|
Archived Transcript for 27 September 2001: Pages
1 to 50
1
1 Tuesday, 27th November 2001
2 (10.00 am)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: We have a problem with LiveNote again and so
4 I have been told it could be on line anything from
5 30 seconds to ... I hope it is nearer the former than
6 the latter. We will wait a few minutes. (Pause).
7 Ladies and gentlemen, there may be a slight delay in
8 actually LiveNote coming up on your screens. In
9 fairness to LiveNote, whoever I need to be fair to,
10 I gather that somebody last evening disconnected the
11 equipment which is not normally the practice and
12 therefore it was something unexpected. Mr Garnham.
13 MR GARNHAM: Sir, we had got to the stage where you were
14 going to invite further representations on Miss Lawson's
15 representation.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I was, but before I do that I wonder if
17 I could say something first, please, which is that last
18 evening Miss Lawson made two applications and you recall
19 that the first one was adjourned until this morning so
20 that I can hear any further consideration of it before
21 I retire and make a decision. The second, as you
22 recall, was regarding a newspaper report of a document
23 produced by the Director of Social Services for Haringey
24 and you will remember that I had decided that the
25 document is relevant to this Inquiry, not least because
2
1 our terms of reference include lessons to be learned
2 from the tragedy of Victoria Climbie. I therefore
3 require the document to be produced and Miss Lawson I am
4 very grateful to Haringey for the speedy way in which
5 they have provided the Inquiry with this document.
6 From a cursory examination of it I have absolutely
7 no doubt about its relevance, particularly as the
8 summary, which in the time available is all I have had
9 a chance to look at, contains some 11 lessons to be
10 learned from the death of Victoria. That being so, I am
11 surprised that Haringey did not volunteer the document
12 to the Inquiry and but for the newspaper article we
13 would have remained unaware of it.
14 It also causes me to wonder why Mr Lloyd, the
15 solicitor acting for Haringey, could say in his letter
16 and here I quote:
17 "The chasing of paper appears to have become an end
18 in itself rather than focusing on the issues which the
19 Inquiry is actually meant to be looking at."
20 I have to say that that is a charge I entirely
21 reject. This is not the first time I have had to
22 comment on a letter from Haringey but I do very much
23 hope that it will be the last and I will say no more
24 about that at this stage.
25 Now let us move on to the other application.
3
1 Ms Boye I think you wanted to take further instruction.
2 MS BOYE: Thank you for the opportunity to take instructions
3 from my clients overnight. Mr and Mrs Climbie have
4 thought about this at length and what we basically say
5 is this. This is a public Inquiry which means that by
6 its very nature there is a presumption that all evidence
7 will be publicly disclosed, regardless of how and when
8 its existence has come to light. It is also right that
9 a public Inquiry means that evidence not previously
10 disclosed or revealed can emerge during the course of
11 the proceedings and sometimes it will be relevant and
12 sometimes it will not but this, sir, we would say is
13 a process which you should encourage and should be seen
14 to encourage.
15 The Climbies are concerned that wherever possible
16 all potentially relevant avenues are ventured down and
17 that is the approach which we believe has been adopted
18 thus far and they wish to be assured that this is the
19 approach which will continue. We say that only in
20 extreme cases, say for instance where the revelation of
21 identity might lead to something like serious physical
22 harm or the identification of a child, should the
23 principles of openness and transparency be departed
24 from. The test should certainly not be a risk of guilt
25 by association. We would be troubled at this stage by
4
1 such a privilege being granted effectively to one party
2 only.
3 No other party has sought to be exempted in this way
4 in advance of their evidence being given and we feel
5 that to accede to this application would suggest
6 preferential treatment for the London Borough of
7 Haringey and would also be a serious departure from the
8 way in which the Inquiry has thus far been conducted.
9 For the Inquiry now to be seen to alter its procedure
10 this late in the day is not only going to show
11 inconsistency but will give the impression of unfairness
12 and will certainly be at odds with the principles of
13 justice being seen to be done.
14 The family have been content with and endorsed the
15 process of the eliciting of information and clarity thus
16 far and would like this process to continue in the same
17 way as it has been. Thank you.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Miss Lawson is there anything you
19 would like to add?
20 MISS LAWSON: Yes, there is. Sir, I wish to make it clear
21 that as I had hoped I had done in my original
22 application, that I am only concerned to protect the
23 anonymity of those whose conduct is not relevant to this
24 Inquiry.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Indeed.
5
1 MISS LAWSON: And who are therefore named only tangentially.
2 I am not seeking any protection for those whose conduct
3 is properly the subject of the Inquiry, nor am I seeking
4 anonymity for them and if my proposals have been
5 misunderstood then I apologise but that is quite clearly
6 what I am concerned about. As far as I am aware that
7 situation has not previously arisen in relation to
8 certainly either of the other local authorities who have
9 given evidence before you, but it has arisen in relation
10 to Haringey, so I reject the suggestion that we are
11 asking for some preferential treatment in advance.
12 My definition was intended to cover both those who
13 were known to be involved in the Inquiry and those who
14 had made statements. I saw that as widening the range
15 of people, not excluding it. Of course it is not always
16 possible to know at the time how the thing will develop.
17 I never envisaged that these procedures would be set in
18 stone, that once anonymity had been given that would
19 mean it remained forever.
20 I had provided in the second paragraph of my
21 proposals that if there were countervailing
22 considerations in relation to any particular witnesses
23 that that would be a matter that counsel for the Inquiry
24 could indicate and make public and it seemed to me that
25 that was a perfectly proper safeguard because my
6
1 proposals are not intended to undermine the fact that
2 this is a public Inquiry, nor to suggest that -- or nor
3 in my submission do they have the effect of actually
4 turning it into some form of private Inquiry, or private
5 in relation to some of the these matters.
6 The problem is this. If to begin with anonymity is
7 granted to somebody, it can always be taken away, but
8 you cannot do it the other way around. Once they have
9 been named that is it. And in my submission this is not
10 about whether individuals find this uncomfortable or
11 not. It is about whether or not it is the right thing
12 to do if their conduct does not actually have any direct
13 bearing on this Inquiry.
14 In my submission what my proposals provide and which
15 the present procedures do not are thinking time and time
16 for reflection and consideration about whether or not
17 these people's names need to be put in the public domain
18 in this way.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Mr Garnham?
20 MISS LAWSON: One other matter, it relates to the second
21 matter which you raised this morning and I should make
22 it clear that although Mr Lloyd signed the letter, the
23 hands were the voice of Esau, the voice was the voice of
24 Jacob and it is not fair he should take the rap for my
25 phraseology.
7
1 THE CHAIRMAN: I have indicated that that is the last word
2 I will say on the subject, thank you.
3 MR GARNHAM: Sir, in response to one comment of my learned
4 friend Jacob -- Lawson -- I am reminded that Dr Rossiter
5 was asked to name people during the course of her
6 evidence and she did so but I say nothing more.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: Sorry, just repeat that.
8 MR GARNHAM: Dr Rossiter was asked to name individuals
9 during the course of her evidence I think by me and she
10 did so. I say that only as a factual matter for you to
11 consider in the light of what Miss Lawson said.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: Indeed. Well, is there anyone else that
13 would like to -- I am very happy to ...
14 Thank you very much indeed. I am grateful to you,
15 Miss Lawson, Ms Boye and Mr Garnham for the thoughtful
16 way in which you have addressed this matter. I say that
17 genuinely it does not make my job easier because of the
18 thoughtful approach that you have made, but I think
19 I must retire now and consider the issue, thank you.
20 (A short break)
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Lawson, I have considered very carefully
22 the arguments that you very ably if I may say so
23 deployed in support of your application and also the
24 responses by Ms Boye and Mr Garnham, both of which
25 I appreciated. However, as has rightly been said, this
8
1 Inquiry is being conducted in public. Moreover, I am as
2 you know determined that the business of the Inquiry
3 will be conducted in an open and transparent way, unless
4 there is some exceptional circumstance.
5 This principle, which I hold dear, would be defeated
6 if I allowed the passing of notes, however well
7 intended, and therefore I cannot agree to it as a matter
8 of routine. There may of course be on occasions some
9 exceptional situation and I will be willing to consider
10 that but I do not regard this application as fitting
11 into that category. Mr Garnham.
12 MR GARNHAM: Before I invite Ms Gibson to call our first
13 witness today, Miss Hoyal has raised a matter with me
14 which seems to have considerable merit. There have been
15 a number of applications made by interested parties
16 during the course of the proceedings, and on occasions
17 they come as a surprise to others of the interested
18 parties who then are not in a position to respond as
19 fully as they might like.
20 Miss Hoyal suggests and I respectfully adopt her
21 suggestion that interested parties should whenever
22 possible give notice both to us and to other interested
23 parties of their intention to make such applications.
24 If we have that notice and if it were in writing and
25 24 hours in advance that would assist. I would seek to
9
1 reach a consensus on it amongst interested parties and
2 if that is not possible then the matter can be raised
3 with you formally. So that seems to me an amendment to
4 our procedures which has merit and I would invite you to
5 endorse it.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Well, Mr Garnham, as you might appreciate
7 I have some sympathy with that suggestion and I am very
8 happy to amend our procedures accordingly.
9 MR GARNHAM: Thank you sir.
10 MS GIBSON: The first witness this morning is
11 Luciana Frederick.
12 MS LUCIANA FREDERICK (sworn)
13 MS GIBSON: Good morning Ms Frederick.
14 MS FREDERICK: Good morning.
15 MS GIBSON: Could you give the Inquiry your full name and
16 professional address please.
17 MS FREDERICK: Luciana Frederick Agnes Frederick, in the
18 statement my professional address is 782 High Road,
19 Tottenham; currently I am based at 40 Cumberland Road,
20 Wood Green, N22.
21 MS GIBSON: Thank you very much. You have made one
22 statement for the Inquiry, which is found at volume 2,
23 page 158.503, and I think you should have a copy of that
24 in front of you. Can you confirm that the contents of
25 that statement are true to the best of your knowledge
10
1 and belief? Do you recall making that statement and
2 signing it? What I want to establish is whether there
3 is anything that you wish to amend or alter in the
4 statement.
5 MS FREDERICK: No, there is not.
6 MS GIBSON: Thank you very much. It is right that from 1994
7 you were the Team Manager of the Children and Families
8 Team. Can you describe what the role of that team was?
9 It was one of four children and family teams within
10 Haringey?
11 MS FREDERICK: It was one of four Children and Families
12 Teams based at Tottenham North District. I managed one
13 Long Term Team. That consisted of six social workers,
14 one team clerk and one senior practitioner. As Team
15 Manager my responsibility was to ensure that cases were
16 allocated to social workers, to support social workers,
17 to ensure that they deliver quality services, to ensure
18 that the welfare, promote the welfare of children and
19 their families was always our priority, and to perform
20 that is done in a professional way, to actually work
21 within a management team, report to my line manager, who
22 was the Service Manager of North Tottenham District at
23 the time, and to work as part of the children's services
24 representing London Borough of Haringey.
25 MS GIBSON: Thank you. Your work in that team was
11
1 principally of a longer term nature rather than Duty or
2 investigative work?
3 MS FREDERICK: Yes, it was a longer term nature. Once
4 initial assessments were done on Duty, cases were
5 transferred to my team by the INA Team and my
6 responsibility was to ensure that long-term work was
7 carried out.
8 MS GIBSON: Thank you. Could I ask you to slow down
9 slightly when giving your answers.
10 You moved from your role as Team Manager in 1999 as
11 a consequence of the restructuring that went on in
12 Haringey.
13 MS FREDERICK: Yes, I did.
14 MS GIBSON: Can you help with what effect you felt that that
15 restructuring had on the morale of social workers
16 working with you at Apex House?
17 MS FREDERICK: I felt -- it was actually North Tottenham
18 District.
19 MS GIBSON: Sorry.
20 MS FREDERICK: I felt it was a difficult time for social
21 workers. Obviously as team managers we had to go
22 through a process of being interviewed for our jobs. As
23 a result six team managers would have left their post,
24 which would mean six team managers would remain. The
25 teams would then be managed by a combination of team
12
1 managers and senior practitioners. Social workers were
2 aware that we had to go for interviews, however I felt
3 that my role was to actually maintain consistency and
4 ensure that work was delivered to users and really
5 I just felt I had to lead through that change and manage
6 workers as effectively as I was able to as a team
7 manager, recognising that morale may have dropped, and
8 for that reason I ensured that we had a day away as
9 a team to discuss restructuring processes, what change,
10 what effect that may have on the team, and to try and
11 put some strategies to help the team deal with it in
12 order to deliver a service.
13 MS GIBSON: Thank you. That was within your own team, but
14 can I ask you about what your knowledge was of what was
15 going on in other teams that you worked with, if you
16 were aware of what effect the restructuring had on those
17 teams?
18 MS FREDERICK: It would be difficult for me to comment, you
19 know, exactly what was going on in the other teams.
20 Obviously I felt the morale across the district had
21 dropped but I think team managers were working to
22 address that morale and to put in strategies within
23 other teams to ensure that they actually delivered
24 a service.
25 MS GIBSON: Can I ask you now about the Duty system, and we
13
1 know that your involvement in Victoria's case was
2 concerned with the response while you were working on
3 the Duty Team. You say that that was staffed by
4 permanent staff drawn from other teams. How often would
5 you have to do a stint on Duty?
6 MS FREDERICK: The Duty system that I have actually referred
7 to in my statement is the Out of Hours Duty system, so
8 it actually was run out of hours, out of working hours.
9 Workers were expected to do a stint approximately four
10 to five sessions for every eight weeks and it was
11 actually on a rota system.
12 MS GIBSON: And how busy would the average night be working
13 on the Out of Hours Duty system?
14 MS FREDERICK: It is difficult to sort of give an exact
15 number of the average number of cases that came through
16 to District or to the social workers. It would vary.
17 You could have quite a busy night where there would be
18 mental health assessment, child protection. You would
19 have information enquiries from members of the public or
20 just advice sought from other professionals such as the
21 police and hospital staff, and so you could have a busy
22 night and you can actually have a fairly quiet, stable
23 night. It would be difficult to give an average number
24 of referrals that came through on Out of Hours.
25 MS GIBSON: Thank you. How many people would be covering
14
1 the Out of Hours service on any one night?
2 MS FREDERICK: It would be covered by one social worker for
3 the London Borough of Haringey.
4 MS GIBSON: I mention this because Dr Forlee in her evidence
5 spoke of occasions when certainly her evidence in
6 relation to this referral was that she contacted you and
7 left a message and then you bleeped her back in response
8 to that message later on and she said it was her
9 experience that often a Duty social worker out of hours
10 would be out on visits and sometimes you would not get
11 an immediate response.
12 MS FREDERICK: That may be her experience.
13 MS GIBSON: Would that be a typical experience of how Duty
14 was run, because the Out of Hours worker had so much
15 work to cover that they could not always give an
16 immediate response?
17 MS FREDERICK: The best practice if, personally, if I was an
18 Out of Hours social worker and I knew that I had a busy
19 schedule, I would contact the referrer and say and
20 acknowledge that I have received a referral and state
21 what time I would get back to them. That is if I was in
22 the middle of another assessment, an investigation or
23 mental health assessment. If I was not in the middle of
24 assessment I would get back to the referrer
25 straightaway.
15
1 MS GIBSON: Would there have been considerable delays
2 because perhaps you might have been dealing with
3 a complicated mental health assessment, something of
4 that nature, before you could actually get back to
5 a referrer?
6 MS FREDERICK: Can I just explain the system because it
7 actually came to --
8 MS GIBSON: Yes, that would be helpful.
9 MS FREDERICK: The messages were actually received by
10 a central point and then it was passed on to us, as the
11 social workers on-call. I would normally get back
12 straightaway. If I was in the middle of assessment and
13 there was no telephone in the room then obviously there
14 would be a delay in the response back but if you were at
15 home or there was access to a telephone you would --
16 I would get back immediately.
17 MS GIBSON: Thank you. So there is a central point where
18 the message is taken, a switchboard?
19 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
20 MS GIBSON: And they relay the message on to you?
21 MS FREDERICK: Yes, they did.
22 MS GIBSON: What guidance did you work with when you were on
23 the Out of Hours Duty service?
24 MS FREDERICK: In terms of child protection guidance we used
25 the Child Protection Manual, that was our guidance for
16
1 investigation. In terms of the mental health again we
2 followed the lines of the Mental Health Act and that was
3 used as our guidance. For older people --
4 MS GIBSON: I am only interested in the guidance in relation
5 to children and I wanted to establish whether or not
6 there was some specific guidance in relation to children
7 for the Emergency Duty Team.
8 MS FREDERICK: The Child Protection Manual was actually used
9 as our guidance.
10 MS GIBSON: Can I refer you, just to check that we are
11 talking about the same document, to volume 24, page 1.
12 That is the document you are referring to. I think it
13 has been referred to as the Purple Book.
14 MS FREDERICK: Yes, it is.
15 MS GIBSON: Can you look at page 13 of that file. I should
16 have asked you first, this is guidance I assume given
17 the length of your employment with Haringey, that you
18 are very familiar with?
19 MS FREDERICK: I am familiar with this guidance.
20 MS GIBSON: That particular page deals with burns and scalds
21 and makes the point that it is often difficult to
22 distinguish between accidental and non-accidental burns.
23 MS FREDERICK: Yes, it is.
24 MS GIBSON: Am I right in saying that normally burns would,
25 or scald injuries would cause concern about the
17
1 possibility of non-accidental injury? If I can put it
2 this way, those type of injuries automatically raise
3 concern?
4 MS FREDERICK: It does say it can be very difficult to
5 distinguish between accidental and non-accidental burns.
6 MS GIBSON: Indeed, yes, but as a social worker dealing with
7 a referral, the fact that there is a scalding injury is
8 of itself of concern.
9 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
10 MS GIBSON: As a type of injury.
11 MS FREDERICK: As a type of injury.
12 MS GIBSON: In comparison with other types of injury, scalds
13 and burns fall into a category which automatically put
14 you on alert.
15 MS FREDERICK: It may put you on alert, depending on the
16 information that one will receive from the referrer who
17 has actually seen the injury.
18 MS GIBSON: It is important, is it not, to explore with the
19 referrer what has happened and what the history is in
20 relation to an injury when you are dealing with scalds?
21 MS FREDERICK: Yes, it is.
22 MS GIBSON: Turning to page 26 of that guidance, it states
23 there that physical injuries should be investigated
24 within 24 hours. Again, is that something that you are
25 familiar with?
18
1 MS FREDERICK: Yes, it is.
2 MS GIBSON: Thank you. Then, if you could go to page 29,
3 that deals with what information should be obtained when
4 taking a referral and what is good practice in relation
5 to a referral. It includes taking full details of the
6 child's name, address, gender and so on at 1.8, the
7 nature of the concerns, the size of the injuries and so
8 on; when the incident occurred, what the child had said
9 about it, and then over the page how the referrer had
10 explained the referral to the child or any other person.
11 The others are perhaps less relevant.
12 Then at 1.9 details in relation to how recordings
13 should be made. If you just have a look at that, again
14 I assume you are familiar with all of that?
15 MS FREDERICK: Yes, I am.
16 MS GIBSON: As you have said, these guidelines apply when
17 working on Duty, so I assume that when you are taking
18 a referral on Duty you should comply with this insofar
19 as the detail of the referral is concerned?
20 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
21 MS GIBSON: Can I turn now to Victoria's case. You said
22 that you have no recollection of taking the call?
23 MS FREDERICK: No, I do not.
24 MS GIBSON: And what you say about this incident is based on
25 what you have managed to piece together from looking at
19
1 the records?
2 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
3 MS GIBSON: You know from those records that you were the
4 social worker on Duty on the evening of 24th July from
5 6.30 pm on Saturday to 6.30 am on Sunday morning.
6 MS FREDERICK: I was.
7 MS GIBSON: In your experience is it usual for doctors to
8 call the Out of Hours social worker unless they have
9 serious concerns about a child?
10 MS FREDERICK: As I said earlier, professionals would
11 actually call for advice and information as well as
12 serious concerns.
13 MS GIBSON: With about what sort of frequency would you
14 receive calls from hospital doctors asking for advice
15 and information as opposed to referring suspected
16 non-accidental injury to you?
17 MS FREDERICK: Again, it varies in frequency. It did occur.
18 MS GIBSON: Do you always make full notes when you are on
19 Duty of all information that you receive?
20 MS FREDERICK: I make concise notes.
21 MS GIBSON: There is a difference between concise and full.
22 It may be that information that does not seem
23 particularly important at the time could subsequently
24 have a great deal of significance. Do you not agree
25 that it is important to make a full recording?
20
1 MS FREDERICK: Yes, to record details of the child,
2 et cetera and the incident.
3 MS GIBSON: Can we have a look then at your recording in
4 respect of this case and you are going to need
5 a different volume. It is volume 7, and it is
6 page 000.510. Can I ask you first of all to deal with
7 the boxes at the bottom of this form and what those
8 codes mean. Firstly box A.
9 MS FREDERICK: 100 refers to children and families.
10 MS GIBSON: Why is that box completed on this form?
11 MS FREDERICK: It is completed on every form once a referral
12 is taken.
13 MS GIBSON: And that indicates that this matter is
14 a children and families matter as opposed to mental
15 health matter?
16 MS FREDERICK: Mental health or older people, physical
17 disabilities. It is the category.
18 MS GIBSON: These codes have been filled in by you?
19 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
20 MS GIBSON: Then at B, number 9, what does that mean?
21 MS FREDERICK: I am trying to remember because it was quite
22 a while ago when I did actually complete these boxes and
23 I have not done this for quite a long time. Again it
24 would probably refer to one of the categories in terms
25 of --
21
1 MS GIBSON: If you cannot remember --
2 MS FREDERICK: No, I cannot remember.
3 MS GIBSON: I dare say we can establish that from someone
4 who may have access to the codes or may have more
5 knowledge about that now. Again, can you help with C?
6 MS FREDERICK: C, no, sorry.
7 MS GIBSON: D?
8 MS FREDERICK: Again, I think it is related to the
9 categories in terms of children and families because it
10 is similar to 100.
11 MS GIBSON: And then E?
12 MS FREDERICK: I remember E meant ethnicity of the child
13 possibly.
14 MS GIBSON: And F looks like 20.00. Is that the timing?
15 MS FREDERICK: Yes, again F1 and F2 would be the period of
16 when you actually dealt with the case, between the hours
17 of 8 pm and 9 pm.
18 MS GIBSON: Could that refer to two separate phone calls in
19 relation to the case or would that be the total time
20 that you were looking at, speaking to someone about the
21 case?
22 MS FREDERICK: Yes, it could be the time when you actually
23 took the referral and when you actually made contact
24 with the referrer.
25 MS GIBSON: So that would not necessarily mean that you were
22
1 working on this case for an hour between 8 and 9?
2 MS FREDERICK: It could well be, yes.
3 MS GIBSON: But again are you not very sure about that now?
4 MS FREDERICK: I think it would be in terms of a telephone
5 call.
6 MS GIBSON: Are you saying that you had an hour long
7 telephone call on the case?
8 MS FREDERICK: No, from when I actually took the referral to
9 when I actually spoke to the doctor and when I dealt
10 with the case.
11 MS GIBSON: And then G looks like a 1 or a letter.
12 MS FREDERICK: Again, I do not remember the exact codes.
13 MS GIBSON: Finally in box H, a 7. Do you know what the
14 significance of that is?
15 MS FREDERICK: Sorry, no, but I would not know, unless I saw
16 the sort of coding sheet, that all of these actually
17 related to the nature of the case et cetera.
18 MS GIBSON: Looking at your entries here, at number 1 you
19 deal with a child admitted to hospital with concerns
20 about injury caused by hot water. What did you
21 understand those concerns to be?
22 MS FREDERICK: Obviously I can actually go by what I have
23 written down because I cannot actually remember the
24 telephone call at the time, so I would have to really
25 reflect what I actually wrote down which is "concerns
23
1 about injury caused by hot water poured on to face
2 causing facial burns".
3 MS GIBSON: Do you accept that it would have been helpful in
4 terms of a full recording if you had specified what the
5 concerns were?
6 MS FREDERICK: I do accept that, at the time.
7 MS GIBSON: And 2: "It appeared to be an accident, however
8 mother may need support".
9 Again, at 2 there is no exploration of the mechanism
10 by which this supposed accident occurred. Do you accept
11 that that is a shortcoming in these notes?
12 MS FREDERICK: I accept that it is what was said to me at
13 the time. More may have been said but that is what
14 I actually recorded. It would have been what the
15 information the doctor actually relayed to me: "It
16 appeared to be an accident, however mother may need
17 support".
18 MS GIBSON: But it may be the case that this note results
19 from you and the doctor having had a discussion and
20 batting back and forth ideas about the case.
21 MS FREDERICK: I would have written more down if more was
22 said which I felt was relevant.
23 MS GIBSON: At 3: "Advice given. Doctor agreed to discuss
24 case with hospital social worker the following day".
25 MS FREDERICK: At the time that would have been advised and
24
1 it was agreed between both myself and the doctor.
2 MS GIBSON: What was your understanding of the system that
3 existed between Haringey and Enfield Social Services in
4 terms of Haringey children who were in patients at North
5 Middlesex Hospital?
6 MS FREDERICK: My understanding of the case is that if there
7 was a child in hospital that may need family support the
8 hospital social worker would actually do an initial fact
9 finding assessment, and if it was support then the
10 hospital social worker can provide that and if there was
11 more general concerns they could actually refer on to
12 the district teams. I just felt, you know, the social
13 worker based in the hospital would be able to provide
14 that service.
15 MS GIBSON: We know that this was or this referral came in
16 quite late on on a Saturday evening and you talk about
17 referral to hospital social worker the following day
18 which would be a Sunday. Would it be your understanding
19 that a hospital social worker would be available on
20 a Sunday?
21 MS FREDERICK: At this moment in time, no, and I admit that
22 you know the following day probably was not appropriate,
23 probably Monday.
24 MS GIBSON: Presumably you would have been aware at the time
25 that hospital social workers would not be working on
25
1 a Sunday?
2 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
3 MS GIBSON: And then at 4, "NFA". Presumably "no further
4 action".
5 MS FREDERICK: No further action on that particular evening.
6 MS GIBSON: What would have happened to this form once you
7 had completed it on Duty?
8 MS FREDERICK: This form would have been faxed to the Out of
9 Hours office.
10 MS GIBSON: And that would be standard practice with all
11 forms filled in on Duty, would it?
12 MS FREDERICK: Yes, it would go to the Out of Hours.
13 MS GIBSON: And what happens with these forms once they are
14 collected at the Out of Hours office?
15 MS FREDERICK: They would be filed.
16 MS GIBSON: So because 4 is no further action, this form
17 would be filed and not referred on to any of the other
18 Haringey teams?
19 MS FREDERICK: Not by this Out of Hours office.
20 MS GIBSON: If this had been a referral where you had had
21 clear child protection concerns what would have happened
22 to this form?
23 MS FREDERICK: I would have actually made the referral
24 myself.
25 MS GIBSON: You would have made a referral on to one of your
26
1 teams, an appropriate team?
2 MS FREDERICK: Yes, and if there was no other professional
3 involved I would have definitely made a referral.
4 MS GIBSON: And which team would you have referred this case
5 to?
6 MS FREDERICK: Well, the address, 267 Somerset Gardens, is
7 actually within the North Tottenham District catchment
8 area.
9 MS GIBSON: And which team would have been appropriate
10 within the North Tottenham office to carry through this
11 investigation?
12 MS FREDERICK: The Duty Team.
13 MS GIBSON: So this form that we now find on the file for
14 Haringey Social Services would not have been seen by
15 anyone dealing with the case until much later, because
16 you say it would be filed away?
17 MS FREDERICK: Yes, it would be filed away.
18 MS GIBSON: In the office. And would the subsequent
19 referral on 27th July have led to this referral emerging
20 from the file and going to the team dealing with the
21 case?
22 MS FREDERICK: Not necessarily unless the referrer had
23 indicated that it had come to the attention of the Out
24 of Hours social worker, but that was not indicated, so
25 it may not have got to the social work office or it did
27
1 not.
2 MS GIBSON: Would you have conducted any index checks as
3 a result of this referral?
4 MS FREDERICK: Myself, no. Myself?
5 MS GIBSON: Yes.
6 MS FREDERICK: I do not understand what do you mean by index
7 checks.
8 MS GIBSON: Any checks to see if this particular child or
9 family were known to your Social Services already.
10 MS FREDERICK: I would expect that to be carried out by the
11 hospital, as they have a list of children who are on the
12 Child Protection Register or who are known to Haringey.
13 MS GIBSON: I understand that they have a list of children
14 on the Child Protection Register but there may be
15 children who are not on the register but with whom
16 Social Services have had some form of contact and I just
17 wanted to see what is done to check that out.
18 MS FREDERICK: What, on the night when I received the
19 referral, I would have actually asked that question, is
20 this child known, is this child actually on the
21 register?
22 MS GIBSON: Yes, that is right, but as I have said it may be
23 that the child here was a child known to Haringey Social
24 Services who was not on the register and that might, by
25 virtue of the knowledge that you had about this family,
28
1 raise more concern about whether the injury was
2 non-accidental.
3 MS FREDERICK: Well, when I actually dealt with this case it
4 was on a Saturday evening, so follow-up work would
5 actually be done by the hospital social worker.
6 MS GIBSON: But as we know no follow-up work on Sunday
7 because there would not be a hospital social worker
8 available.
9 MS FREDERICK: But I actually finished work 6.30 on Sunday,
10 so it would have been referred on to someone else.
11 MS GIBSON: Also in this system there is no way of checking
12 that this doctor making the referral in fact does
13 contact the hospital social worker to deal with the
14 case.
15 MS FREDERICK: I would have trusted another professional
16 would have actually carried out what was agreed and in
17 fact as far as I am aware it did happen, it did go on to
18 the hospital social worker.
19 MS GIBSON: Would a copy of your referral have gone to the
20 Hospital Social Work Team, a copy of that form in front
21 of you?
22 MS FREDERICK: No.
23 MS GIBSON: Can I ask you now about what Dr Forlee said in
24 her evidence. She was quite clear in her evidence that
25 she did not tell you that this incident appeared to be
29
1 an accident. She had more concern about the case than
2 that.
3 MS FREDERICK: As I said, I would really have to go by what
4 was written down.
5 MS GIBSON: I would suggest to you this is a very brief
6 recording about a scalding injury, potentially quite
7 a serious case if it turned out to be non-accidental.
8 There is no exploration on this form of how the child
9 came to be admitted to hospital, the timing of the
10 injury, the mechanism for the accident. Would these not
11 have been issues that you would have explored with the
12 doctor?
13 MS FREDERICK: Yes, these are issues that I could have
14 explored with the doctor.
15 MS GIBSON: Could have explored but it appears from the form
16 you did not or failed to record.
17 MS FREDERICK: Well, I have written down concise information
18 which is that it appears to be an accident.
19 MS GIBSON: Because it is apparent from the form that the
20 doctor here is contacting you because the child has been
21 admitted and there are concerns about the injury. That
22 is the reason she is contacting you as a social worker.
23 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
24 MS GIBSON: So it is important, is it not, to explore what
25 those concerns are and why it is felt that this injury
30
1 is something concerning, that necessitates contacting
2 the Out of Hours social worker?
3 MS FREDERICK: Well, as I have written down, the concerns
4 were about the injury caused by hot water, which
5 appeared to be an accident.
6 MS GIBSON: Can I just take you to what Dr Forlee said in
7 her evidence and see if you agree with it. Sir, for
8 your note it is the 8th November transcript, page 37,
9 line 22. Dr Forlee said:
10 "I cannot remember the exact details of the
11 discussion but I would have told her" and she is
12 referring to you here "that I had seen a child about
13 whom I had concerns, that we had admitted her.
14 I vaguely recall her telling me that we would have to
15 contact the hospital social workers as well, considering
16 she was now admitted, and we did have a discussion about
17 whether she needed to see the child immediately that
18 night, and my understanding of the situation was that if
19 a child was admitted and we deemed her to be relatively
20 safe then that did not need to happen that night." And
21 she says: "Luciana Frederick confirmed that view with me
22 and said proceedings could take place later on during
23 normal office hours."
24 MS FREDERICK: I agree with the latter part of the statement
25 in terms of the action but I do not agree with the first
31
1 part of the statement.
2 MS GIBSON: And what is it about the first part of the
3 statement you disagree with?
4 MS FREDERICK: Would you read out the first six lines again
5 please?
6 MS GIBSON: She says:
7 "I cannot remember the exact details of the
8 discussion but I would have told her that I had seen
9 a child about whom I had concerns ..."
10 I know you say you do not recall this but the doctor
11 tells you that she, the doctor, has concerns about the
12 child.
13 MS FREDERICK: Well I did write down that there were
14 concerns.
15 MS GIBSON: "... that we had admitted her. I vaguely recall
16 her telling me that we would have to contact the
17 hospital social workers as well", that is the doctor
18 mentioning contacting the hospital social workers,
19 "considering she was now admitted, and we did have
20 a discussion about whether she needed to see the child
21 immediately ..."
22 Firstly, do you recall having a discussion about
23 whether you would have needed to see the child
24 immediately?
25 MS FREDERICK: I actually do not remember the discussion so
32
1 it is difficult to say I agree with it but what you have
2 said and what is written down, some of it does seem to,
3 you know, coincide but I cannot say I remember the
4 discussion. I think it would be wrong to do that. It
5 would not be the truth.
6 MS GIBSON: Thank you for that, but it does appear from this
7 evidence of Dr Forlee that she was rather more concerned
8 about this child than is apparent from the recording
9 when the incident is dismissed as appearing to be an
10 accident, whereas here she is talking about whether it
11 is necessary for you to come out immediately to see the
12 child.
13 MS FREDERICK: I do not agree that it was dismissed.
14 Children's -- the welfare of children is always the
15 priority. There is no way I would dismiss something
16 that was important.
17 MS GIBSON: Then if I can turn to another aspect of her
18 evidence, again the 8th November transcript at page 40,
19 she was asked by Mr Garnham about point 2 on your
20 referral form, where you say:
21 "It appeared to be an accident, however mother may
22 need support."
23 Dr Forlee's response was:
24 "No, I really cannot recollect handing over that
25 information."
33
1 She was then asked:
2 "That would have been plainly contrary to what you
3 have told us was your view."
4 She replied: "Yes."
5 MS FREDERICK: That is Dr Forlee's interpretation but
6 basically what I am saying is what I have written down,
7 "It appeared to be an accident ..." And that appears to
8 be what was said by the doctor to myself.
9 MS GIBSON: I think you have accepted this is not
10 a recording that accords with your guidelines. It does
11 not have any of that detail. Is it possible that you
12 were working out of hours under some pressure and this
13 recording is inaccurate in terms of the information you
14 received from Dr Forlee.
15 MS FREDERICK: No, I would record accurate information that
16 I received from Dr Forlee, particularly when it is
17 concerning a child, the welfare of a child.
18 MS GIBSON: Again, she recalls having a discussion with you
19 much later on, and sir that is 8th November, page 41.
20 She recalls bleeping you back and she describes it as
21 being a lot later in the evening because there was
22 a considerable delay between her first contact with you,
23 some time around 8 o'clock, and a later response by you.
24 MS FREDERICK: I do not recall a later response.
25 MS GIBSON: Do you accept, however, that in taking referral
34
1 like this it is extremely important to get it right
2 first time and to make sure that you as a social worker
3 get a full picture of what the hospital's concerns are,
4 and that has to be done by asking the doctor the right
5 questions?
6 MS FREDERICK: Yes. However, I think in my recording I have
7 asked relevant questions.
8 MS GIBSON: Again, it is difficult, given that you have no
9 active recollection of what went on, but this has none
10 of the detail that is required by the Child Protection
11 Guidelines for Haringey.
12 MS FREDERICK: Well, it has some detail but not full detail.
13 MS GIBSON: The reason why presumably it is important to go
14 through those steps is to make sure that you get out of
15 the hospital what you need to get because the doctor may
16 be inexperienced in child protection for all that you
17 know.
18 MS FREDERICK: I accept that more detail could have been on
19 this document. However, I think relevant detail is
20 there.
21 MS GIBSON: Okay. Thank you very much Ms Frederick.
22 MS FREDERICK: Thank you.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Ms Gibson. Miss Lawson please.
24 MISS LAWSON: Would you help me about a number of points.
25 Do you still have the form in front of you, the one at
35
1 7/000.510?
2 MS FREDERICK: Yes, I have.
3 MISS LAWSON: You were being asked about the timing of it.
4 Can you go to the top of the page. You were asked by
5 Ms Gibson about the timing between 20.00 hours and 21.00
6 hours and exactly when you might have been dealing with
7 this.
8 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
9 MISS LAWSON: What would be the significance of the time
10 written at the top of the page?
11 MS FREDERICK: 20.30, 8.30 pm would be the time where
12 I actually spoke to the doctor.
13 MISS LAWSON: Yes. And from what you have told us already
14 you would have done that in response to the message
15 passed to you from her?
16 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
17 MISS LAWSON: And if you had been dealing with any part of
18 this much later in the evening, how would the times when
19 it had occurred have been recorded?
20 MS FREDERICK: The times would have actually been recorded
21 when I spoke on the later occasions on the form.
22 MISS LAWSON: Thank you. And if the doctor had given you
23 clear indication of child protection concerns what would
24 have happened?
25 MS FREDERICK: If there was clear indication of child
36
1 protection concerns then I would actually follow what
2 was written down in terms of the child protection
3 investigation, which would mean that I would have to
4 contact an out of hours police officer, I think it would
5 be good practice to actually arrange a meeting at the
6 hospital with the doctor, discuss what strategies need
7 to be put in place. Because it is a family with
8 a second language, we would need to have an interpreter
9 present. We would need to interview mother, get consent
10 for an examination to be held, a full examination of the
11 child and then make an assessment in terms of what
12 happens next if the child would be remaining in hospital
13 safe or if the child was going to be discharged and
14 there was an investigation, whether we need to take
15 further action.
16 MISS LAWSON: So you were in no doubt at all either about
17 what you should do if there were child protection
18 concerns being raised, as far as a child was concerned,
19 when you were on the Duty Out of Hours Team?
20 MS FREDERICK: No, I am in no doubt and it is something we
21 would need to do in order to promote the welfare of the
22 child.
23 MISS LAWSON: So what do you say follows from that in terms
24 of what you wrote down and did in respect of this child?
25 MS FREDERICK: I felt from what has been written down that
37
1 it appears to be an accident, that was the information
2 that was relayed to me by the hospital doctor, and
3 I felt initial assessment or more information to
4 determine whether more concerns could be obtained from
5 the hospital social worker who would have more time to
6 actually sit down and speak with doctor, mother and
7 child.
8 MISS LAWSON: You were asked about another matter which was
9 the question of the checks that were made to see whether
10 the child was known to social services. Yes?
11 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
12 MISS LAWSON: Do you remember that?
13 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
14 MISS LAWSON: Obviously there is the Child Protection
15 Register which could be checked to see whether the child
16 was on that register. But apart from that, is there any
17 way of checking whether a child who is not on the
18 register is or is not known to social services other
19 than if you happen to be aware of the family?
20 MS FREDERICK: At that time there is not because you were
21 actually working from home.
22 MISS LAWSON: You were asked some questions about the Child
23 Protection Guidelines and as you have claimed
24 familiarity with them I am going to ask you some more.
25 The guidelines of course are intended to be used for
38
1 a wide variety of situations, are they not?
2 MS FREDERICK: Yes, they are.
3 MISS LAWSON: Sometimes the social worker would be the first
4 person to see the child's injuries?
5 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
6 MISS LAWSON: When they perhaps go on a routine visit and
7 find a child with injuries?
8 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
9 MISS LAWSON: Another time perhaps they would be observed at
10 the school?
11 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
12 MISS LAWSON: Sometimes friend or family will have noticed
13 injuries and rung up and asked social services to look
14 into the matter?
15 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
16 MISS LAWSON: Sometimes, as here, the referral will come in
17 respect of a child who is already in hospital?
18 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
19 MISS LAWSON: And it is right, is it not, that your team
20 covers not just the North Middlesex Hospital but the
21 Whittington Hospital as well?
22 MS FREDERICK: And Chase Farm on some occasions.
23 MISS LAWSON: And receives reference from wide variety of
24 sources?
25 MS FREDERICK: Both in and outside of the borough.
39
1 MISS LAWSON: So that when we are looking at these
2 guidelines we have to bear in mind, do we not, that they
3 do cover a wide range of situations in which the task of
4 the social worker may be much greater in terms of the
5 initial investigation and assessment of the injuries?
6 MS FREDERICK: Very much so.
7 MISS LAWSON: Than was the case in this one?
8 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
9 MISS LAWSON: Could I ask you to go to page 11 in volume 24.
10 These are, as is clear from the top of the page, the
11 categories of abuse for the purposes of registration
12 under Haringey's procedures and again you are familiar
13 with those?
14 MS FREDERICK: Yes, I am.
15 MISS LAWSON: In particular, of course, here you were being
16 asked to look at whether or not there was physical
17 injury but we see the sort of considerations which apply
18 as well to the sort of levels of neglect or emotional
19 abuse which might lead to registration under these
20 procedures.
21 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
22 MISS LAWSON: So when one comes on to the particular matters
23 that you were asked about, that is the awareness of the
24 risks in relation to burns and so on, those are matters
25 which social workers should be alert to in a general
40
1 way, but if a social worker for example turned up
2 visiting a family and found that the toddler had just
3 upset a saucepan of water over itself, what would you
4 expect the social worker to do in relation to that
5 injury?
6 MS FREDERICK: If a social worker had visited a family?
7 MISS LAWSON: Yes, and arrived just at the right or the
8 wrong moment depending on your point of view.
9 MS FREDERICK: I would expect a social worker to actually
10 find out more information from the parent in terms of
11 what had happened, to do an initial assessment, to
12 determine whether it was an accident or to determine
13 whether it was an abuse, to determine whether that child
14 is supervised properly in the home.
15 MISS LAWSON: And if the child is still screaming in pain?
16 MS FREDERICK: Obviously the child would need to be taken to
17 hospital immediately.
18 MISS LAWSON: Thank you.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Miss Lawson. Just a few points for
20 clarification if I may. First of all, right at the
21 beginning of your evidence to Ms Gibson, a question
22 Ms Gibson asked you, you said that after the
23 reorganisation, the management of the teams was going to
24 be a combination of a team manager and a senior
25 practitioner.
41
1 MS FREDERICK: Yes, I think you know the new system that was
2 actually going to be put in place is that a team manager
3 would manage a team of 12 but also below that the team
4 manager would have two senior practitioners to manage
5 the team also.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: And what were the managerial
7 responsibilities, if they had any, I do not know whether
8 they did, of the senior practitioners?
9 MS FREDERICK: To give case management of -- case
10 supervision of each worker.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: In those circumstances who was accountable
12 for the performance of the work?
13 MS FREDERICK: I would say it would be a combination of the
14 practice manager and the team manager. The team manager
15 also had a responsibility to ensure that practice was or
16 supervision was given to a standard, a high standard,
17 and she would supervise the senior practitioner.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: On the face of it, combinations of managerial
19 accountability are difficult to comprehend. How does it
20 work in practice?
21 MS FREDERICK: I think as a team manager if you have a good
22 relationship with your senior practitioner you supervise
23 them regularly, you are accountable to some extent in
24 what happens within your team, or I personally feel that
25 I am.
42
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, I understand the accountability of
2 managers; what I am struggling to understand is the
3 accountability of the senior practitioner.
4 MS FREDERICK: The fact that they actually supervise the
5 workers on a weekly basis, however often they are
6 supervised, they are actually given clear actions of
7 what needs to be carried out on a particular case
8 following a discussion.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Okay. To put it crudely, if something goes
10 wrong where does the buck stop?
11 MS FREDERICK: I think it needs to go right through to
12 management, you know, senior practitioner, team manager.
13 And obviously the social worker is accountable for the
14 actions that he or she does but the management have to
15 take responsibility as well.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: Just some details with the Emergency Duty
17 Team. Are all of the calls that come to central point
18 logged?
19 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: So there would be a time log as to when calls
21 were received from whatever source?
22 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
23 THE CHAIRMAN: And when a social worker is out, as you were
24 out, how does the central point contact you?
25 MS FREDERICK: You usually notify them where you are. You
43
1 do have a mobile, so they can actually contact you on
2 your mobile, or if you are somewhere in a hospital they
3 can actually contact you at the hospital.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Right, so you would always have a mobile with
5 you?
6 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: So they would be able to tell you exactly
8 when the call came in?
9 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: And you would decide how urgent the response
11 should be?
12 MS FREDERICK: I would decide how urgent but I think it is
13 good practice that if you are able to acknowledge to the
14 referrer that you have received the call, but you are in
15 the middle of doing something and you will get back to
16 them later on.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Did you imply, I just want to get this right,
18 that one social worker would be on duty to cover the
19 whole of Haringey?
20 MS FREDERICK: Yes, for out of hours.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: And that social worker would be expected to
22 cover all of the kind of referrals that might come to
23 a social service department: mental health, physical
24 disability, elderly, learning disabilities?
25 MS FREDERICK: Yes, a wide range of generic cases.
44
1 THE CHAIRMAN: So you could have a social worker who is
2 a specialist in say the elderly dealing with a child
3 protection case?
4 MS FREDERICK: At the time you could but there were
5 experienced workers so the possibility is they may have
6 dealt with children in the past, but yes.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: There is the possibility, yes, that is true?
8 MS FREDERICK: What you have said.
9 THE CHAIRMAN: Is correct?
10 MS FREDERICK: Is correct.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: What kind of support was there to a worker?
12 I mean was the worker alone in the world or was there
13 something behind this worker --
14 MS FREDERICK: There was access to a team manager if you
15 wished who worked from home. If you actually went out
16 on a visit for example, if you had to go into the
17 community, which was priority particularly with children
18 and vulnerable adults, you can actually take a second
19 person with you for health and safety and that would be
20 one of the other emergency workers that were there to
21 deal with other emergencies in Haringey, for example
22 wardens, they tend to be wardens of sheltered homes for
23 example.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Who would be the managers that were on a rota
25 behind the social workers? Were they team managers or
45
1 were they more senior people in the organisation?
2 MS FREDERICK: There was one team manager who worked from
3 home who we can call upon for advice. There was senior
4 managers who we can actually call upon for consultation
5 if we were placing a child in a residential
6 establishment and we needed authorisation for that, but
7 generally it was down to the social worker to use their
8 professional guidance and practice to make decisions and
9 carry out necessary actions.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: Quite a responsible job.
11 MS FREDERICK: Yes, it was.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: These codes that were referred to earlier at
13 the bottom of the page, I will not trouble you to look
14 at them, you know the codes I am referring to?
15 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
16 THE CHAIRMAN: I do not expect you to know. I am not going
17 to ask you detailed questions because I know how
18 difficult codes are and you probably all carried a code
19 guide with you, for all I know.
20 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: But did the code define what section of the
22 Act you were operating under or did it just refer
23 children at risk or children in need or elderly person,
24 you know, how detailed were these codes?
25 MS FREDERICK: I think your latter description was correct.
46
1 It determined sort of children at need, children and
2 families, timings, ethnicity, et cetera. It did not
3 determine guidelines.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: What did you think was the purpose of this
5 call from Dr Forlee?
6 MS FREDERICK: Again, from what I wrote down it seemed like
7 the doctor was seeking some advice in terms of the best
8 way of handling the case and from what is written down
9 the child was safe in hospital, so an investigation did
10 not need to take place at night. However, if there were
11 major concerns it could be picked up by the hospital
12 social worker who can get more information and determine
13 whether an investigation needed to happen which would be
14 done by the District Team. If it was purely family
15 support, that may have been something that the hospital
16 social worker could provide. That is my interpretation.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes indeed, and from your case record what
18 advice did you give the doctor?
19 MS FREDERICK: That a referral should be made to the
20 hospital social worker.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: What was that based upon?
22 MS FREDERICK: That was based upon the information that was
23 received which was that a child was scalded and it
24 appeared to be an accident but mother may need support
25 and the fact that she may need support I felt that there
47
1 needed to be a follow-up and maybe the hospital social
2 worker was in a position where he or she can do that.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: You know, looked at from where I sit you
4 would have thought the doctor could work that out for
5 themselves, if that was the basis of their concern. If
6 that was the basis for their concern, why trouble you?
7 MS FREDERICK: As I said, doctors, members of the public
8 often came through to stand by just to talk, discuss
9 cases.
10 THE CHAIRMAN: And did you feel that the doctor was happy to
11 leave this to Monday morning?
12 MS FREDERICK: At the time from my recording it appears to
13 be.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: Then this record of your involvement was
15 filed away never to be seen again unless something
16 happened?
17 MS FREDERICK: My involvement was filed away. However it
18 seems from what was recorded that there was another
19 means by which it could be picked up through the
20 hospital social worker.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: But if by chance come Monday morning the
22 doctor was not on duty and by the time the doctor was
23 next on duty he or she had forgotten all about it, human
24 nature being what it is, that information would never
25 have got either to the hospital social worker or to the
48
1 local team.
2 MS FREDERICK: I accept that. That is something that could
3 have happened.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: It just could be that the local team would
5 actually know a great deal about this family?
6 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
7 THE CHAIRMAN: And would not know that the child had been
8 admitted to hospital in these circumstances?
9 MS FREDERICK: Yes, if it was not followed through, through
10 the doctor and the social worker, then that is
11 a possibility.
12 THE CHAIRMAN: It is a case of children falling through the
13 cracks?
14 MS FREDERICK: Yes.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much.
16 MS GIBSON: I have no further questions. Thank you.
17 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Ms Frederick.
18 MS GIBSON: Mr Garnham will take the next witness.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: Unless Mr Garnham feels passionately
20 otherwise, we will take a short break at this point. If
21 we can get back here by just before 20 to 12.
22 (11.28 am)
23 (A short break)
24 (11.38 am)
25 MR GARNHAM: Our next witness is Caroline Rodgers please.
49
1 MS CAROLINE RODGERS (sworn)
2 MR GARNHAM: Good morning.
3 MS RODGERS: Morning.
4 MR GARNHAM: Could you give your full name.
5 MS RODGERS: Caroline Rodgers.
6 MR GARNHAM: Your professional address.
7 MS RODGERS: At the time I was based at --
8 MR GARNHAM: Now please.
9 MS RODGERS: 40 Cumberland Road, N22.
10 MR GARNHAM: Thank you. You have made one statement for
11 this Inquiry, a copy of which I hope is in front of you.
12 Sir it is volume 3, page 35 of our bundles. Can you
13 flick through that and confirm that you have signed it?
14 MS RODGERS: Yes I have.
15 MR GARNHAM: And that its contents are true?
16 MS RODGERS: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: Are there any amendments you need to make to
18 it?
19 MS RODGERS: No.
20 MR GARNHAM: I think it is right you qualified as a social
21 worker in 1993?
22 MS RODGERS: Yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: You began work at Haringey in the Investigation
24 and Assessment Team, is that right?
25 MS RODGERS: That is right, yes.
50
1 MR GARNHAM: You moved to Waltham Forest in 1996 and
2 returned to Haringey in 1998?
3 MS RODGERS: That is right.
4 MR GARNHAM: And between 1998 and earlier this year you were
5 a social worker in the Children and Families Team in the
6 North Tottenham District Office?
7 MS RODGERS: Yes.
8 MR GARNHAM: Can I ask you about the training you have
9 received and for this could you have volume 29 please.
10 Turn to page 99, which is two-thirds of the way through
11 that volume. This is a document that was supplied to us
12 by your employers in June of this year and if you go
13 over the page you see what is called the "Enrolment List
14 by Event" which appears to set out the training courses
15 you have received. Do you see that?
16 MS RODGERS: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: Tell me if I am wrong but on those two pages,
18 100 and 101, amongst a number of courses you attended
19 there are two that predated your involvement in
20 Victoria's case, namely the one which is three from the
21 bottom, Neglect and Emotional Abuse. Do you have that?
22 MS RODGERS: Yes.
23 MR GARNHAM: Neglect and Emotional Abuse on 7th July 1999
24 and then a sign language course in April 1999 and
25 I think the rest are after your involvement with
|
