Judge Rules Social Workers “Biased” in Adoption Case

In an unusual case a judge accused social workers of being “biased” against grandparents who sought to contest the proposed adoption of their two year old grandson. His Honour Judge Jack gave his judgment on 14^th June 2014 in the Hull Family Court; this was published on 25^th November 2014. Following publication the case was reported in the national press and the grandparents spoke on Radio 4’s Today programme.

The background to the case was that the boy’s mother had passed away and he was living with his maternal grandparents. The other grandparents were also a party in the case as they wanted to be involved in the boy’s life. The local authority, North East Lincolnshire Council, were seeking an order that the boy be placed for adoption despite the fact that the grandparents wanted him to live with them and his elder sibling who was already in their care.

The view of Judge Jack was that the social workers involved in the case had taken against both sets of grandparents. Whilst their respective situations were not perfect, Judge Jack stated that: “The courts are not in the business of providing children with perfect homes”.

In the judgment it was said of the evidence given by one of the three social workers: “[he] seemed very reluctant to accept that anything positive could be said about either set of grandparents”. Another of the social worker’s evidence was “total discredited”.  Of the social workers generally Judge Jack said:  “I had the very strong impression that the local authority witnesses were intent upon playing up any factors which were unfavourable to the grandparents and playing down any factors which might be favourable”.

The outcome of the case was that the child remained with his maternal grandparents with the paternal grandparents available to provide support.

The grandparents appeared on the Today programme on 28^th November; the grandfather relayed that prior to the court hearing he had said to one of the social workers: “Who do you think you are – God?”, the reply was allegedly “In this situation, yes, get used to it, your grandson will go for adoption”.

In January 2014 the President of the Family Division Justice Munby produced guidance allowing social workers and other professionals involved in family cases to be named. The aim of the change is to allow the family justice system to become more transparent. The guidance states that permission should be sought by the judge hearing a case for permission to publish when they conclude that it is in the public interest.

Commenting upon the judgment the local authority emphasised the complex and difficult nature of child protection cases and stated that they always strive to act in the best interests of children.

The union Unison which represents the social workers said that the naming of the social workers will result in more people leaving the profession in times when there is an ever greater need for social work professionals.

What this case demonstrates is the different and competing factors in the child protection arena between social workers on the ground, ever more stretched local authorities and children in often dire circumstances. There may have been training or supervision issues for the social workers involved or they may have simply wanted another case to be disposed of as quickly as possible due to huge caseloads. Perhaps they did take against the grandparents for no other reason than prejudice. Unfortunately, the answer is very likely to be, in part, due to a lack of resources in this essential and notoriously underfunded function of the state.