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

Robert Smith made this Freedom of Information request to Kent County Council

This request has been closed to new correspondence from the public body. Contact us if you think it ought be re-opened.

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

Dear Kent County Council,

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

Angels left an annotation ()

Have you made a formal complaint with regards to these changes that occurred ? If so at what stage is your complaint ?

Kindest regards.

Kent County Council

Dear Mr Smith

 

Thank you for your email below.

 

Kent County Council acknowledges your request for information under the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Assuming KCC holds this information, we
will endeavour to supply the data to you as soon as possible but no later
than 27th June 2016 (20 working days from date of receipt).

 

We will advise you as soon as possible if we do not hold this information
or if there are exemptions to be considered and/or any costs for providing
the information. Please quote our reference - FOI/16/0891 - in any
communication regarding this particular request.

 

Best regards

 

Laura Pronger | Information Access Officer | Information Resilience &
Transparency Team | Kent County Council | Room 2.71, Sessions House,
Maidstone, ME14 1XQ | 03000 416590 |
[1]http://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council...
|

 

 

show quoted sections

Kent County Council

Dear Mr Smith

 

Thank you for your request for information made under the Freedom of
Information Act (FOIA) 2000, relating to significant changes to care plans
made by social services without a reasonable explanation. I am pleased to
provide the response below:

 

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” and  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
and v) Any other type of fraud.

 

As you will be aware, the Freedom of Information Act 2000 provides a right
of access to recorded information held by public authorities like Kent
County Council. The Act’s provisions do not provide any rights of access
to thoughts, opinions, comments or interpretations, unless they have been
physically recorded in some way. Therefore Kent County Council will not be
responding to questions 1 and 2 of your request, because it believes you
are seeking its opinion on whether certain circumstances would be
classified as a ‘significant change’.  

 

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.

 

Kent County Council is not able to report accurately on the number of
plans changed as some would have legitimately been updated. Information
about why a plan for a child has changed will be held on the individual
case file. To extract and collate this information from each file would
certainly exceed the appropriate limit of £450 (18 hours at £25 per hour),
so under section 12 of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 Kent County
Council is not obliged to deal with this element of your request.

 

4a) (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) and 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?

 

As you have identified that questions 4 and 5 are for the Police and
Ministry of Justice to answer, Kent County Council will not be providing a
response. You will need to contact those authorities directly via the
following links:

 

[1]http://www.kent.police.uk/

[2]http://www.justice.gov.uk/

 

If you are unhappy with this response, and believe KCC has not complied
with legislation, please ask for a review by following our complaints
process; details can be found at this link
[3]http://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council...
on our website. Please quote reference FOI/16/0891.

 

If you still remain dissatisfied following an internal review, you can
appeal to the Information Commissioner, who oversees compliance with the
Freedom of Information Act 2000. Details of what you need to do, should
you wish to pursue this course of action, are available from the
Information Commissioner’s website [4]http://www.ico.org.uk/concerns.

 

Yours sincerely

 

Laura Pronger | Information Access Officer | Information Resilience &
Transparency Team | Kent County Council | Room 2.71, Sessions House,
Maidstone, ME14 1XQ | 03000 416590 |
[5]http://www.kent.gov.uk/about-the-council...
|

 

 

show quoted sections