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

Response to this request is long overdue. By law, under all circumstances, South Yorkshire Police should have responded by now (details). You can complain by requesting an internal review.

Dear South Yorkshire Police,

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.’

http://www.familylawweek.co.uk/site.aspx... {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.

4.
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

FOI, South Yorkshire Police

1 Attachment

Dear Mr Smith

 

Please find attached our response to your Freedom of Information request.

 

Regards

 

 

Lucy Moore

South Yorkshire Police

Information Compliance Unit

Professional Standards Department

Unit 20 Sheffield 35A Business Park

Churchill Way

Sheffield

S35 2PY

 

Email - [South Yorkshire Police request email]

Tackling child sexual exploitation is a priority for the Force and it is
the responsibility of everyone to help spot the signs and say something.

For more information visit www.southyorkshire.police.uk/spotthesigns

Charlotte Peters Rock left an annotation ()

This response is well worth taking the time to read and understand. The questions are all around the harming of a child and the subsequent (easy?) blaming of the male parent, because of corruption within the ranks of social workers, etc.

Hardly unusual. But thus are our children continuing to be harmed.. because of intransigence within those paid to keep them safe and fairly investigate any harms.

This is the same force that has refused to start any investigation into the murder of my father, Ralph Winstanley, in Grange Farm, Pinfold Lane, Moss Doncaster, which occurred on 23 April 2004. (vital witnesses are still waiting to be inter viewed. Vital evidence documents have been destroyed and re-destroyed by this force over the last 12 years.. but we still have copies in safe places). It is the same force which showed it couldn't care less about public safety when so many young people were killed at Hillsborough. It is the force which has left very large numbers of youngsters in Rotherham, Doncaster Sheffield, to be continued to be trafficked and raped.

Being a male parent does not make you 'wrong'. It is just a way of leaving children open to further violence from the original perpetrators of harm.

The letter seems to indicate that you should be grateful?

Beggars belief!