Culture Society, Identity and Belonging
A family judge in Wales has refused to name a council which he ruled had harmed a young child with a life-limiting condition through multiple failures – failures he described as “inexcusable”, “indefensible” and “wholly unacceptable”.
Judge Jonathan Holmes also refused to name the local police force, despite having published an excoriating judgment listing many failings by both the police and the council, and despite a legal challenge by Tortoise against his initial decision to anonymise the council.
Judge Holmes said the abrupt and unjustified removal of the boy from his home by the unidentified council had impacted him in ways that “cannot be overstated”.
The boy “was deprived of living with his grandparents for a significant time which I have no doubt caused him emotional harm,” the judge said. The forced removal had lasted for 17 months, which was, the judge noted, “a quarter of his life”.
Peter* is now back living with his grandparents, who have looked after him since he was a baby. There are no concerns about their care of him.
Speaking to Tortoise after the hearing at Newport Family Court where Tortoise tried and failed to persuade the judge of the public interest in identifying both authorities, Peter’s grandmother said: “I think they should have been named, mainly because of the way they treated Peter, and also because they could be doing the same to other children.”
Peter’s grandfather said: “They’ve done a lot of injury to Peter – he still says now, ‘I hope they’re not going to take me away again,’ And they’re a risk to other children. Who else have they done this to? I’m convinced we’re not the only ones.”
The grandfather says if he had more money he would sue the council and the police force for “the damage they’ve done” to his family. “The attitude of social services is, ‘we don’t answer to anyone,’” he says.
The published judgment suggests he is right. In it, Judge Holmes makes clear his dismay that the head of the council’s child protection service will not accept the court’s finding that the decision to remove Peter was wrong.
Why was Peter removed?
The council’s case for summarily removing Peter from his home was that allegations of sexual abuse made several decades earlier against his grandparents, and discounted at the time, had just been revived.
In the wake of the renewal of the historic allegation, Judge Holmes’ ruling lists a series of harmful decisions by the council’s children’s services department, including failures of communication with the grandparents which he describes as “baffling and disingenuous”.
The judgment describes the repeated flouting of good social work practice, and actions which the child’s court appointed Guardian described as “negligent, unlawful… and a harmful interference with [Peter’s] right to family life”.
The judge agreed.
Anonymity: for and against
It is highly unusual for a family judge to decide that a local authority – and in this case, a local police force – should not be named in a published judgment, and particularly so when they have been subject to such serious and extensive judicial criticism.
This council and police force originally tried to prevent the judge even publishing his critical judgment. Their argument was that even with the family anonymised, publishing a ruling setting out what had taken place would make the child more identifiable in his local community, which could cause him harm.
The judge refused.
He did however accede to the council’s and police force’s wish for their own names to be redacted from the record. They argued, again, that this might cause harm to the child.
The grandparents took a different position.
Both were adamant that they wanted the council and police force to be named and held to account for the harm done to their grandson, and to protect other families dealing with the same social workers and police officers. They instructed their lawyers to make that case, in arguments amplified by Tortoise in a second hearing at the end of September after the judge’s refusal to name either council or police was made public.
What’s in a name?
In balancing the right of freedom of expression – in this case, the benefits of public understanding the failures and harms done in its name – against the right of a child to respect for his private life, the judge decided that naming the council and police force posed too great a risk that the child might be identified and come to harm – a risk not outweighed by his assessment of the good resulting from publicity about unlawfully exercised state power.
Because of his ruling
- a young child who is particularly vulnerable and who has already been harmed by the state is somewhat less likely to be identified.
Against this:
- no other family in this local authority area can now be told that the head of its child protection service has been subject to judicial criticism;
- no councillor at this local authority can be told that their children’s services department failed so disastrously;
- nor can they check to see if improvements are being made, or hold senior social work managers to account through their scrutiny processes
- Ofsted’s attention cannot be drawn to this judgment to enable it to inspect against these failings;
- no voter in this local authority area can be told about what has taken place, or hold their council accountable;
- the police force which was found to have carried out harmfully substandard work in not one but two cases will remain anonymous;
- the police inspectorate cannot be told of the failings to inspect against them in future
- the relevant police commissioner cannot be told of the failings of that force; and
- nor can they check that the promised reforms are carried out.
What’s more… No journalist can ever refer to this case if more failings of vulnerable children by this council and police force subsequently come to light.
*Peter is not his real name.
