Significant changes to care plans made by social services without a reasonable explanation

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom Nid oedd gan y wybodaeth y gofynnwyd amdani.

Dear Supreme Court of the United Kingdom,

Significant changes to care plans made by social services without a reasonable explanation

Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority’s Decision) [2003] 2 FLR
In Re G (Care: Challenge to Local Authority’s Decision) [2003] 2 FLR 42, Munby J held: ‘The fact that a local authority has parental responsibility for children pursuant to s 33(3)(a) of the Children Act 1989 does not entitle it to take decisions about children without reference to, or over the heads of the children’s parents. A local authority, even if clothed with the authority of a care order, is not entitled to make significant changes in the care plan, or to change the arrangements under which the children are living, let alone to remove the children from home if they are living with their parents, without properly involving the parents in the decision-making process and without giving the parents a proper opportunity to make their case before a decision is made. After all, the fact that the local authority also has parental responsibility does not deprive the parents of their parental responsibility.’ {Para 4 in this link}

I write this freedom of information in respect of the above court case before Sir James Munby, Re G (2003)

1. With regards to any care plans, child protection plans or child in need plans, made by the local authority, would it be classed as a “significant change” by:-
a) Backdating the date of the said plan for no reasonable reason apart from “we forgot”
b) Changing the adult labelled at risk on the said care plan from the mother to father with no reason to do so apart from protecting or covering up for the said parent initially mentioned on the report as the risk.

2. Within my case my child was placed on a child in need (CIN) plan due to the other parent assaulting my child. The disclosure was made direct to a social worker from the child. Despite me having no contact, the social workers backdated the CIN plan by 2 years and altered the report so that the CIN plan showed that I was the risk and failed to mention the assault by the mother, thus misleading any readers of the report, such as the courts.
a) Would this be classed as
i. A significant change of a CIN plan
ii. Perverting the course of Justice
iii. Fraud
iv. Discrimination
v. Any other type of fraud

3. (For local authorities to answer) Has your authority made any significant changes to a report such listed in Q1 or Q2. If so how many and please give reasons why the changes, especially backdating records.

a) (For the police and MOJ to answer) Has anyone reported to your force , courts or MOJ any similar situations described in Q1 and Q2 and, if so, how many and what action did your force take for unreasonable significant changes to reports that may be considered in Q2a (i.-v)
b) If anyone has reported a situation listed in Q4a, please list what crimes they were categorised as.

5. (For the police and MOJ to answer) Should I have reported what I listed to the police in Q2, what type of crime would your force list it as?

Please go back one year

Yours faithfully,

Robert Smith

Enquiries (UK Supreme Court), Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

1 Atodiad

Dear Mr Smith,


Thank you for your Freedom of Information request which we received on 28
May 2016.


Please find our response attached.


Kind regards,


Rebecca Lowson

Information Officer

Supreme Court of the United Kingdom

Parliament Square, London, SW1P 3BD

Tel: 020 7960 1900

Follow us on Twitter @UKSupremeCourt


The original of this e-mail was scanned and on leaving the UKSC/JCPC
network this was certified as virus free, but no liability is accepted for
any damage caused by any virus transmitted by this e-mail. This e-mail and
any attachments are confidential and intended solely for the use of the
individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are not the
intended recipient, please destroy all copies and inform the sender by
return e-mail. Please note that any views or opinions presented in this
e-mail are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent
those of the organisation.