ESSEX FORCED ADOPTIONS: TEXT OF 2 LETTERS
THESE ARE TWO LETTERS THAT DEAL WITH THE DECISION TO ADOPT TWO CHILDREN AGAINST THE WISHES OF THEIR PARENTS. THE FIRST LETTER WAS PRESENTED TO THE COURT AND GIVES MY VIEW ON THE ADOPTION. NAMES HAVE BEEN BLOCKED OUT FOR LEGAL REASONS.
THE SECRECY OF THE FAMILY COURT IS ONE OF THE MOST DISTURBING ASPECTS OF THE CASE THIS IS DEALT WITH IN SOME DETAIL IN THE SECOND LETTER DATED 18 AUGUST TO THE MINISTER FOR FAMILIES
MY CONSTITUENTS HAVE BEHAVED WITH DIGNITY AND COURAGE THROUGHOUT; IT IS WITH THEIR EXPRESS CONSENT THAT I REPRODUCE THESE TWO LETTERS
THIS IS A VERY DISTRESSING CASE; I FIND IT DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT WE CAN DO THIS TO DECENT CARING PARENTS
LETTER ONE
26 July 2005
Dear Mr XXXXXX
I am writing in identical terms to you and to Miss YYYYY as you have separate legal representation.
Firstly I would like to wish you every success in your legal challenge next week and thought it might be useful for you to have my observations on your case with a view to passing this letter on to your lawyers. I am enclosing two copies of this letter for that purpose.
I have held two interviews with the County Council al at a very senior level lasting in total slightly over three and a half hours in length. The latter interview involved the Chief Executive of the Council and the Leader of the Council. Lord Hanningfield. I have read a selection of documents supplied to me by you, including case notes and case conferences. The County Council supplied to me the Parenting Capacity Assessment Report dated 31 August 2004 and the judgement of His Honour Judge Hayward Smith QC.
While the County Council Officials were, as you might expect, courteous, they were very defensive in their attitude and at one point refused the second interview in an attempt to deny me the rights of enquiry so recently granted by Parliament in this type of case. Thanks to the intervention of the Leader and the Chief Executive of the County Council was able to pursue your interest
I my view the decision to move towards adoption of your children is a case of intervention beyond the humane
There are a number of disturbing instances in your case. I am particularly unhappy about how recorded misinformation, despite subsequent corrections, has remained on the record and used against you. For example, there are references within the case of Mr XXXXXX having learning difficulties. It is established that this is not the case. However this continues to be referred to throughout the notes and was repeated to me at my first interview with the County Council.
The best example or this is OOO OOOOO (a Social Worker) who, in reply to a question from the Chairman of the case conference said "I believe there are some learning difficulties".
Another example is the smear of domestic violence referred to in the case conference of April 2004 where it is stated boldly at point 16 that "ZZZZ has witnessed domestic violence and this will have some impact towards her development" A close examination of the file reveals that this is an incident in which Mr XXXXXX threw a shoe against the wall in moment of annoyance. To describe this as domestic violence is an abuse of the language. Social Workers have told me that there is no evidence of any violence towards either of the children, no concerns from Doctors, Casualty or any evidence, as is usually the case of repeated accidents to the children.
There is also disturbing evidence of stones being embellished. An example of this to the incident referred to in paragraph 13.25 of the Parent Capacity Assessment Report dated 31 August 2004. This incident was referred to at my first meeting with Social Workers who described Miss YYYYY as tightening a sheet of baby wipe in a tight then vigorously rubbing the genitals of WWWW until they were "red raw" . On examination of the Report it is stated that Miss YYYYY "pressed down heavily on WWWW's testicles, they would flatten and look very red afterwards". I think there is a significant difference "flatten and look very red afterwards" and "red raw"
It is possible that I might have provoked the Social Worker into inadvertently exaggerating the case as I was pressing him for examples of poor parenting. Up to that point much to my amazement, the only two examples that were given to me of poor parenting were allowing ZZZZ to eat crisps before her sandwiches and allowing the children to stay up until eight o'clock in the evening. This practice can also be found among the parenting skills of my highly educated, well healed friends.
I am unhappy that motives are ascribed in such fixed terms within the report. I sight two examples of this.
The first is the Social Worker's view that the Grandparents have shown a reluctance adopt the children, the reasonable assumption they that might want to continue to the possibility that the children might remain with their natural parents does not have been considered
The second relates to Mr XXXXXX's reluctance to give up his full time job with the OOOO OOOOO OOOOOOO, which he has held for more that 20 years. This is much criticised by Social Workers within the Report, who feel that he should give his job up to become ZZZZ' s full time carer and presumably live of benefits. For my part I believe that Mr XXXXXX's continuous record should be a matter of pride and that anyone striving hard to put bread on the table for his family is worthy of respect. I also believe that he sets an example to his children hard working father which will be valuable to them in later life.
It is argued that ZZZZ and ZZZZ would be better off with another family. This may be true terms of finance, comfort or even intellectual stimulation. However, this could be thousands of families within the United Kingdom. Mr XXXXXX and Miss YYYYY clearly love their children; they have been put through a Kafkaesque nightmare at which the State all knowing and all powerful. They have presented a clean, tidy and caring home.
The amount of time that has passed is going to make reconciliation a difficult task but this should not be seen as an obstacle to reuniting two children with their loving parents.
Yours sincerely
Eric Pickles MP
Brentwood and Ongar
LETTER TWO
The Rt Hon Beverly Hughes MP
Department for Education and Skills
Sanctuary Buildings
Great Smith Street
London SW1P 3BT
18 August 2005
Dear Beverly
You may have seen in the newspapers that I am involved with a very distressing case in which a constituent family have had their children removed by Essex County Council and have now been put up for adoption.
I will not go into the details of the case, but it does raise some concerns I have about the way in which the Children Act is working against people with special learning difficulties and how the secrecy that surrounds the Family Court is an obstacle to justice.
The mother of the children has an IQ of around 60, while Social Services sought to present her as stupid to the point of being unable to understand maternal feelings, she is, in my view, just a little slow and loves her children dearly. Faced with an unending stream of Social Workers (I counted up to 16) pushing her in different directions, she was left bewildered and unable to adequately cope with putting up a rebuttal for Social Services allegations.
It was very noticeable in the judgement that while the Judge took into consideration her learning difficulties in assessing my constituent?s adequacy as a mother, the same Judge ascribed quite sophisticated motivation with her use of the press and my involvement in the case. I feel very strongly that had my constituents been able to seek advice and support from outside organisations or their elected representative from the beginning they would not now be bereft of their children.
From day one both my constituents needed people around them that understood the needs of people with special learning difficulties. Given that I understand that 20 per cent of care proceedings now involve parents where one or both have special learning difficulties, I am fearful for the vulnerability of these parents in what appears to be an unequal battle with Social Services.
Because of the secrecy that surrounds Family Court proceedings I was not aware of the plight of my constituents until after the initial adoption hearing. As you are aware the law changed in April to allow MPs access to case material and to discuss matters with Social Services on behalf of their constituents. It may well be that I was among the first MPs to take advantage of the change in the law. While the Social Workers were courteous and professional throughout, it was clear to me that they resented both my questioning and my involvement in the case. Indeed, they refused to meet me for a second interview saying that it was now in the hands of the Court and there was nothing more that they wished to say. Thanks to the intervention of the Leader of the Council and the Chief Executive I obtained a second and lengthy interview.
I do not believe that the secrecy surrounding the Family Court is healthy. I think it breeds and atmosphere where professional speaks to professional in language which is confusing to the lay person and at times incomprehensible to the parents. There is an inconsistency in the way in which the law operates between proceedings in the Family Court and criminal proceedings. In criminal proceedings, as you know the parents are permitted to discuss any issues and allegations subject to the identity of the children remaining secret.
Parents in the position in which my constituents find themselves should be able to seek advice, counselling and help, not just from professionals but from others who have a bearing in their lives. I will give two examples, as the law stands my constituent, without the leave of a Court, could not inform his employers of his plight. In such circumstance an employer clearly needs to now why someone is absent from work so often or receiving personal calls. A caring employer would I am sure want to offer moral support to their employee.
It is common in these cases for parents whose children are in care to be referred for psychiatric assessment; again the leave of the Court is required before full disclosure is made of the parenting circumstances.
I note that the Select Committee in considering the effect of the Children Act recommended more transparency and I would like to add my voice to this recommendation.
I will, of course, when Parliament resumes, seek and opportunity to raise this matter on the floor of the House and would welcome an opportunity to discuss problems of parents with special learning difficulties with you direct.
Because of their interest I am sending a copy of this to Theresa May MP and to Alan Beith MP.
Yours sincerely
Eric Pickles MP
Brentwood and Ongar
|
