Social Work referrals to unregulated Child Contact Centres

SJA Grove made this Freedom of Information request to East Lothian Council This request has been closed to new correspondence. Contact us if you think it should be reopened.

East Lothian Council did not have the information requested.

Dear East Lothian Council,

The (lengthy) background to this FOISA 2002 request (the request is at the end)

From a Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 (FOISA 2002) response from the Scottish Government the Child Contact Centres grant to Relationships Scotland was authorised based on:

The main objectives/expected outcomes of the Grant are:
Children have improved relationships with their non-residential parent as a result of being able to meet them in a safe and comfortable environment provided by contact centres.
Parents affected by relationship problems will be supported to enable them to cope with their family situation and work together to safeguard their children’s emotional well-being and safety.
Children and young people will be supported to enable them to cope with the difficulties associated with family relationship problems, separation and divorce.
Continued small scale promotion of the “Parenting Plan” and other relevant resources providing support for parents who have separated or live apart in order to help their children thrive.

The staff of local authority Social Work Children’s Services Departments should be made aware that the Scottish Governments grant almost certainly is not for the purposes described in the grant application.
A Data Protection Act 2018 Subject Access Request from Family Mediation Central Scotland (part of the Relationships Scotland network of Child Contact Centres) that was used as a key Defence Production in a prosecution under Section 39 of the Criminal Justice & Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010 [and (briefly) the Abusive Behaviour & Sexual Harm (Scotland) Act 2016] at Stirling Sheriff Court identified a number of issues surrounding Child Contact Centres.

This Data Protection Act 2018 Subject Access Request together with the evidence presented at the Section 39 prosecution and the final Judgement of the sheriff indicates that Child Contact Centres are being operated by Relationships Scotland and funded by the Scottish Government’s Children, Young People and Families Early Intervention Fund (CYPFEIF) for the purposes of Parental Alienation by a combination of the reduction of child contact and attempted “entrapment" and criminalisation of one parent.
Specific incidents that occurred and were recorded (or not recorded) under the authority of Service Manager Kathleen Frew and the “Person with Significant Control” Linda Philliben included:

1. In the contact centre notes (DPA 2018 SAR) there was no recording of whether contact was “supervised" or “supported" leading to ambiguity on what contact is actually happening. The parent started contact in good faith expecting the contact centre be the ”pick up point" but it became the only place they could see their children.
2. In the contact centre notes (DPA 2018 SAR) there was no recording of the primary caregiver’s concerns that the parent was carrying a bladed weapon into the contact centre (a small penknife purchased at TK Max and used for craft activities at the contact centre), a matter that had been discussed in email communications by the Service Manager with the knife carrying parent. This shows that the alienating and faux danger narratives being created are not recorded.
3. In the contact centre notes (DPA 2018 SAR) there was no recording of the primary caregivers concerns that the other parent was having conversations about parasitic infestations with their children, a matter that had been discussed in email communications by the Service Manager where the Service Manager had told the parent not to have these conversations with their children at the contact centre (the issue of parasitic infestations being specifically detailed later in the sheriff's Judgement with regard to the parent’s valid concerns about residential courses the children could be sent on where Environmental Health concerns had been filed with the local authority).
4. In the contact centre notes (DPA 2018 SAR) “plausible deniability” was being used to cover up that a child was the person who conveyed to their parent that the child's great grandparent (the grandparent of the child's parent) had passed away. The communication of the death of the very elderly relative was communicated to the primary caregiving parent by the mother of the accused, the mother who would later go on to give evidence against her son as a Crown witness on a matter that pertained to systemic H&S breaches at an organisation (which two Stirling Council Head Teachers had failed to take seriously).
5. In the contact centre notes (DPA 2018 SAR) there was no information recorded as to which parent was requesting the reductions in child contact. This was detailed later in evidence by the Service Manager. The complainant in the trial had been receiving legal advice from Gillian Catherine Baker of the Domestic Abuse Transitions Advice (DATA) Project running at the Citizen's Advice Bureau Stirling.
6. In the contact centre notes (DPA 2018 SAR) there was no recording of the fact that the primary care giving parent was receiving advice from a third party.
7. Some four months after child contact started the advisor and solicitor of the primary care giving parent libelled the other parent stating that he had been “psychotic” in the past, something that the sheriff in his Judgement accepted had never been the case. This solicitor was Gillian Catherine Baker of the Domestic Abuse Transitions Advice (DATA) Project running at the Citizen's Advice Bureau Stirling. This was evidence that a "dangerous narrative" was being created after contact centre use was initiated and established. The Judgement acknowledge that this solicitor had libelled the accused.
8. Complaints were made by the primary caregiving parent pertaining to the “children's confidentiality” when a short video clip was recorded at the contact centre. This short video clip was sent to the young cousin of the children as a Happy Birthday message. The conditions of use of the contact centre are released to the parent after the contact is established and only when there had been an infraction. In other words either the terms of service are not laid out “up front” or else they are constantly changing. Contact centre use also means that a parent loses the rights to have any photographic records of their children.
9. The primary care giving parent delayed arrival for contact and in evidence in the later prosecution said that the children were upset. This was not congruent with the contact centre notes (DPA 2018 SAR) which reported a happy contact on that occasion. Also the contact notes detail the view that the primary caregiving parent thought they were being “followed". This was dismissed in the later Judgement of the sheriff in the “stalking” prosecution.
10. Child contact was reduced over time and evidence presented by the accused and cross comparison with the contact centre notes (DPA 2018 SAR) demonstrated that after one particularly enjoyable contact where a birthday cake was provided by the sibling of the accused which was “demolished" (as given in evidence) by the children that contact was reduced from bi-weekly to monthly. No reasons for the reductions in contact were recorded in the contact centre notes (DPA 2018 SAR) only the phrase “Visits now reduced from two-weekly to monthly". The Judgement on the Section 39 prosecution states that Service Manager’s opinion’s being “....complainer was of a controlling individual who did not consider contact to be in [pronoun] children's best interests and was intent on stopping it. In reality, however, the children experienced enjoyable and positive contact with their father, as can be seen within the reports of contact provided by the contact centre, defence production 5.”
11. Child contact changes were communicated with little notice. The Judgement of the sheriff described that the final change of contact to one hour per month was made by email as a “fait accompli".
12. No consideration was given to the impact of change contact and the non-primary caregiving parent. At the time of the “fait accompli" change to just 12 hours of child contact per year the parent had, for five months, been making the circa 400 mile round trip from the Isle of Skye to the Central Belt for the parent's monthly child contact.
13. That the Judgement stated that the accused had reasonable grounds to contact the complainant about a hospitality organisation where the accused had worked and later sent a concern report to the local authority Environmental Heath Department and this was not stalking. The conversations the parent was having with the children about their concerns (done in a very careful and gentle way with humour at the contact centre) were closed down at the behest of the primary caregiving parent in an email communication from the Service Manager Kathleen Frew. This clearly demonstrates coercive control being used to stop a parent from protecting their own children i.e. that a Child Contact Centre is being used to stop a parent enacting their legal responsibility under the Children (Scotland) Act 1995.
14. A Data Protection Act 2018 Subject Access Request to Police Scotland to see the information recorded on the interim Vulnerable Persons Database (iVPD) identified that it was recorded on a father who had used a Family Mediation Central Scotland centre “There was previously an arrangement in place that [Data Subject’s first name] sees the children every second Saturday at the contact centre. This arrangement stopped at the end of July 2018 on the instruction of staff at the contact centre/social work due to concerns regarding [Data Subject's first name’s] mental health.” Clearly both the Service Manager of the Contact Centre and the originator of the information recorded on the iVPD cannot both be correct.

The false information on the iVPD almost certainly came from an Independent Domestic Abuse Advocate (IDAA) at a Multi-Agency Risk Assessment Conference (MARAC) based on a heavily redacted Data Protection Act 2018 Subject Access Request from the Children's Services Social Work Department of Stirling Council that was subject to an upheld Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) complaint relating to a delay in its production. Part of this Subject Access Request became a Defence Production with the evidence presented in court by the Service Manager Kathleen Frew and recorded in the Judgement being the accurate information [rather than the mysterious Data Controller who Police Scotland are currently obfuscating and which is currently at the Internal Review stage relating to GDPR Article 15 (g) issues with a Data Protection Act 2018 Subject Access Request relating to the iVPD].

The false information being provided to Police Scotland's iVPD is clear and unequivocal evidence that Child Contact Centres are being used for nefarious purposes by third parties, most likely through the MARAC process and involving the Scottish Government funded “Independent Domestic Abuse Advocate Service".

Based on the information above the regulation of Child Contact Centres by the Care Inspectorate could be viewed as being very long overdue.

FOISA 2002 request

Under FOISA 2002 please provide me with the information contained in your records as follows:

The total number of Social Work referrals to Child Contact Centres (that are funded by the Scottish Government) in the year 2016.

The total number of Social Work referrals to Child Contact Centres (that are funded by the Scottish Government) in the year 2017

The total number of Social Work referrals to Child Contact Centres (that are funded by the Scottish Government) in the year 2018

The total number of Social Work referrals to Child Contact Centres (that are funded by the Scottish Government) in the year 2019.

Yours faithfully,

SJA Grove

Freedom Of Information, East Lothian Council

Thank you for your email.

 

This automated message is East Lothian Council’s acknowledgement that your
information request has been received and is receiving attention.  The
statutory timescales for responses are as follows:

 

Freedom of Information (Scotland) Act 2002 20 working days
Environmental Information Regulations 2004 20 working days
Internal Reviews 20 working days

 

CORONAVIRUS COVID-19 PANDEMIC

 

Due to the ongoing outbreak of COVID-19, the Council is required to
prioritise essential services.  In view of this, it may not be possible
for us to respond to your query within the previously stated timescales. 
If this is the case then we will endeavour to update you as soon as
possible.

 

The Scottish Information Commissioner is responsible for enforcing
Scotland’s freedom of information laws.  The Commissioner’s office has
launched an information hub on FOI during the coronavirus Covid-19
pandemic.  It can be found at [1]www.itspublicknowledge.info/covid-19

 

Freedom of Information Team

East Lothian Council

John Muir House

Haddington

EH41 3HA

 

Tel: 01620 827623

Email: [2][East Lothian Council request email]

 

Information about East Lothian Council’s complaints procedure can be found
[3]here.

 

Details of your rights to requesting information from East Lothian Council
are published [4]here.

 

The Scottish Information Commissioner is responsible for the enforcement
of Scotland's freedom of information laws.  Guidance regarding your rights
of access to information held by Scottish public authorities is available
on the Commissioner’s [5]website.

 

 

 

show quoted sections

References

Visible links
1. http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/covid...
2. mailto:[East Lothian Council request email]
3. https://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/info/2105...
4. Link to ELC website
http://www.eastlothian.gov.uk/info/704/d...
5. Link to SIC website
http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/

Freedom Of Information, East Lothian Council

1 Attachment

Our Ref: 2020/733152

 

Dear SJA Grove,

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) ACT 2002

ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION (SCOTLAND) REGULATIONS 2004

 

Further to your enquiry of 17 November, on behalf of East Lothian Council
I am now able to provide our response; please refer to the PDF attachment.

 

Under the terms of this legislation, if you are unhappy with the way your
request has been handled, you are entitled to request that we undertake an
internal review.  Please note, however, that both the Freedom of
Information (Scotland) Act 2002 and the Environmental Information
(Scotland) Regulations 2004 only relate to the release of information. 
The Scottish Information Commissioner publishes the following guidance
about internal reviews:

 

You can ask the authority to review its decision if it does not respond or
you are unhappy with the way it has dealt with your request, for example
by:

 

·       refusing to give you the information

·       failing to reply to you within the time limit allowed

·       claiming the information is exempt

·       failing to give you advice about, and help with, making your
request

·       asking you to pay a fee that you feel is unreasonable

 

For example, if you are unhappy because you do not believe the information
you have received is accurate, an internal review would not apply.  Should
this be the case, however, please let me know and I will try to resolve
this.  If I am unable to help, I will be happy to put you in touch with
someone who can.

 

We must receive a request to review within 40 working days of the date of
this notice.  A request to review our decision must be in writing (e-mail
is acceptable) or another permanent format.  When writing, you should
include your reasons as to why you are unhappy with our response and why
you wish it to be reviewed.  Your reasons for dissatisfaction must relate
to your information request of 17 November only and should be addressed
to:

 

Customer Feedback and FOI Team

People and Governance

East Lothian Council

John Muir House

Haddington

EH41 3HA

 

Email: [1][East Lothian Council request email]

 

We will have a maximum of 20 working days from the date we receive your
request in order to complete our review and give you our decision.  In
order to ensure an impartial approach, an independent senior officer will
be appointed to carry out the review.

 

If you are still not satisfied with our decision following the review
process, then you may ask the Office of the Scottish Information
Commissioner (OSIC) to investigate the matter.  You must appeal to
the Commissioner within six months of receiving the review decision.  You
may submit your appeal online via OSIC’s website, a link to the online
appeal service is provided for your convenience: 
[2]http://www.itspublicknowledge.info/YourR...

 

Alternatively, you may contact OSIC at:

 

Scottish Information Commissioner

Kinburn Castle

Doubledykes Road

St Andrews

Fife

KY16 9DS

 

Telephone:  01334 464610

Fax:  01334 464611

E-mail:  [3][email address]

 

If you remain dissatisfied following the Commissioner’s decision, you may
be able to appeal to the Court of Session.   You should, however, obtain
legal advice before deciding on this course of action.  This is because an
appeal may only be made on a point of law, not because you disagree with
the Commissioner’s view of the case. 

 

Yours sincerely

 

William Kelley

Freedom of Information Team

East Lothian Council

John Muir House

Haddington

EH41 3HA

 

Tel: 01620 827623

Email: [4][East Lothian Council request email]

 

Information about East Lothian Council’s complaints procedure can be found
[5]here.

 

Details of your rights to requesting information from East Lothian Council
are published [6]here.

 

The Scottish Information Commissioner is responsible for the enforcement
of Scotland's freedom of information laws.  Guidance regarding your rights
of access to information held by Scottish public authorities is available
on the Commissioner’s [7]website.

 

 

 

show quoted sections