Article 56 appointment statistics / costs

Dear Guardian Ad Litem Agency (Northern Ireland),

In concern for abuse of public monies, particularly given that
NIGALA and the Trust both requested to withdraw from the article 56
investigation on the day of and just before the final hearing was
due to take place, the Trust conceding that it was they themselves
who had been abusive, I have under the Freedom of Information Act
asked NIGALA how much money it cost NIGALA to undertake and
complete the inappropriately applied Article 56 investigation into
my family and what this figure included.

NIGALA dealt with this as a Freedom of Information request. The
response given stated:
"Nigala does not hold information on cost of specific cases."

I queried this again on 02/02/2010 and asked you to kindly clarify
if your organisation was saying that NIGALA is unaware of how much
staff time is applied to specific cases.

The response given stated:
"NIGALA does not hold this information as costs are not calculated
on a per case basis."

I then drew your attention to the Northern Ireland Legal
Requirement on NIGALA, enshrined also in NIGALA's own standards,
specifically:
STATUTORY RULES OF NORTHERN IRELAND, 1996 No. 128 CHILDREN, The
Guardians Ad Litem (Panel) Regulation (Northern Ireland) 1996, item
7, Administration of the panel, part 2: The Agency shall ensure
that records are kept in relation to the operation of the panel
which shall include—(a) the name of each child in respect of whom a
guardian at litem is selected from the panel; (b) a description of
the relevant proceedings in respect of which the selection is made;
(c) the name and level of the court (whether High Court, county
court or court of summary jurisdiction); (d) the name of any person
selected from the panel and whether he has been appointed as a
guardian at litem in specified proceedings or in proceedings under
the Adoption (Northern Ireland) Order 1987; (e) the date of each
appointment, the date on which work started in respect of that
appointment and the date on which it finished; (f) details of fees,
expenses and allowances in each case in which there has been such
an appointment;(g)the result of the proceedings in each case in
which there has been such an appointment.

I particularly drew your attention to item (f) details of fees,
expenses and allowances in each case in which there has been such
an appointment

I requested, under the same Freedom of Information Act, given that
NIGALA has already asserted that the agency does not hold this
information as costs are not calculated on a per case basis, how
many times has NIGALA breeched this legislation and failed to
record the cost information on a per case basis? I asked that
figures would be provided each of last 3 years.

On 23 February 2011 NIGALA responded by stating:

“I can confirm that the NIGALA does not record costs on a per case
basis for its employed guardians ad litem.
NIGALA makes payments to self-employed guardians ad litem only on a
per-case basis. Please note the self-employed costs relate only to
a small number of completed cases as the majority of cases are
carried by our employed staff. Individual costs per case are not
collected for our employed guardian ad litem workforce.
NIGALA does not hold any information on how many times legislation
is breeched.”

*** I note that NIGALA's response confirms that they do not abide
by this legislation nor their own published standards of
accountability. ***

In addition, I also requested NIGALA to provide information of how
many article 56 investigations have been ordered in 2008
specifically from Craigavon Family Proceedings Court and from each
of the other family proceedings courts?

I responded to the initial information response provided by NIGALA
by highlighting that the figures provided were wrong in that NIGALA
stated there were 18 applications for article 56 presented to court
and yet the breakdown per court supplied did not total 18. NIGALA
responded by explaining "this was a typographical error" on their
part and provided revised figures.

However, the figures provided still did not tally up. NIGALA has
published that of 18 Article 56 investigations ordered in 2008, 18
resulted in Public Orders being made (information request 2 in the
same FOI request). I wrote to NIGALA to explain that I knew these
figures were still not correct as there was absolutely no public
order made in my family's case, instead NIGALA and the Trust
requested to remove themselves from the proceedings at the 11th
hour, before the final hearing, the Trust citing that they
recognised that it was they themselves who had been abusive.

Therefore I kindly asked you to clarify why these figures are still
wrong despite 2 requests to NIGALA to look again at the misleading
statistics they have published.

The response received on 23 February 2011 states:

“NIGALA’s statistics are based on the number of orders granted
within the specified time period.
Upon reviewing the case allocation details of your case, I can
confirm that the order of appointment was received by NIGALA on
29/12/2008.
I can also confirm that the order discharging the guardian ad litem
was received by NIGALA on 16/12/2010.
Accordingly, your case will be recorded in the statistics of the
2010/2011 Annual Report.
I confirm that the statistics previously released to you are
correct.”

I write to you, again, to point out that my case ended and the
Guardian was discharged, without a hearing, by her request, on 10
December 2009, - not 2010, and the Trust admitted that they had
been abusive. I point out that therefore the statistics you have
provided to this FOI request are clearly still wrong, my case which
ended with no public order made ought to have been included in the
figures you provided. Please do let me know why these figures are
still wrong.

Yours faithfully,

BB

Dear Ronan Durnin,

Your response gives links to 4 documents, and three of these links
do not work. However, from the title of the links it would be fair
to assume that you have given links to NIGALA's annual report.

Mr Durnin, you are fully aware that there was no public order nor
private order made following what the Trust has admitted to being
an abusive article 56 investigation into my family, which commenced
2008 and ended in 2009. However, the statistics NIGALA has
published on its website in response to my Freedom of Information
request Feb 2010 querying how many public orders were made
following Article 56 investigations in 2008, very wrongly suggests
that there was a public order made.

Your response to my Freedom of Information Request also fails to
take account of the email exchanges we have had recently outside of
the 'Whatdotheyknow' website, particularly that you wrongfully
asserted that the statistics for the abusive article 56
investigation into my family would fall into the statistics of
outcomes of Article 56 investigations presented in NIGALA's
2010/2011 annual report.

I pointed out to you that again you were wrong as the investigation
into my family began in 2008 and ended in 2009, therefore any
statistics related to that case would not be included in 2010/2011
annual report.

You have acknowledged your error in this matter in your email to me
of Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:30:19 +0000, copied below.

You asked me to point out the table of information I was referring
to, which I did in my email to you of Wed, 23 February 2011
16:37:10, in which made clear that I referred to the FOI request
originally made on 02/02/2010, initially responded by NIGALA on
25/02/2010, and published by NIGALA on its website:

1 02/02/2010 25/02/2010 Article 56 appointment statistics/costs

And I gave you the link to this response on NIGALA's own website:
http://www.nigala.n-i.nhs.uk/Class%201-W...

Therefore your response is clearly inadequate as the information
you have provided as a response to a Freedom of Information request
is clearly wrong - there was no public order nor private order made
following the abusive Article 56 investigation into my family yet
the statistics published on NIGALA's website in response to a
Freedom of Information request falsely suggest that there was.

I have requested information on:

Information Request 1: How many article 56
investigations have been ordered in 2008
specifically from Craigavon Family
Proceedings Court and from each of the
other family proceedings courts, and:

Information Request 2: How many of these
investigations from each of these courts
resulted in public orders being made.

I have still not received accurate information and I have pointed
out your errors in this matter on numerous occasions. You have
conducted an internal review and I have spoken with the Information
Commissioner who suggested I return the matters to you once more.

I feel the information you have provided is still inaccurate
information as the information provided suggests that every article
56 investigation in 2008 resulted in a public or private order
being made, yet I know for a fact that there was absolutely no
public order nor any private order made in my own families case,
which originated in Craigavon Family Proceedings Court in 2008.

I have asked you to explain why the information you have presented
as factual is misleading and you have failed to give an adequate
explanation, instead just giving broken links to your annual
reports.

Copied below are the recent email exchanges that were outside of
the 'Whatdotheyknow' website.

________________________________________

Subject: FOI Request 01 2011
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 12:40:42 +0000
From: [email address]
To: XXXXXXXXXXXXXX
Ref: FO1 01/2011

23rd February 2011

Ms. XXXXXXX
XX XXXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Dear Ms. XXXXXXXX,

[Freedom of Information Act 2000]

I am writing to confirm that the Northern Ireland Guardian Ad Litem
Agency has now completed its search for the information held by it
which you requested on 27th February 2011.

A copy of the information is enclosed in the table below and the
attached document.

Response Table:

Item 1 from Ms XXXXXX
Given that NIGALA has already asserted that the agency does not
hold this information as costs are not calculated on a per case
basis, how many times has NIGALA breeched this legislation and
failed to record the cost information on a per case basis? Please
provide figures for each of last 3 years.

NIGALA Response:
I can confirm that the NIGALA does not record costs on a per case
basis for its employed guardians ad litem.
NIGALA makes payments to self-employed guardians ad litem only on a
per-case basis.
Please note the self-employed costs relate only to a small number
of completed cases as the majority of cases are carried by our
employed staff. Individual costs per case are not collected for our
employed guardian ad litem workforce.
NIGALA does not hold any information on how many times legislation
is breeched.
Please find attached a schedule of these costs for the last 3
financial years: 2008/2009, 2009/2010 and the 2010/2011 year to
18th February 2011.
In terms of costs per year, the table below lists total costs per
year for completed cases. I have also enclosed a detailed breakdown
of these costs for your information
NIGALA implemented a claims module within its case management
system in the 2009/10 financial year which allows for the
information provided for 2009/2010 and 2010/2011 to be categorised
into case groups.

Financial Year Case Group Total Cost Per Case Group Total
2008/09 Information not held per case group for this period
£72,983.91
2009/2010 Adoption £3,708.19 £63,472.07
Care £51,587.79
Secure Accommodation £5,934.47
Other case types £2,241.62
2010/2011 Adoption £7,879.64 £85,760.17
Care £73,627.22
Secure Accommodation £4,165.78
Other case types £87.53

Item 2 from Ms XXXXXX
However, the figures provided still do not tally up. NIGALA has
published that of 18 Article 56 investigations ordered in 2008, 18
resulted in Public Orders being made (information request 2 in the
same FOI request). I know this is not true as there was absolutely
no public order made in my case, instead NIGALA and the Trust
requested to remove themselves from the proceedings at the 11th
hour, before the final hearing, the Trust citing that they
recognised that they themselves had been abusive. NIGALA’s
statistics are based on the number of orders granted within the
specified time period.

NIGALA Response:
Upon reviewing the case allocation details of your case, I can
confirm that the order of appointment was received by NIGALA on
29/12/2008.
I can also confirm that the order discharging the guardian ad litem
was received by NIGALA on 16/12/2010.
Accordingly, your case will be recorded in the statistics of the
2010/2011 Annual Report.
I confirm that the statistics previously released to you are
correct.

Under the terms of the legislation, if you are unhappy with this
response you have the right to seek a review within the Northern
Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Agency in the first instance. If you wish
to do so, please write to myself at the following address: Northern
Ireland Guardian Ad Litem Agency, Centre House, 79 Chichester
Street, Belfast, BT1 4JE.

If after such a review you are still unhappy with the response, you
have the right to appeal to the Information Commissioner who will
undertake an independent review. You can contact the Information
Commissioner at the following address: Information Commissioner’s
Office –Northern Ireland, 51 Adelaide Street, Belfast, BT2 8FE or
via email at [email address] or telephone 02890 269380.

If you have any queries about this letter, please contact me.
Please remember to quote the reference number above in any future
communications.

Yours sincerely,

R.Durnin

=============
Ronan Durnin
Information Manager
NIGALA
79 Chichester Street
Belfast
BT1 4JE

02890 316557
[email address]

________________________________________

From: XXXXXXXXX [mailto:XXXXXXXXXXX]
Sent: 23 February 2011 14:19
To: Ronan Durnin
Subject: RE: FOI Request 01 2011 Email 3[Scanned]

Ronan, please, just get it right.

The Order discharging the guardian ad litem from my family, which
was requested by the Guardian ad Litem and the Trust at the 11th
hour, before the final hearing, with the Trust admitting that they
had been abusive towards my family, was made in 2009, on XX XXX
2009, and likely arrived in NIGALA a few days after that. So the
records ... should also most definitely have been included in the
figures you have given as part of the FOI request. Therefore the
figures I have now asked for 4 times are still not right.

I note your confirmation that NIGALA does not collect the costs per
case, even though this is a legal requirement.

I have contacted the Information Commissioners Office but would be
happy if you just provide the correct information please Ronan, or
let me know why the wrong information is provided. I note that you
have not placed the FOI response that you gave to me today on-line
yet and this is now an opportunity to fix that mistake before it
goes on-line and XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX.

XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXX

________________________________________

Subject: RE: FOI Request 01 2011 Email 3[Scanned]
Date: Wed, 23 Feb 2011 16:30:19 +0000
From: [email address]
To: XXXXXXXX@XXXXXXXXXX
Ref: FO1 01/2011

23rd February 2011

Ms. XXXXXXX
XX XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX
XXXXXXX

Dear Ms. XXXXXX,

[Freedom of Information Act 2000]

Ms XXXXXXX,

I have re-checked the information below. You are correct in stating
the date of XXth XXX 2009. That date of XXth XXX 2010 is a
typographical error on my part for which I apologise unreservedly
to you.

We have not yet published our Annual Report for the 2010/2011 year.
As your case concluded in the 2009/2010 year, all statistics
relating to the period 01/04/2009 – 31/03/2010 would be included in
the 2009/2010 Annual Report.

If you could refer me to the table within the 2009/2010 Annual
Report which you are querying, I will gladly make checks again on
your behalf.

Yours sincerely,

R.Durnin

=============
Ronan Durnin
Information Manager
NIGALA
79 Chichester Street
Belfast
BT1 4JE

02890 316557
[email address]

________________________________________

Subject: RE: FOI Request 01 2011 Email 4
Date: Wed, 23 February 2011 16:37:10
From: XXXXXXXX@XXXXXXXXX
To: [email address]

Mr R Durnin,

I refer to the FOI request originally made on 02/02/2010, initially
responded by NIGALA on 25/02/2010, and published by NIGALA on its
website:

1 02/02/2010 25/02/2010 Article 56 appointment statistics/costs

- here is the link:
http://www.nigala.n-i.nhs.uk/Class%201-W...

XXXXXXXXX
________________________________________

Yours sincerely,

BB