|
Archived Transcript for 29 November 2001:
Pages 51 to 100
51
1 spoke to me about the case and I, because I knew there
2 was specialist agencies in the community, I referred it
3 on to them.
4 MR SHELDON: Lisa Arthurworrey said in her evidence --
5 Day 27 page 33 sir -- that she never spoke to you about
6 this case other than in relation to the health and
7 safety issues raised by her home visit. She did not
8 talk to you about anything else in relation to this
9 case. That was all. Is that right?
10 MR ALMEDIA: As I say --
11 MR SHELDON: Is that right?
12 MR ALMEDIA: The point that I am making, that this referral
13 or these events which took place in August -- was
14 it July -- or August 1999 took place -- the precise
15 details I cannot recollect. You are suggesting things
16 to me which with the best will in the world I do not
17 recall. The day I was Duty Manager, I deal with many,
18 many cases. If you ask me about any within that context
19 it would be difficult for me to remember what I said or
20 did not say. I had no idea it was going to be used for
21 evidence.
22 MR SHELDON: You say in paragraph 17 of your statement:
23 "These calls [to health visitor, Environmental
24 Health and the Tottenham Child and Family Centre] were
25 all calls which had to be made and matters which had to
52
1 be investigated. They were all based on the information
2 available to me on the day in question ... They were all
3 matters which ought to be dealt with immediately."
4 What information was available to you on the day in
5 question and if you cannot answer that then what are you
6 doing writing that in your statement?
7 MR ALMEDIA: My recollection of the conversation I had with
8 Lisa was that the child was in hospital, had been
9 admitted because of concerns about hygiene or scabies.
10 I understand initially there were suspicions initially
11 of the child protection nature but the girl had been
12 seen by a paediatrician and that had been not gone
13 through. There was the issue about family assessment,
14 home based assessment and presumably when the girl was
15 discharged then there may well be -- it may well go on
16 to neglect or case conference or something like that.
17 MR SHELDON: So your understanding, the information
18 available to you at the time was that the child had been
19 in hospital, admitted with concerns about scabies,
20 initially child protection concerns but seen by
21 paediatrician and now it was a home assessment, possibly
22 neglect case?
23 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, but that as I say is more or less what
24 I recollect.
25 MR SHELDON: So you got the impression that it was not
53
1 a child protection case any more?
2 MR ALMEDIA: No, I did not say that. I said that -- I did
3 not say it was not a child protection case. It could
4 have gone to case conference or any --
5 MR SHELDON: Well, let me just read back to you what you
6 said:
7 "I understand initially there were suspicions
8 initially of the child protection nature but the girl
9 had been seen by a paediatrician and that had been not
10 gone through."
11 That is what you said, so that was the basis of my
12 question to you that you thought that this was not
13 a child protection case any more. Are you saying that
14 that is not the impression you were trying to give?
15 MR ALMEDIA: No, I think the child protection issue was
16 related to physical abuse in terms of injuries to the
17 child but neglect is also a child protection issue as
18 well. I mean if it is severe neglect.
19 MR SHELDON: Perhaps I phrased it badly. You understood
20 then that this was not a physical abuse case any more,
21 that was this was a neglect case?
22 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, the injury, as I understand, yes.
23 MR SHELDON: That is the impression you were given?
24 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
25 MR SHELDON: Despite the fact that nobody had seen this
54
1 child from your office yet?
2 MR ALMEDIA: I did not know that. I had a conversation with
3 Lisa. How much information I was given at this stage in
4 time I cannot really recall.
5 MR SHELDON: Did you know there had been a strategy meeting
6 on 28th July at which 18 recommendations had been made?
7 MR ALMEDIA: No, I did not know that.
8 MR SHELDON: Did you know that there was a Section 47
9 investigation underway involving the police?
10 MR ALMEDIA: No, I do not think I did, no.
11 MR SHELDON: Did you know that the mother was coming into
12 the office later on that day to be spoken to about these
13 concerns for the first time?
14 MR ALMEDIA: At the time I do not think I did, no.
15 MR SHELDON: Did you know that nobody had seen the child and
16 that the police and social worker were planning to visit
17 the following day?
18 MR ALMEDIA: No, my recollection as I say, at this point in
19 time, the only role I saw which was as I saw was
20 a community based assessment which I felt I knew that
21 Carole was supervising Lisa on this case and I knew that
22 if there were -- the main thrust of the investigation,
23 if the investigation was going to continue, would have
24 been the directions would have been given by Carole.
25 I knew that. I did know these two resources which were
55
1 in the communities which had got specialised knowledge
2 of hygiene issues and that is why I referred the case to
3 them.
4 MR SHELDON: How can you possibly know that it is
5 appropriate to refer the case to the Tottenham Child and
6 Family Centre when you have no idea what is going on in
7 the case?
8 MR ALMEDIA: I think -- well, I mean, the referral that you
9 have given me, it details some of the -- I said the
10 North Middlesex Hospital referred the family to Social
11 Services and she was treated for scabies, they were
12 concerned about poor hygiene.
13 MR SHELDON: Let us consider what the Tottenham Child and
14 Family Centre may have thought if you had given them an
15 accurate picture of what was going on, if you had said
16 to the Tottenham Child and Family Centre, "There is this
17 child in hospital. We have no idea when she is going to
18 be discharged or where she is going to be discharged to.
19 We are currently involved in a Section 47 investigation
20 about physical and or emotional abuse. The police and
21 an allocated social worker are involved. Will you
22 please take over this case".
23 MR ALMEDIA: No.
24 MR SHELDON: What would they have said to you?
25 MR ALMEDIA: Well --
56
1 MR SHELDON: Would they have said, "Phone us back when you
2 know what is going on"?
3 MR ALMEDIA: I think that is a misreading of the referral.
4 MR SHELDON: What role did you see them playing in the
5 strategy for Victoria?
6 MR ALMEDIA: As I say, the initial, the major investigation
7 would obviously, as I say -- I mean, given the details
8 I had, I spoke to Lisa, my recollection it was quite
9 briefly about it. I knew that she was -- I think she
10 wanted to speak to Carole, Carole was not in the office
11 so she came down to speak to me. I did not know, I mean
12 I had a fairly brief conversation as I remember, the
13 whole background I was not to my recollection aware of.
14 MR SHELDON: What are you doing referring cases that you
15 know nothing about?
16 MR ALMEDIA: Well, I referred to the Family Centre and my
17 recollection is that I specifically said it was -- asked
18 them to contact Lisa to gain more information.
19 MR SHELDON: You say you told the Tottenham Child and Family
20 Centre that they should call Lisa to discuss the
21 situation?
22 MR ALMEDIA: I said I was the Duty -- I think I said I was
23 the Duty social worker and I gave the allocated social
24 worker's name.
25 MR SHELDON: When did that recollection come to you?
57
1 MR ALMEDIA: I was looking through the referral at
2 Cumberland Road.
3 MR SHELDON: You were looking through the referral?
4 MR ALMEDIA: Looking at our statements prior to coming here.
5 MR SHELDON: And whose statement did you look at that made
6 you think that you told the Tottenham Child and Family
7 Centre to get in touch with Lisa Arthurworrey?
8 MR ALMEDIA: I think it was the Family Centre, the NSPCC.
9 MR SHELDON: You are saying one of the NSPCC's statements
10 said that you gave them Lisa Arthurworrey's name?
11 MR ALMEDIA: I believe that was the telephone referral that
12 I made, yes.
13 MR SHELDON: I suppose we had better have a look at those
14 statements in that case. Volume 3 of the green files,
15 starting at page 119. We have got four statements from
16 the NSPCC. We have got Sylvia Henry, Anna Ieronimou
17 Catriona Scott and Ernell Watson.
18 MR ALMEDIA: I think it is Anna Ieronimou.
19 MR SHELDON: That starts at page 134. Right. She describes
20 taking referral from you, or she calls you
21 David Almedia. Paragraph 11. Where does that indicate
22 to you that you told her to get in touch with
23 Lisa Arthurworrey?
24 MR ALMEDIA: No, I think it is probably the bundle --
25 MR SHELDON: It was probably what?
58
1 MR ALMEDIA: I think it refers -- I have seen a referral
2 which it is produced, this document, to in a bundle of
3 documents.
4 MR SHELDON: That is volume 7.
5 MR ALMEDIA: She said:
6 "I would have gone. There is nothing on the form to
7 suggest the matter was urgent when it was referred as
8 that would be normally raised during the conversation,
9 in which case I would have investigated further by
10 asking questions as to why it was urgent."
11 Which suggests that I was not asking for the Family
12 Centre to undertake a Section 47 investigation, which
13 I think.
14 MR SHELDON: Let us remind ourselves of why we are going to
15 all this trouble. You say that you told the Tottenham
16 Child and Family Centre that they should get in contact
17 with Lisa Arthurworrey who was the allocated social
18 worker on the case so that they could that way get
19 a full picture of what was going on?
20 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
21 MR SHELDON: Now, I asked you when that recollection came to
22 you, because it is not in your statement and we have
23 never heard it before. You said, "I got it from reading
24 Anna Ieronimou's statement before I came to give my
25 evidence." We have now got that statement. Where do
59
1 you get the fact that you told them to get in touch with
2 Lisa Arthurworrey?
3 MR ALMEDIA: No, I am sorry if that is -- I must -- I must
4 say I am not familiar with the various filing systems or
5 where various bits of information are located during the
6 investigation, so I would -- it might be I am confused.
7 MR SHELDON: Let us have a look at volume 7 and see what
8 they recall you saying to them, what they recorded you
9 saying to them. Volume 7 page 1, please. This is the
10 first page of a two-page referral form.
11 "Reason for referral: Family came to England
12 a couple of months ago. Anna has not yet been
13 registered with a school. NTM Hospital referred family
14 to Social Services after Anna was treated for scabies.
15 They were concerned about poor hygiene, mother not
16 washing and dressing Anna appropriately. Sometimes Anna
17 has no underwear on and her clothes are dirty. Anna
18 also displays behavioural problems. No home visit made
19 to date. Anna is said to seem anxious when mum is
20 around. Request help with advisory health/hygiene,
21 meeting Anna's developmental needs and antipathy with
22 interaction between mother and child. Please could we
23 keep social worker informed if any visits or contact is
24 made and outcome."
25 There is nothing there to say: "Call
60
1 Lisa Arthurworrey to find out what is going on with this
2 child", is there?
3 MR ALMEDIA: I think on the first page it says "LAW".
4 MR SHELDON: I see. That is Lisa Arthurworrey?
5 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
6 MR SHELDON: "Name of referrer". Then "allocated social
7 worker".
8 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
9 MR SHELDON: So that is where you got that from?
10 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
11 MR SHELDON: And you think that in doing that you told them
12 that they should get the full details off Lisa?
13 MR ALMEDIA: Off Lisa, yes.
14 MR SHELDON: Did you tell Lisa that you were referring her
15 case in this way?
16 MR ALMEDIA: I entered it on the file, I cannot be sure
17 whether I told her. I entered it on the file.
18 MR SHELDON: She says, paragraph 101 of her statement, that
19 you did not tell her. You cannot say she is wrong about
20 that?
21 MR ALMEDIA: I cannot say she is wrong about that, no.
22 MR SHELDON: When did you enter it on the file?
23 MR ALMEDIA: I think it is dated 5th August.
24 MR SHELDON: It is dated 5th August but when did you write
25 it?
61
1 MR ALMEDIA: I cannot be sure. I cannot recollect.
2 MR SHELDON: Again, Lisa Arthurworrey seems to think that
3 that was added later. Can you help with that?
4 MR ALMEDIA: No. I mean, as I say, I know I put it on the
5 file, obviously because it is my handwriting et cetera,
6 but I cannot remember precisely when or what.
7 MR SHELDON: She did not ask you to make this referral, did
8 she?
9 MR ALMEDIA: I think I volunteered to do it for her.
10 MR SHELDON: She says she never spoke to you about doing
11 anything other than getting some advice for her about
12 scabies.
13 MR ALMEDIA: I think I volunteered to do it for her.
14 MR SHELDON: So you just did it off your own bat without any
15 idea what is going on in the case?
16 MR ALMEDIA: No, not off my own bat. I mean obviously as
17 you can see from the referral I had some background
18 information about the case and I knew the resources were
19 there in the community and I knew that it would expedite
20 the investigation.
21 MR SHELDON: You did not even know at that stage whether she
22 was going to be discharged to that home at all.
23 MR ALMEDIA: No, this is true.
24 MR SHELDON: What are the Tottenham Child and Family Centre
25 supposed to do with that referral?
62
1 MR ALMEDIA: As I say, I did ask, my recollection is that
2 I asked that they contact the allocated social worker,
3 and as Duty I rang through and they contacted the
4 allocated association worker and take the referral with
5 her.
6 MR SHELDON: Would you often do this, just take unilateral
7 action on a case you knew nothing about, refer it to
8 other people knowing absolutely nothing about it?
9 MR ALMEDIA: No. As I say, Carole was out of the office at
10 the time and obviously being Duty Manager for the day
11 I obviously have lots of contact with various agencies
12 so it is something that --
13 MR SHELDON: You are sure Carole Baptiste was out of the
14 office for the day?
15 MR ALMEDIA: I believe so.
16 MR SHELDON: Lisa Arthurworrey seems to recall that she was
17 talking to you about the scabies issue and whilst she
18 was doing so Carole Baptiste came up and said, "Do not
19 worry, invite the mother to the office", which suggests
20 that Carole Baptiste was there.
21 MR ALMEDIA: Yes. As I tried to explain earlier, what
22 actually happened on that day I have got only the
23 vaguest recollection. I did make the referral, I am
24 sure about that, but exactly what the chronology of
25 events or sequence of events was, you can suggest things
63
1 to me but I cannot actually remember.
2 MR SHELDON: The question that started this off was do you
3 often make reference to other organisations about
4 cases --
5 MR ALMEDIA: To assist social workers.
6 MR SHELDON: When you have not even opened the case file and
7 have no idea what is going on in the case? Is that
8 something you regularly do?
9 MR ALMEDIA: This was an allocated case. This was an
10 allocated case of a worker who was being supervised,
11 which meant it was not a case on the unallocated list,
12 it was not a case where there were not case directions.
13 It was a way for practice managers, a way of assisting
14 colleagues to perform their duties effectively.
15 MR SHELDON: Why does the fact that this is an allocated
16 case with case directions on it make it a more suitable
17 case for you to take unilateral action in referring it
18 without anybody knowing?
19 MR ALMEDIA: No, I am just saying that would influence how
20 I approached the case.
21 MR SHELDON: Why would it make it more likely that you would
22 refer it, that you would make a referral on a case, if
23 it is being supervised by somebody else and has been
24 allocated?
25 MR ALMEDIA: No, the point I was trying to make was that if
64
1 the -- if this was an immediate referral then obviously
2 I would have gone into the background and highlighted
3 the specific concerns much more exhaustively than I did
4 on this particular occasion.
5 MR SHELDON: "If this was an immediate referral ... I would
6 have gone into the background and highlighted the
7 specific concerns ..."
8 I do not understand what you can possibly mean by
9 that.
10 MR ALMEDIA: We are talking at cross purposes, sorry. The
11 point I was trying to make, the question you were asking
12 me, would I have done this if it had been an unallocated
13 case?
14 MR SHELDON: No, I was not, that may be the cause of the
15 cross purposes.
16 MR ALMEDIA: Right.
17 MR SHELDON: I said did you often do this, make unilateral
18 decisions on a case that has been allocated to a social
19 worker and is being managed by somebody else? Did you
20 often do this?
21 MR ALMEDIA: I did not do it often, no.
22 MR SHELDON: Why did you feel it appropriate to take
23 unilateral action on this case?
24 MR ALMEDIA: Possibly, I mean I think --
25 MR SHELDON: You have got an 18 point strategy plan
65
1 currently being worked through on this case because it
2 is a Child Protection Section 47 investigation and you,
3 knowing absolutely nothing about it as it would seem,
4 apart from an odd snippet about possible hygiene issues,
5 have decided it needs to go off to the Tottenham Child
6 and Family Centre. What possible basis can you have for
7 taking that decision?
8 MR ALMEDIA: I think I did it in the context that I mean
9 I think that the general worries that Lisa was
10 displaying at that time.
11 MR SHELDON: Knowing what you do know about the case now,
12 does that seem to be a sensible thing to have done?
13 MR ALMEDIA: If I had known about the case now, no, I would
14 have approached it differently, yes.
15 MR SHELDON: You would have thought, would you, "If I want
16 to make myself useful I might implement one of the
17 18 points on the strategy plan that was agreed at the
18 meeting last week"?
19 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, I think so, I would think so.
20 MR SHELDON: Because this is a complete waste of time at
21 that stage of the investigation, is it not?
22 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
23 MR SHELDON: And if it does anything it just increases
24 confusion because the Tottenham Child and Family Centre
25 are thinking, "What on earth have we got this case for?"
66
1 if they are thinking at all.
2 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, if I had the background information
3 I would have --
4 MR SHELDON: "Here we have a child in hospital with
5 potentially serious non-accidental injuries being
6 investigated by the police and we have been asked to
7 give the mother advice on hygiene."
8 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
9 MR SHELDON: Why did you pick the Tottenham Child and Family
10 Centre in particular?
11 MR ALMEDIA: Presumably because it was the nearest one or it
12 was located near the family's address I think.
13 MR SHELDON: Have you ever heard of the Maya Angelou Centre?
14 MR ALMEDIA: I have done, yes.
15 MR SHELDON: Why did you not refer it to the Maya Angelou
16 Centre?
17 MR ALMEDIA: I think the referral was, as you point out, was
18 rather ad hoc, it was not part of an ongoing care plan
19 on my part, it was not part of a Section 47
20 investigation. I mean I rang the centre as I say really
21 on an ad hoc basis. I did not think about it.
22 MR SHELDON: The Maya Angelou Centre deals with more
23 complex, difficult cases.
24 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
25 MR SHELDON: Was it because you got the impression from the
67
1 office that this was a fairly straightforward case?
2 MR ALMEDIA: As I said earlier, I was not aware of the
3 nature of the concerns when I made the referral, serious
4 nature of the concerns and the strategy meeting and the
5 recommendations.
6 MR SHELDON: The reason this might be a significance,
7 Mr Almedia, as I am sure you appreciate, is the extent
8 to which it may have been thought by those working in
9 your team on 5th August 1999 that this was not really
10 a child protection case, this was a straightforward bad
11 hygiene case. That is the impression you got, is it
12 not?
13 MR ALMEDIA: I think that was the impression that I got,
14 yes.
15 MR SHELDON: Despite the fact the child had not even been
16 seen yet, the mother had not even been spoken to.
17 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, that is the impression I got, yes.
18 MR SHELDON: Is the Tottenham Child and Family Centre
19 a dumping ground for cases that social workers in
20 Haringey would rather not deal with themselves?
21 MR ALMEDIA: No.
22 MR SHELDON: Have a look at volume 15 page 439. If you have
23 a look back to page 427 you will see what document this
24 is, it is the Tottenham Child and Family Centre's
25 evaluation report written by a Sarah Byrnes in April
68
1 1999. If you have a look back to page 439 you will see
2 paragraph (i). Do you see that, just near the top of
3 the page?
4 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
5 MR SHELDON: About four lines down, one SSD, which is their
6 abbreviation for Social Services Team Leader, described
7 the benefit of such reference, by which they mean
8 reference to the Family Centre, in terms of:
9 "... a breathing space for Social Services whilst
10 the family was being seen and monitored by the Family
11 Centre. For the Family Centre such referrals do not
12 provide achievable goals towards which work with the
13 family concerned" -- that does not make sense. "...such
14 referrals do not provide achievable goals towards which
15 to work with the family concerned."
16 Now, did you see it as a breathing space?
17 MR ALMEDIA: No.
18 MR SHELDON: A way to get the case off your back for
19 a while?
20 MR ALMEDIA: No.
21 MR SHELDON: Not really going anywhere, at least it meant
22 you did not have to deal with it for the time being?
23 MR ALMEDIA: No.
24 MR SHELDON: You disagree with that Social Services Team
25 Leader, whoever he/she was?
69
1 MR ALMEDIA: I would strongly disagree, yes.
2 MR SHELDON: It was not you that described it like that, was
3 it?
4 MR ALMEDIA: No, it was not, no.
5 MR SHELDON: What did you see the purpose of the referrals
6 to the centre as then?
7 MR ALMEDIA: Family centres were part of the preventative
8 provision within the borough, to work with families that
9 had difficulties that were not perhaps -- not perhaps
10 severe enough to be child protection cases but could
11 presumably develop into such cases.
12 MR SHELDON: They told you they would not be able to go
13 around there for two months or so, did they not?
14 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
15 MR SHELDON: So if Victoria's accommodation was seriously
16 unhygienic and possibly posing a health risk in the form
17 of scabies or something else and if she was going to be
18 discharged in the near future, she would be in that
19 unhygienic accommodation for two months before anybody
20 even realised about it, would she not, as far as you
21 were aware?
22 MR ALMEDIA: That is a possible but I mean I would have
23 imagined that before that, if the concern -- I would
24 have imagined that if it had been established that the
25 living conditions in the environment posed an immediate
70
1 threat to Victoria then she would not have been returned
2 there or an assessment would have been expedited
3 earlier.
4 MR SHELDON: You would imagine that if it had been
5 established that conditions in the environment posed
6 a health risk. Who was going to establish that?
7 MR ALMEDIA: The allocated social worker.
8 MR SHELDON: What is the point of the Tottenham Child and
9 Family Centre doing an assessment if the allocated
10 social worker is going to be doing one much more
11 urgently?
12 MR ALMEDIA: I think because as I say the two cross -- the
13 child protection investigation, the Section 47
14 investigation I did not have specific details, I was not
15 party to the strategy meeting but I would have assumed
16 as part of the care plan, or if it went to case
17 conference or any recommendation as a result of the
18 assessment, that the Family Centre would feature as part
19 of the care plan.
20 MR SHELDON: If there were serious hygiene concerns or if
21 there were serious hygiene problems with Victoria's
22 accommodation, nothing you did on 5th August was going
23 to address those, was it? I mean if that was the aim of
24 your calls they failed, because all you got was the
25 promise that an NSPCC worker might pop round some time
71
1 two months away.
2 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, I mean there are other avenues.
3 MR SHELDON: But not explored by you?
4 MR ALMEDIA: No. As I say --
5 MR SHELDON: So if that was your aim then it failed?
6 MR ALMEDIA: As I say, I mean hopefully there would have
7 been incorporated into a care plan -- I would have liked
8 more immediate response.
9 MR SHELDON: The immediate addressing of hygiene issues in
10 relation to Victoria was not assisted by anything you
11 did on 5th August, was it?
12 MR ALMEDIA: It appears not, no.
13 MR SHELDON: When you made this referral what procedure did
14 you follow? Did you just pick the phone up --
15 MR ALMEDIA: I think I telephoned, yes.
16 MR SHELDON: Is that the way you commonly refer cases to the
17 centre?
18 MR ALMEDIA: I think there are different -- there are ways,
19 yes. The referrals to the centre either went through
20 the Panel or through direct referral from the district
21 or through self referrals).
22 MR SHELDON: You knew there was a panel?
23 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
24 MR SHELDON: Could you have volume 26B/18.510. Turn back to
25 page 509. You can see this is minutes of a meeting
72
1 between Una Fisher, M Bakht, M Graham and Dawn Cardis on
2 12th February 1999. Number 2 on that page, "Referral
3 Process". Do you see that heading?
4 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
5 MR SHELDON: "NSPCC concern has been around what specific
6 work focus is being requested at time of referral.
7 Often information required is incomplete."
8 That certainly applies to this case, does it not?
9 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
10 MR SHELDON: Then, we have a diagram as to what the referral
11 process ought to look like.
12 "Referral process should now look like social
13 workers submit referral to Panel, process and agree the
14 Panel. This will be followed up by a TP discussion,
15 case allocated at Maya Angelou Centre and then referral
16 meeting".
17 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, I see the diagram.
18 MR SHELDON: That seems to indicate that all referrals
19 should go via the Panel, does it not?
20 MR ALMEDIA: It seems to indicate that, yes.
21 MR SHELDON: Over the page:
22 "The only exception to that procedure outlined over
23 the page is if it is an emergency urgent referral and it
24 needs to be agreed before it can be presented to the
25 Panel. This will usually be immediate response to court
73
1 directives."
2 That is not this case, is it?
3 MR ALMEDIA: No, that is not this case.
4 MR SHELDON: Then two bullet points further down:
5 "Social Services advise that the NSPCC should not
6 accept any work unless agreed at the Panel."
7 So as far as the NSPCC were concerned they should
8 not have accepted this referral, should they? Firstly
9 you should not have made it and secondly they should not
10 have accepted it?
11 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, if these, if this was the agreement
12 on February 1999.
13 MR SHELDON: You had no idea about this presumably?
14 MR ALMEDIA: No, I did not know.
15 MR SHELDON: That is slightly surprising when one looks at
16 the last bullet point before you get to heading
17 number 3:
18 "It is Social Services' view that as the Panel has
19 been in existence some time their staff are fully aware
20 of the referral process. NSPCC's experience is
21 otherwise."
22 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
23 MR SHELDON: You were not one of those staff that were fully
24 aware of the referral process, were you?
25 MR ALMEDIA: No, I think there was confusion about referrals
74
1 to the Panel. The centre did accept telephone reference
2 from the district, I mean as this is the case with the
3 referral that I made, but whether the protocols were
4 followed rigidly, it seems that they were not.
5 MR SHELDON: Were you aware of any guidance or procedure
6 that meant that you had to refer cases to the Maya
7 Angelou Centre in a different way to the Tottenham Child
8 and Family Centre?
9 MR ALMEDIA: Not of the top of my head, no.
10 MR SHELDON: The procedures in relation to both centres as
11 far as you were aware were the same, were they?
12 MR ALMEDIA: As far as I recollect, yes. I am not sure.
13 Yes, as far as I recollect they were.
14 MR SHELDON: We will have to ask Dawn Cardis whether this
15 was supposed to apply to the Maya Angelou Centre and the
16 Tottenham Child and Family Centre but what is clear is
17 that even if it only refers to the Maya Angelou Centre
18 you did not know this was the procedure.
19 MR ALMEDIA: No, I have referred cases through the Panel to
20 the NSPCC.
21 MR SHELDON: But it was your view, was it, that in relation
22 to both centres you could just pick up the phone and
23 refer cases as well if that was regarded by you as being
24 appropriate?
25 MR ALMEDIA: I think in practice references were accepted
75
1 directly from the district, despite the procedure.
2 MR SHELDON: Was there any mechanism for finding out -- to
3 enable social workers to find out how cases that had
4 been referred to the Tottenham Child and Family Centre
5 were being dealt with? Did you monitor what happened to
6 them after they were referred by you?
7 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, I think -- I mean I think the cases were
8 reviewed. If it was an allocated case it would
9 certainly be. The Family Centre would have provided
10 information about the role they were playing and
11 involved the social worker in any implementation of any
12 activity that they were doing.
13 MR SHELDON: Would they do that commonly in the ordinary
14 course of events? Would they keep the social worker
15 up-to-date?
16 MR ALMEDIA: In the ordinary course of events they would
17 keep -- the Family Centre were always very keen that
18 social workers be involved in cases, yes.
19 MR SHELDON: So the fact that the Tottenham Child and Family
20 Centre had done nothing on this case by the time
21 Victoria died so a good six or seven months after you
22 made the referral, that would be unusual, would it?
23 MR ALMEDIA: I would have thought it would be unusual, yes.
24 I would have thought so, yes.
25 MR SHELDON: You know that Victoria was not attending
76
1 a school because you wrote that in your note on the
2 file. Is that a matter that you thought might be
3 significant?
4 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, I noted it, yes.
5 MR SHELDON: Did you propose to do anything about it?
6 MR ALMEDIA: No. As I say, I mean I got some of the
7 information wrong. I thought that they had only been in
8 the country for two months, I think I say in the
9 referral to the Family Centre.
10 MR SHELDON: Did you want to satisfy yourself that
11 Lisa Arthurworrey had that matter in hand?
12 MR ALMEDIA: I assumed, I must admit I assumed those matters
13 were in hand, yes.
14 MR SHELDON: You did no supervision on this case, did you,
15 let us be clear about that.
16 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
17 MR SHELDON: Why not?
18 MR ALMEDIA: Carole was already supervising Lisa.
19 MR SHELDON: On any view I suggest to you that the
20 information that you gave to the Moira Close centre was
21 wholly inadequate, was it not?
22 MR ALMEDIA: With hindsight, yes, it was.
23 MR SHELDON: It did not give them an accurate picture --
24 MR ALMEDIA: No.
25 MR SHELDON: -- at all of what was going on with this case?
77
1 MR ALMEDIA: No, it did not, no.
2 MR SHELDON: And that is your fault, is it not? You could
3 have found out but you did not?
4 MR ALMEDIA: No, I do not think it was my fault.
5 MR SHELDON: Whose fault is it?
6 MR ALMEDIA: I mean I did refer, as I recollect I gave the
7 name of the allocated social worker and assumed that
8 they would -- or recommended a day. I made it clear
9 I think I was ringing clearly in a Duty capacity,
10 ringing from Duty.
11 MR SHELDON: It is clear from what we know now that this is
12 a referral which should not have been made at that
13 point, it was premature, did not fit in with the
14 strategy and had absolutely no bearing on what needed to
15 be done urgently on the case at the time.
16 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, if I had had the full facts of the case
17 then yes.
18 MR SHELDON: You would not have made it?
19 MR ALMEDIA: No.
20 MR SHELDON: What was stopping you getting the full facts of
21 the case? File in the room with you, social worker in
22 the room with you.
23 MR ALMEDIA: The time that I had -- at the time I discussed
24 the case which apparently was quite -- there was quite
25 a lot of information. I knew that as I say, I mean the
78
1 case was already being case supervised. I focused
2 specifically on one particular aspect of the case.
3 I assumed that the other matters would be dealt with in
4 the normal course with Section 47 investigation.
5 I thought the Family Centre could be incorporated into
6 the care plan. I did not -- I was not -- I did not have
7 the full picture. It was not a full picture.
8 MR SHELDON: It is also right, is it not, that the role that
9 you appear to have taken on for yourself at this stage,
10 which was to get some sort of hygiene assessment done,
11 the way you put it in your statement, "immediately" in
12 respect of Victoria, you failed to do that, did you not,
13 because there was nothing going to be done about this
14 for two months or so?
15 MR ALMEDIA: That was the -- I think that is what the Family
16 Centre replied, yes, but I must point out I think I only
17 spoke to the Duty clerk. I do not think I spoke to any
18 of the qualified staff or the manager.
19 MR SHELDON: You mean in the Social Services offices?
20 MR ALMEDIA: In the Family Centre.
21 MR SHELDON: Just a couple of minor points to finish. Were
22 you making these calls in the first place because you
23 could see how busy Lisa Arthurworrey was at the time
24 with all the other things she had to do? Is that what
25 you were doing, do you think?
79
1 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, I think so, yes.
2 MR SHELDON: Just helping her out because she was rushed off
3 her feet and you thought, "I will help out by making
4 a few quick calls for her"?
5 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, and because Carole was not available, yes.
6 MR SHELDON: Was she often that busy that --
7 MR ALMEDIA: I think she was, yes.
8 MR SHELDON: We have heard evidence to the effect that she
9 had up to 19 cases open at any given time in the second
10 half of 1999. In your experience how demanding is it
11 for a social worker to have 19 cases open at once?
12 MR ALMEDIA: Well, I mean, the recommendation was 10 to 12
13 cases.
14 MR SHELDON: So getting on for double the recommendation.
15 What sort of effect is that likely to have on a social
16 worker?
17 MR ALMEDIA: It would have a tremendous effect.
18 MR SHELDON: It would be a crushing workload, would it not?
19 MR ALMEDIA: It would be, yes.
20 MR SHELDON: Were you aware that Lisa Arthurworrey was
21 labouring under a crushing workload in late 1999?
22 MR ALMEDIA: I am not sure that -- I am not sure that I knew
23 specifically how many cases she had.
24 MR SHELDON: As far as your supervision by Carole Baptiste
25 is concerned, as a senior practitioner and an
80
1 experienced social worker, would you agree that it is
2 likely you would not need as much supervision as a less
3 experienced social worker?
4 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, it depends. I mean obviously, in my
5 managerial capacity then at that stage I was not
6 supervising social workers but in terms of the work that
7 I was doing which was I think I had cases which were
8 basically not managerial, they were not particularly
9 managerial cases, they were --
10 MR SHELDON: So if Carole Baptiste's lack of availability
11 was a problem for you, it would be a very serious
12 problem for a social worker with very little experience?
13 MR ALMEDIA: Yes I think so.
14 MR SHELDON: Who needed much more supervision?
15 MR ALMEDIA: I think so, yes.
16 MR SHELDON: Finally, could you have a look at volume 28A
17 page 169. That is a memorandum to Mary Richardson from
18 senior practitioners and team managers dated 7th July
19 1999. It says that:
20 "We are writing to express our dismay and distress
21 at the proposals that are being made to restructure this
22 department."
23 You earlier referred to a memo that had been sent to
24 senior management about the restructuring process and
25 with which you were involved. Is that the memo?
81
1 MR ALMEDIA: I see my name here, yes, I think it is the
2 memo, yes.
3 MR SHELDON: Just glance through it and make sure that there
4 is nothing in that memo, and it may be that it was aimed
5 at an entirely different purpose but there is nothing in
6 that memo about overwork, is there?
7 MR ALMEDIA: I think it is for different purposes, is it
8 not?
9 MR SHELDON: Was anything satisfactory done in response to
10 that memo?
11 MR ALMEDIA: I think we met with Mary Richardson but
12 I cannot remember the exact dates, or Mary Richardson
13 came to see us. I am not sure.
14 MR SHELDON: Do you remember what the outcome of that
15 meeting was?
16 MR ALMEDIA: I think the outcome was that -- I am not sure
17 whether they revised the issues about practice managers.
18 I cannot remember.
19 MR SHELDON: Thank you very much.
20 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Mr Sheldon.
21 Miss Lawson I hope you agree it would be to the
22 advantage of us all if we have a short break and we will
23 get back at five past 12. Mr Almedia, do not discuss
24 your evidence with anyone during this break.
25 (11.55 am)
82
1 (A short break)
2 (12.05 pm)
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Miss Lawson, please.
4 MISS LAWSON: Mr Almedia has been asked a number of matters
5 which were outside the range of his statement when
6 I gave my estimate about how long I was likely to be in
7 re-examination, and because there is actually quite a
8 lot of contemporary material which bears on what he said
9 it seemed to me that the Panel might be assisted by
10 looking at that now so that the precise information
11 about when things were happening and in what context,
12 that it would actually assist rather than the opposite,
13 but if that is not the case then I will not bother.
14 THE CHAIRMAN: No, I am always glad to have assistance,
15 especially in these circumstances. Was the implication
16 of that that you would like more than 30 minutes?
17 MISS LAWSON: We will see how we go. It may take a bit
18 longer, I am not sure. See how we get on. Could the
19 witness have volume 28A?
20 Mr Almedia, you were being asked about staffing
21 levels in the North Tottenham District Office. I would
22 like you to look at page 163 in that bundle. If you go
23 forward to page 167 we find the date of this document
24 which was prepared by Dave Duncan as 17th May 1999. Do
25 you have that?
83
1 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
2 MISS LAWSON: If you go back to the first page, the context
3 for this if I can just explain it is that in the light
4 of some Quality Protects funding there was the
5 possibility of additional posts being added to the
6 numbers and so what Mr Duncan has done is to set out the
7 existing staffing levels between east, which is the
8 North Tottenham District Office, and west which is
9 Hornsey. Do you see that?
10 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
11 MISS LAWSON: And to deal with not only the numbers of staff
12 but the number of referrals, assessments, unallocated
13 cases, allocated cases and so on. Do you see that?
14 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
15 MISS LAWSON: And he is highlighting there the disparity
16 which existed between east and west but it certainly
17 seems to show what the numbers were in North Tottenham
18 in May 1999 and he does not seem in that document to be
19 highlighting or claiming that there was significant
20 understaffing in the North Tottenham District Office at
21 the time. I mean, there is not a lot about unfilled
22 posts in there for example.
23 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
24 MISS LAWSON: Can you stay in the same document please,
25 because I would like to move on to deal with the
84
1 problems that you have described as being caused by the
2 restructuring which took place also during the summer of
3 1999. Can we just put it into context. If you go
4 forward in bundle 28A to page 178.506, that is a letter
5 dated 16th June from Carol Wilson, Assistant Director to
6 Mr Lewington, the UNISON representative, starting the
7 consultation process with UNISON in relation to the
8 restructuring.
9 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
10 MISS LAWSON: And at that stage it was about team leaders.
11 If you go over the page you find the detailed proposals
12 set out in the following pages. This is about the
13 restructuring in relation to team leaders. If you go
14 forward in the bundle to page 537 you find -- 28A,
15 178.537 -- this is a memorandum dated 25th June 1999
16 from Dave Duncan to the various individuals within the
17 team including you.
18 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
19 MISS LAWSON: Do you remember seeing that memo?
20 MR ALMEDIA: Whether I remember seeing the memo, no.
21 MISS LAWSON: Do you remember the events which are referred
22 to in there and in particular the meeting on 23rd June
23 when Tina Kamilaris came and discussed the restructuring
24 with the North Tottenham District Office?
25 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
85
1 MISS LAWSON: And it was at that stage that for the first
2 time according to Mr Duncan the team learned that this
3 process was going to extend to senior practitioners?
4 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
5 MISS LAWSON: As you were a senior practitioner, would we be
6 right in thinking that that had some significance as far
7 as you were concerned?
8 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, I think it would have.
9 MISS LAWSON: And if you go to page 178.516, which I think
10 is the memo you were asked to look at earlier on -- no,
11 it is a different one. If you go to 28A/178.516, a memo
12 from all staff at the North Tottenham District Office to
13 Mary Richardson with copies to other individuals.
14 MR ALMEDIA: That is correct.
15 MISS LAWSON: Now, do you remember that memorandum or what
16 the concerns that gave rise to it were?
17 MR ALMEDIA: I think I said earlier that I do remember
18 various memos being written, yes, at this time.
19 MISS LAWSON: There we have the one that was written on
20 24th June and if you go back to the one that we were
21 looking at a moment ago, which is 537, you see there in
22 the fourth paragraph that there was to be a management
23 meeting on Wednesday 30th June to discuss this.
24 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
25 MISS LAWSON: Do you know whether that meeting went ahead or
86
1 not?
2 MR ALMEDIA: I cannot remember whether it did or did not.
3 MISS LAWSON: Then if we go back in the bundle to the memo
4 you looked at which is the next one in the sequence
5 which is the one at page 28A/169, that is the memorandum
6 from the senior practitioners and team managers dated
7 7th July, which is the one that you were asked to look
8 at earlier in your evidence.
9 MR ALMEDIA: That is right.
10 MISS LAWSON: Now, is it your recollection that following on
11 from that there was a meeting with --
12 MR ALMEDIA: I think my recollection is that I think there
13 probably was a meeting with Mary Richardson.
14 MISS LAWSON: Could it have been with Carol Wilson?
15 MR ALMEDIA: Or with Carol Wilson. Certainly one of the
16 higher managers.
17 MISS LAWSON: If we go back to 28A/178.501, this is the
18 UNISON response to Carol Wilson about the restructuring
19 and he goes into some detail about the concerns that
20 people were said to have about the way in which the
21 matter was dealt with.
22 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
23 MISS LAWSON: Now, if you go to page 503, do you have that?
24 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
25 MISS LAWSON: .503, you see that the first main heading he
87
1 deals with as one of the areas of difficulty is the --
2 one of the areas about which he expresses concern is
3 communication and that he says that in the second
4 sentence, again addressed to the Assistant Director:
5 "I accept that you had specified that this should be
6 briefed down through line management. However, this
7 clearly did not happen in the way that it should have
8 done."
9 But it is right, is it not, that as far as the North
10 Tottenham District Office is concerned you had regular
11 weekly meetings to discuss a number of matters; is that
12 right?
13 MR ALMEDIA: I think we did have meetings, yes.
14 MISS LAWSON: Yes. We have the minutes of some of them in
15 our bundle and I can take you to them if you wish.
16 MR ALMEDIA: That is right.
17 MISS LAWSON: They do show that during this period there was
18 indeed discussion at that level between you about these
19 proposals. Do you remember any of that?
20 MR ALMEDIA: I do recollect meetings and briefings at
21 meetings, yes.
22 MISS LAWSON: Then if you go to page .527 please we find
23 there a memorandum from Carol Wilson, again to the same
24 group of people, the people who had been consulted,
25 about the restructuring of the teams. Again do you
88
1 remember seeing this at the time or not?
2 MR ALMEDIA: I believe I might well have seen it.
3 MISS LAWSON: Can you help us, if you go to page 528, middle
4 of the page:
5 "Senior practitioners/deputies taking on board
6 consultation comments. I am changing my proposal to
7 appoint a senior practitioner and deputy in each team
8 and replacing them with a unified post of practice
9 manager."
10 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, I see that.
11 MISS LAWSON: Do you remember any of that discussion or not.
12 MR ALMEDIA: I remember, yes, there were discussions about
13 the changing of, the changing role of the senior
14 practitioner.
15 MISS LAWSON: If you go to page .538 we again find the
16 response of the North Tottenham District Office managers
17 to that proposal and the suggestion that there should be
18 a meeting to discuss it.
19 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, I see that, yes.
20 MISS LAWSON: Now, there was then, it would appear, some
21 concern about the effect of that. You have told us, as
22 others have, about the effect first of all on the team
23 leaders of having to compete for these new jobs. You
24 were not too sure exactly what period that was earlier
25 in your evidence. Would you go to page 178.528 in this
89
1 bundle please. If you go to the third paragraph up from
2 the bottom, the second paragraph under the heading "Team
3 Managers", we see a reference to the interviews started
4 in the week beginning 20th September. So that seems
5 a reasonable basis, does it not, to fix when the
6 interviews were actually starting?
7 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
8 MISS LAWSON: Meanwhile, if we could come back to the
9 position of the senior practitioners, could you go to
10 page .539, please. This is a memo from the senior
11 practitioners in your office. Again, were you a party
12 to this?
13 MR ALMEDIA: I think I was a party to that, yes.
14 MISS LAWSON: This was particularly concerning the job
15 description?
16 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
17 MISS LAWSON: And quite what the implications of that would
18 be for those who took up these posts. Do you see that?
19 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
20 MISS LAWSON: And that matter appears finally to have been
21 resolved following a further memo from the senior
22 practitioners to Carol Wilson which we find at page 542.
23 This is her response to your concerns, I beg your
24 pardon. So she, putting it briefly, has looked at and
25 responded to a number of your specific concerns about
90
1 the post and if you go forward to page 546,
2 Dave Duncan's memo again to members of the team,
3 including you, to deal with the tasks that might be
4 allocated to senior practitioners, or practice managers
5 as they would then become, and that continues over the
6 page showing various jobs and duties which might be
7 covered by it.
8 It was shortly thereafter, at the end of that month,
9 that the vacancies at that level were advertised, or
10 were due to be advertised but in fact there were not
11 interviews and so on at the end, were there? The senior
12 practitioners became practice managers under the new
13 arrangements?
14 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, that is right.
15 MISS LAWSON: I have asked you something about the staffing
16 levels. I would like to bring you back to what you were
17 being asked about before in relation to the staffing
18 situation. You will remember I think that you were
19 asked to look at a particular briefing from Mr Meehan
20 about the situation following Victoria's death. I would
21 like to ask you, if you would, to look at bundle 28
22 page 187. You were referred earlier in your evidence to
23 the fact that some work was done to establish why people
24 were leaving.
25 If you see this document which is headed "A leader's
91
1 briefing about social work vacancies and recruitment
2 problems", that sets out the background to why the
3 service as a whole during the previous 12 months -- and
4 it is dated 20th January 2000 -- had had recruitment
5 problems and those contributory factors are set out. If
6 you go to the top of page 188, Paragraph 3.1, where it
7 says 23 social work staff have left children's services
8 since the beginning of December and more resignations
9 are expected, that the vacancies are mainly in front
10 line teams and in residential social work where pressure
11 and stress is highest, and so on. It goes on to
12 describe the results of the exit interviews from the
13 staff who were leaving, as to what their reasons were
14 for going elsewhere. Do you see that?
15 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
16 MISS LAWSON: If on the basis of that I was to suggest to
17 you that in fact the people leaving was a problem,
18 a greater problem from December 1999 onwards than it had
19 been earlier in the year, is that something you feel
20 that you could accept or not?
21 MR ALMEDIA: In terms of what the document says, yes it
22 clearly says it is the beginning of December.
23 MISS LAWSON: And it is right, is it not, that whilst it is
24 not quite as rigid as something like teaching, it does
25 tend to be the situation that social work jobs are
92
1 advertised at particular times of year and people apply
2 for them and there are periods when there is a lot of
3 recruitment and then periods when people do not just
4 tend to turn up at a steady stream?
5 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, there are definite periods of the year
6 where social workers are available.
7 MISS LAWSON: For the sake of completeness, the response to
8 that, those concerns highlighted in that leader's
9 briefing, are to be found in volume 28, page 375. It
10 might be helpful to keep the matters together.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
12 MISS LAWSON: I would like to ask you about another matter,
13 Mr Almedia. You were asked a number of questions about
14 Carole Baptiste's failure to supervise her staff, or
15 failure to do so adequately. Can I ask you please to go
16 to bundle 29, page 52. These are the minutes of
17 a meeting on 5th July 1999 to discuss the matters in
18 relation to Carole Baptiste's supervision. Again, are
19 we right in assuming that the Barry who is said to be
20 present is you?
21 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, that is me.
22 MISS LAWSON: So the matters which were apparently raised at
23 that meeting, which is described as difficult, were
24 first of all specifically to Carole being part-time. Do
25 you have that?
93
1 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
2 MISS LAWSON: Under B, "Lack of management availability and
3 supervision" --
4 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
5 MISS LAWSON: -- related specifically to Carole being
6 part-time. So you were asked earlier on what period it
7 was you thought that Carole was working part-time.
8 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
9 MISS LAWSON: If I suggested to you from this that it looks
10 as though that was still a problem by Monday 5th July?
11 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
12 MISS LAWSON: When she was working part-time how many days
13 a week was she supposed to be working?
14 MR ALMEDIA: If it is two and a half days, I think it is two
15 and a half days.
16 MISS LAWSON: She was supposed to be in the office two and
17 a half days. Was she supposed to work set days do you
18 remember, or did she, providing she did two and a half
19 days?
20 MR ALMEDIA: I think providing she did two and a half days.
21 MISS LAWSON: So that presumably also contributed to the
22 uncertainty. So were any arrangements put in place to
23 provide supervision for the social workers in her team
24 to cover the period when she was not in or was she
25 expected to do the supervision during the two and a half
94
1 days that she was in?
2 MR ALMEDIA: I think the expectation was that she would do
3 supervision, she would timetable her supervision to
4 coincide with her attendance at the office.
5 MISS LAWSON: Does it follow from that that there was no
6 discussion with you or any expectation that you would
7 provide supervision in a formal sense to the junior
8 members, to the social workers in your team during the
9 period that she was only working part-time?
10 MR ALMEDIA: Not to my recollection. I think my
11 recollection is that Angella agreed to cover her -- any
12 major shortfall in or unavailability of Carole.
13 MISS LAWSON: So is this then correct, that the arrangement
14 was that during the time when Carole was not available,
15 Angella Mairs would provide the supervision?
16 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, I think that was the formal arrangement.
17 Whether in specific cases I was asked to do it I cannot
18 recollect. I cannot recollect specifically any time
19 when I was asked to stand in for Carole but it may have
20 been possible that I did that at some stage but I think
21 the expectation was certainly that the two managers
22 would discuss supervision arrangements between
23 themselves.
24 MISS LAWSON: When you say the two managers do you mean
25 Carole Baptiste and Angella Mairs?
95
1 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
2 MISS LAWSON: They would discuss the arrangements between
3 themselves was your understanding?
4 MR ALMEDIA: That is what I understand, yes.
5 MISS LAWSON: If you go back to the minutes of this meeting,
6 we have that first problem being compounded by the
7 uncertainty as to when Carole would next be in the
8 office and that workers felt that Carole did not know
9 her cases, and as a consequence care planning might have
10 suffered. Was that something that you were aware of
11 before this meeting on 5th July?
12 MR ALMEDIA: I was aware of some of the issues, yes.
13 MISS LAWSON: It deals also with her physical separation
14 from the team and the allocation system within the front
15 line was flawed. That was another matter that you had
16 been asked about that was raised at that meeting.
17 MR ALMEDIA: That is correct.
18 MISS LAWSON: If you go over the page, we see that Carole
19 was at this time apparently now back full-time.
20 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
21 MISS LAWSON: And that it was thought that this would remedy
22 many of the concerns that had been raised?
23 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, that was certainly the gist of what is
24 said here.
25 MISS LAWSON: If we go on we see that is really the basis
96
1 upon which it is hoped things will get better in
2 relation to supervision and the workers were rather
3 confirming what you said, acknowledging the availability
4 of Angella during this difficult time.
5 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
6 MISS LAWSON: But that that was really to respond to
7 immediate issues rather than assist in long-term case
8 planning.
9 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, it says that there.
10 MISS LAWSON: So up until that point it looks as though it
11 was hoped when she returned to work full-time the
12 situation would improve.
13 MR ALMEDIA: Yes, that was the gist of it.
14 MISS LAWSON: I appreciate it is not always easy to think
15 about time scales after this length of time but dealing
16 with the period when Carole did return to work
17 full-time, were you aware then of continuing problems or
18 did it seem to you that the situation had got better?
19 MR ALMEDIA: I think I was aware there were continuing
20 problems.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: We said that we would review things. Could
22 you give me a time estimate?
23 MISS LAWSON: I think I am nearly there.
24 THE CHAIRMAN: Five minutes, something of that kind?
25 MISS LAWSON: I think so.
97
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Let us be precise.
2 MISS LAWSON: A quarter to one.
3 THE CHAIRMAN: Your relating of five minutes on the clock
4 and my relating of five minutes is slightly different.
5 MISS LAWSON: I thought we were in a bid.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: The bid has gone to five minutes.
7 MISS LAWSON: All right, five minutes.
8 One final point then Mr Almedia, please. You were
9 asked about the situation when you were away doing your
10 course. Do you remember about that?
11 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
12 MISS LAWSON: About the fact that you were as you have told
13 us, simply -- you were being asked about what it meant
14 when you said you had casework responsibilities but not
15 others. Could you help me about this? Could you have
16 volume 29 page 15. Now, Mr Almedia, I am not sure
17 whether you will say that this is a complete record of
18 your training during this period but if we look down the
19 list on page 15, we see three up from the bottom the NVQ
20 management 3/4. Do you have that?
21 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
22 MISS LAWSON: And the event is described as taking place on
23 the 8th of 1999, or at least that is when it -- it does
24 not make any sense, does it?
25 MR ALMEDIA: No.
98
1 MISS LAWSON: It cannot possibly be the 8th of 1999 when it
2 was approved, or I suppose it could. It could have been
3 approved after you attended it I suppose, but looking at
4 most of the others, they do seem to get approved in
5 advance. But at all events, if we go to the attended,
6 you attended there on 21st February. We see you then
7 attending 21st April, 20th May, and then again in
8 7th September, 15th October, 22nd November, and just
9 looking at that it looks as though your actual
10 attendance at that course was roughly monthly intervals,
11 or was that not the pattern? Perhaps could you tell us.
12 MR ALMEDIA: I think the actual taught part of the course
13 was as you have described but obviously the -- it was
14 mainly a self directed course so that the material was
15 very substantially greater than that.
16 MISS LAWSON: So were you having time off to deal with it or
17 was it simply a recognition that --
18 MR ALMEDIA: It was a recognition that it involved quite
19 a lot of study and research in my time outside my 9 to 5
20 job.
21 MISS LAWSON: I have made the fatal mistake of saying
22 "finally." You were being asked about the referrals to
23 the Family Centre and the extent to which they went
24 through the Panel. Can I ask you just to confirm, as
25 far as child protection referrals were concerned, to the
99
1 NSPCC Family Centre, do you know whether they had to go
2 through the Panel?
3 MR ALMEDIA: They had to go through the Panel.
4 MISS LAWSON: So child protection ones had to go through the
5 Panel?
6 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
7 MISS LAWSON: What about ones that were not child
8 protection?
9 MR ALMEDIA: The practice was that they were taken by the
10 district, from the district, from the Family Centre,
11 though I understand from the protocol that was shown to
12 me that it should all have gone through the Panel and
13 I think there was a bit of -- it was not sometimes clear
14 between the district.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you. Miss Lawson you mentioned in
16 28/188 the exit interviews with staff that were leaving.
17 Do you recall, 188?
18 MISS LAWSON: Yes, summarised in 28/188.
19 THE CHAIRMAN: I do not know whether you can help. Do you
20 know whether or not we have those exit interviews, and
21 if not I think it would be interesting for us to see
22 them.
23 MISS LAWSON: The answer is no I do not know and if they are
24 interesting I am sure we will attempt to find them.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: You will help us get them. Thank you.
100
1 Mr Almedia, in the light of your evidence I have
2 decided that it is unlikely any further questions from
3 me will be of any assistance to the Inquiry. Thank you
4 very much.
5 MR SHELDON: There is one final matter possibly for the sake
6 of completeness I should put briefly to Mr Almedia
7 relating to staffing levels and touched on by
8 Miss Lawson.
9 Mr Almedia, if you could have volume 26B put in
10 front of you, page 231. Do you remember Miss Lawson
11 putting to you the suggestion that the problem with
12 people leaving the team -- do not look at the document
13 yet, I have not asked the question -- do you remember
14 Miss Lawson putting to you the suggestion that people
15 leaving the team was a greater problem from December
16 1999 onwards than it had been previously?
17 MR ALMEDIA: I remember her saying that.
18 MR SHELDON: And you remember that was something in the
19 light of that document you felt you were able to accept,
20 yes?
21 MR ALMEDIA: Yes.
22 MR SHELDON: Have a look at 231, which is the minutes of
23 North Tottenham District Management Team, Wednesday
24 14th July 1999, and just flick over to page 233.
25 Item 9:
|
