saying that she lied and the only reason other workers didn't change anything was that she was the one collecting and presenting evidence and therefore showed and conveyed only the evidence that matched or supported her story, or, which is more likely, either no one else ever chose to check anything or if they did they, like everyone else just believed her and trusted her to do her job properly; whatever, at the end of the day she wrote the report and she therefore chose what to use from their records in writing it, the fact that the local authority records were produced on SAR and nothing damning her was left out proves that there is no conspiracy within the authority! I have made it VERY clear throughout my whole argument that it is HER who is a liar, why else would I only be suggesting prosecuting her? If I believed the local authority covered up or misrepresented anything, or was involved in any way at all don't you think I would have said that and would be directing any legal action at them not at an individual! It seems that you have either misread my posts or you, like the social worker, have made up your mind based on what you want me to have said rather than what i have actually said!