|
Archived Transcript for 30 November 2001:
Pages 101 to 150
101
1 assessment before the child could be discharged from
2 hospital.
3 MR GARNHAM: Did you make any enquiries about how long the
4 child was likely to stay in hospital?
5 MS KOZINOS: No, but one of the recommendations was that --
6 when the child was ready for discharge, the hospital,
7 the social services would be informed.
8 MR GARNHAM: I am interested in why you did not take steps
9 simply to preserve the status quo, keep the child safe
10 in hospital and adjourn the strategy meeting to the
11 hospital.
12 MS KOZINOS: What, on that day?
13 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
14 MS KOZINOS: I do not think that -- I think that would have
15 been a bit hard to arrange.
16 MR GARNHAM: Did you try?
17 MS KOZINOS: No, because it was agreed that everyone at the
18 strategy meeting would proceed.
19 MR GARNHAM: Agreed by the hospital staff?
20 MS KOZINOS: By the hospital social worker who was at the
21 meeting.
22 MR GARNHAM: What about the doctors and nurses?
23 MS KOZINOS: No, I said it was agreed by the people present
24 at the strategy meeting.
25 MR GARNHAM: But the trouble with holding this strategy
102
1 meeting at your offices is that the doctors and nurses
2 are not there.
3 MS KOZINOS: I agree.
4 MR GARNHAM: And given that this is a child who has been
5 admitted and is being cared for in hospital they might
6 have something valuable to say.
7 MS KOZINOS: That is right and that is why my
8 recommendations actually refer to them and ask for their
9 concerns and also their --
10 MR GARNHAM: That does not deal entirely with the problem,
11 does it, because you want their input, do you not, to
12 the conduct of the strategy meeting?
13 MS KOZINOS: Or, no, because the strategy meeting could also
14 make recommendations in obtaining that information.
15 MR GARNHAM: It could.
16 MS KOZINOS: It is a joint decision how we proceed that with
17 that information.
18 MR GARNHAM: Normally you would expect, would you not, the
19 doctors or nurses to attend the strategy meeting of
20 a child in hospital?
21 MS KOZINOS: It is not my experience of the ones I have
22 attended that nurses necessarily --
23 MR GARNHAM: Do you not regard that as consistent with the
24 spirit of agencies working together in child protection
25 cases that you get the doctors who have the care of the
103
1 child to be involved?
2 MS KOZINOS: Yes, but what I am saying it does not always
3 happen.
4 MR GARNHAM: What efforts did you take to ensure that
5 medical staff were involved in this strategy meeting?
6 MS KOZINOS: By making decisions that ensured that their
7 concerns and information was obtained.
8 MR GARNHAM: But that does not get them involved in the
9 strategy meeting.
10 MS KOZINOS: No.
11 MR GARNHAM: What efforts did you make?
12 MS KOZINOS: None. I had to chair it and it started and my
13 understanding was that the hospital social worker was
14 representing the hospital.
15 MR GARNHAM: You knew, did you, that the hospital social
16 worker was going to attend and you knew she was supposed
17 to bring documentation with her?
18 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
19 MR GARNHAM: The real reason that you did not want to
20 adjourn this strategy meeting was because that would be
21 inconvenient for police and social workers.
22 MS KOZINOS: I do not know if it would have been
23 inconvenient. I did not know their commitments that
24 day.
25 MR GARNHAM: Did you enquire?
104
1 MS KOZINOS: I think it would have been difficult to
2 rearrange it.
3 MR GARNHAM: Did you enquire?
4 MS KOZINOS: I think we did have some form of discussion and
5 we decided to proceed.
6 MR GARNHAM: Is that noted in the record of the strategy
7 meeting?
8 MS KOZINOS: No, but like I said the strategy meeting is not
9 a verbatim account of discussions held at the meetings.
10 MR GARNHAM: You do not regard a decision taken after
11 a discussion to proceed in a venue other than that
12 provided for by your guidelines as being the sort of
13 thing that should be noted?
14 MS KOZINOS: I did not at the time.
15 MR GARNHAM: There were difficulties with ensuring police
16 attendance at strategy meetings?
17 MS KOZINOS: Yes, there was.
18 MR GARNHAM: What was the nature of that difficulty?
19 MS KOZINOS: From what I can remember with my conversations
20 with Mick Cooper-Bland at the time they had vacancies or
21 quite a few officers were on maternity leave and their
22 posts were not covered.
23 MR GARNHAM: So you had to stack up strategy meetings one
24 after the other?
25 MS KOZINOS: Yes, it has been known.
105
1 MR GARNHAM: Is that not the reason why this was not
2 adjourned to the hospital?
3 MS KOZINOS: No, because there was not one after it.
4 MR GARNHAM: But you had managed to get a Police Child
5 Protection Team officer namely Police Constable Jones
6 present at that office for an earlier strategy meeting
7 and it was convenient for her to stay on and do the next
8 one?
9 MS KOZINOS: I did not get her, it was prearranged with the
10 previous senior practitioner.
11 MR GARNHAM: But it was convenient if she stayed on to do
12 the next one as well?
13 MS KOZINOS: I assume because she was there.
14 MR GARNHAM: You say that in theory strategy meetings were
15 to be chaired by team managers but in reality they had
16 been chaired by senior practitioners.
17 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
18 MR GARNHAM: When you say in theory do you mean that is what
19 the Haringey procedures provided for?
20 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
21 MR GARNHAM: So a second respect in which this strategy
22 meeting was conducted contrary to those guidelines?
23 MS KOZINOS: Yes, it was common practice at the time for
24 senior practitioners to chair strategy meetings.
25 MR GARNHAM: Common practice and approved by senior
106
1 managers?
2 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: Who?
4 MS KOZINOS: It was embedded a long time before I came, when
5 I started my post, it was senior practitioners were
6 chairing strategy meetings.
7 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever query these breaches of Haringey's
8 own Child Protection Guidelines with your managers?
9 MS KOZINOS: No, it was common practice at the time.
10 MR GARNHAM: And that makes it okay, does it?
11 MS KOZINOS: No, it does not make it okay. I am just trying
12 to explain to you.
13 MR GARNHAM: Why did you not query it with your managers?
14 MS KOZINOS: I did not because it must have been the
15 managers who approved it.
16 MR GARNHAM: I see.
17 MS KOZINOS: I do not know.
18 MR GARNHAM: You were to chair the meeting?
19 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
20 MR GARNHAM: Who was to be the note-taker?
21 MS KOZINOS: Normally what happens is the social worker
22 fills up the strategy meeting form until --
23 MR GARNHAM: 06.
24 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: The social worker fills in which pages? You
107
1 tell us.
2 MS KOZINOS: Up to 06. Sorry.
3 MR GARNHAM: We are in volume 06.
4 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: The page numbers follow. They begin at 91. So
6 beginning with 91 which pages does the social worker
7 fill in?
8 MS KOZINOS: The first few she should fill in, up to --
9 MR GARNHAM: 91?
10 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
11 MR GARNHAM: 92?
12 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
13 MR GARNHAM: 93?
14 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
15 MR GARNHAM: And what about 94?
16 MS KOZINOS: No.
17 MR GARNHAM: So she had filled in 91, 92 and 93 in advance,
18 had she?
19 MS KOZINOS: Yes, but I had also added things on.
20 MR GARNHAM: She had filled in those before you started?
21 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: Did you read those before you started?
23 MS KOZINOS: They were given to me.
24 MR GARNHAM: That was not my question.
25 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
108
1 MR GARNHAM: Did you read them?
2 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: We can probably work out from the difference in
4 handwriting but you tell us you added some things.
5 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: You added your signature or your name to
7 page 91 as the recorder?
8 MS KOZINOS: No, that is Caroline's writing.
9 MR GARNHAM: That is Caroline's writing. You are described
10 as the recorder.
11 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
12 MR GARNHAM: What is the recorder? The person who makes the
13 notes?
14 MS KOZINOS: Decisions, I assume.
15 MR GARNHAM: Recorder means the person who makes the
16 decisions, does it?
17 MS KOZINOS: Yes, or that is how we interpreted it.
18 MR GARNHAM: Top of that page somebody else's handwriting
19 has written some alternative spellings for the name and
20 put a date of birth.
21 MS KOZINOS: That is right, that is me because in the course
22 of the meeting --
23 MR GARNHAM: Over the page, somebody looks as if they have
24 added "child health checks reveal no record of school".
25 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
109
1 MR GARNHAM: Your handwriting?
2 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
3 MR GARNHAM: "Family only speak French", your handwriting?
4 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
5 MR GARNHAM: Page 3, you describe any disability, that might
6 be different handwriting as well. "No," is that yours?
7 MS KOZINOS: Which page?
8 MR GARNHAM: 92.
9 MS KOZINOS: Yes, the other bit at the bottom is Caroline's.
10 MR GARNHAM: Then on page 93 do we take it that
11 Caroline Rodgers filled in the bulk of part 1 and you
12 then filled in the additional details?
13 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
14 MR GARNHAM: So you knew then that there was delay in the
15 mother taking the child to hospital?
16 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
17 MR GARNHAM: Because you noted it?
18 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
19 MR GARNHAM: And you knew about concerns re neglect and you
20 detail, do you, section 2, "any relevant previous
21 incidents." Is that your handwriting?
22 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
23 MR GARNHAM: Then do I take it that the whole of page 94,
24 the A Team recommendations are in your handwriting?
25 MS KOZINOS: Yes, apart from the corrections of the doctors'
110
1 names.
2 MR GARNHAM: I see, yes. You are getting a little quiet.
3 You then complete the rest of the form?
4 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
5 MR GARNHAM: And you sign it on page 96?
6 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
7 MR GARNHAM: Do you maintain these notes as you conduct the
8 meeting are you writing whilst conducting the meeting?
9 MS KOZINOS: It varies, we normally have a discussion.
10 MR GARNHAM: I am asking about this one. If you cannot
11 remember just say you cannot remember.
12 MS KOZINOS: I cannot remember, I am sorry.
13 MR GARNHAM: Your normal practice is to do what?
14 MS KOZINOS: It depends how much information and how much
15 conversation there is about a particular area.
16 Sometimes certain concerns generate much more
17 conversation.
18 MR GARNHAM: Is there not something unsatisfactory about the
19 chair also being the note-taker? Would it not be better
20 to have those things done by different people?
21 MS KOZINOS: I think that is a resource issue more than
22 anything.
23 MR GARNHAM: Why could Caroline Rodgers not have taken the
24 notes for example?
25 MS KOZINOS: Because she would have been giving a lot of the
111
1 information.
2 MR GARNHAM: I see. You tell us that despite the assurances
3 you had received, Karen Johns brought no written
4 information to the meeting.
5 MS KOZINOS: I amended that earlier.
6 MR GARNHAM: Yes, you did. But we replaced it simply by
7 saying "medical reports".
8 MS KOZINOS: I do not recall any medical reports.
9 MR GARNHAM: What did she bring?
10 MS KOZINOS: I am not very clear. I am not sure and
11 I cannot say for certain.
12 MR GARNHAM: Did she bring anything, any documentation?
13 MS KOZINOS: I cannot recall whether she had brought the
14 child protection referral.
15 MR GARNHAM: You see we had --
16 MS KOZINOS: I know. I am saying I cannot be certain.
17 MR GARNHAM: A number of witnesses said she arrived with
18 three sets of documents and the documents consisted of
19 the CP form, the A&E admission and the body map.
20 MS KOZINOS: I do not recall that.
21 MR GARNHAM: Might that be the case?
22 MS KOZINOS: It could be but then I normally would say "see
23 attached." I would attach that to the -- I cannot say
24 for certain, I do not know.
25 MR GARNHAM: You also tell us that Karen Johns' report was
112
1 vague. In what respect was it vague?
2 MS KOZINOS: We needed a lot more information.
3 MR GARNHAM: You appear to have had a good deal of
4 information if the other witnesses are right. She
5 brought these three sets of documentation which you
6 cannot remember?
7 MS KOZINOS: No.
8 MR GARNHAM: She had also given sufficient information to
9 enable Caroline Rodgers to complete the form that we
10 have looked at earlier on which I suggest was sufficient
11 to extract eight particular points of concern. In what
12 respect then was it vague?
13 MS KOZINOS: We did not have any medical reports so we
14 needed a lot more information regarding some of the
15 concerns that were raised.
16 MR GARNHAM: So are you saying then that the vagueness
17 consisted solely in the fact that there was no medical
18 report?
19 MS KOZINOS: No, that we needed more information.
20 MR GARNHAM: What information did you need?
21 MS KOZINOS: The information I recommended to obtain on my
22 decisions.
23 MR GARNHAM: That is not a demonstration of her being vague,
24 is it?
25 MS KOZINOS: I did not feel she was vague. I felt the
113
1 information she had brought, no, she is very clear, the
2 social worker was very clear in regards to the
3 information she gave but it was the information, it did
4 not have a lot of substance. Although enough to clearly
5 warrant a Section 47 which we instigated.
6 MR GARNHAM: Paragraph 15 of your statement, halfway through
7 it:
8 "In the event she brought no written information
9 [now amended to 'medical report'] to the meeting and her
10 verbal report was vague."
11 MS KOZINOS: Yes, she was not vague, her verbal report, the
12 information she was able to provide. We needed more
13 information, we needed to clarify a lot of information.
14 A lot of the information was concerning enough to
15 warrant a Section 47 in our opinion.
16 MR GARNHAM: So that we understand, you do not suggest that
17 Karen Johns was vague in her presentation to you?
18 MS KOZINOS: No, not at all.
19 MR GARNHAM: Your concerns were only in the gaps in the
20 information with which you were presented?
21 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
22 MR GARNHAM: Did you ask her why she had not brought all the
23 information she had promised?
24 MS KOZINOS: I do not recall because I do not recall that
25 she had brought all the information.
114
1 MR GARNHAM: You see, she has told us that she collected the
2 form she was asked to bring, the CP form, the A&E card
3 and the diagrams before she attended the strategy
4 meeting and then she distributed copies.
5 MS KOZINOS: Possibly.
6 MR GARNHAM: In other words she did exactly what was asked
7 of her.
8 MS KOZINOS: I cannot say if that was -- sorry, I cannot
9 recall if that information was provided. I cannot
10 recall whether there was any written information for
11 certain.
12 MR GARNHAM: You see, your statement reads as if you are
13 particularly critical of Karen Johns and it sounds from
14 what you are now saying as if that criticism is unfair.
15 Would you look at paragraph 15. About halfway through
16 that paragraph by the first bullet hole your text reads:
17 "She", that is Shanthi Jacob, "indicated that the
18 hospital social worker Karen Johns had assured her that
19 she would bring all the hospital's concerns with her.
20 However, in the event she had brought no medical reports
21 to the meeting and her verbal report was vague."
22 MS KOZINOS: She was not vague, her information was vague.
23 MR GARNHAM: But quite wrong to suggest, as that does, that
24 she did not bring everything she was asked to bring,
25 since the best you can say is you do not know whether
115
1 she brought it?
2 MS KOZINOS: Yes, at this stage I do not know.
3 MR GARNHAM: So why are you making those allegations against
4 Karen Johns; they are unfounded are they not?
5 MS KOZINOS: No, because I cannot say for certain whether
6 she did or she did not.
7 MR GARNHAM: You do not say you are uncertain. You say
8 instead, or you imply that you are certain and she did
9 not do it. As a result this Inquiry has spent some time
10 trying to ascertain whether Karen Johns was at fault for
11 failing to do what she had been asked to do. Now you
12 are telling us "Oh, sorry, all I meant was I cannot
13 remember whether she brought this."
14 MS KOZINOS: I am not 100 per cent sure so I do not want to
15 say unless I am sure.
16 MR GARNHAM: You understand why this is misleading?
17 MS KOZINOS: Absolutely, and at the time when I wrote it
18 I did think that was the case.
19 MR GARNHAM: What has led you to change your mind?
20 MS KOZINOS: Reading the other people's statements.
21 MR GARNHAM: I see.
22 Sir, given that we are only sitting until 3.00 today
23 I wonder whether now would be a good time to break for
24 lunch.
25 THE CHAIRMAN: Yes, indeed, and normally our rules are that
116
1 we only break for 30 minutes but normally on a Friday
2 I try to extend that a little bit for people's
3 convenience, but as we have lost rather a lot of time
4 today I think we had better only break for 30 minutes
5 and so we will adjourn until 10 past one.
6 During the break you are not allowed to discuss your
7 evidence with anyone.
8 (12.40 pm)
9 (The short adjournment)
10 (1.10 pm)
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Garnham.
12 MR GARNHAM: Thank you, sir. Can we just make sure,
13 Ms Kozinos, that we understand what it was you knew by
14 the time the strategy meeting was concluded. You knew
15 about the allegation of a belt buckle mark?
16 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
17 MR GARNHAM: You knew that Victoria had sustained scalds?
18 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: You knew that at least it was uncertain as to
20 the cause of that scalding?
21 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
22 MR GARNHAM: You knew that there were concerns about that
23 scalding being expressed by those attending the meeting?
24 MS KOZINOS: We were worried about the scalding.
25 MR GARNHAM: Do you remember Karen Johns saying that the
117
1 medical evidence was clear one way -- I will rephrase
2 that. Do you have any recollection of what Karen Johns
3 said to you about the medical evidence relating to the
4 scalds?
5 MS KOZINOS: Umm --
6 MR GARNHAM: Whether they were accidental or non-accidental?
7 MS KOZINOS: No, she did not make it -- because we needed to
8 investigate that. We needed to check that out.
9 MR GARNHAM: She certainly did not say, did she, that the
10 doctors were clear that the burns were non-accidental?
11 MS KOZINOS: Sorry, say that again?
12 MR GARNHAM: You have, I think, told us that your
13 recollection is that the cause of the burns was
14 uncertain.
15 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
16 MR GARNHAM: And it follows from that, does it not --
17 MS KOZINOS: That caused the burns.
18 MR GARNHAM: Yes. It follows from that, does it not, that
19 you were not told by Karen Johns, "The doctors are
20 certain that the burns are accidental"?
21 MS KOZINOS: No.
22 MR GARNHAM: You are agreeing with me?
23 MS KOZINOS: There was uncertainty.
24 MR GARNHAM: Yes. You knew -- and we can see you added
25 a note to that effect -- there was concern about the
118
1 delay between Victoria sustaining those burns and
2 Victoria getting to the hospital?
3 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
4 MR GARNHAM: Do you recall whether Karen Johns relayed to
5 the meeting Dr Rossiter's concerns about this child?
6 MS KOZINOS: No, I do not recall Dr Rossiter's concerns.
7 MR GARNHAM: Was it plain to everybody who was there that
8 this was a child protection case?
9 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
10 MR GARNHAM: Can I then deal with the point you amended in
11 your statement this morning. Will you turn up
12 paragraph 15 again, please. About four lines from the
13 bottom of page 9 -- do you have page 9?
14 MS KOZINOS: I do.
15 MR GARNHAM: Four lines up there is a sentence that as yet
16 you have not amended. I am not taking any clever points
17 against you about it but I do need to understand where
18 we get to. Your statement currently reads:
19 "Unbeknown to me the child was already under police
20 protection at that stage."
21 You have not deleted that in the amendment you made
22 earlier. What in fact is your view about that?
23 MS KOZINOS: Sorry, that is an error. That was in response
24 to information I was given at the Part 8 which
25 I learned.
119
1 MR GARNHAM: Let me make sure we get this clearly. Do you
2 still say that you have now discovered that the child
3 was under police protection?
4 MS KOZINOS: That is right and it was first mentioned in
5 the --
6 MR GARNHAM: I think you should listen carefully to the way
7 I put the question because I do not think you mean what
8 you have just said to me. In fact, I suspect you mean
9 the exact opposite.
10 At the time you wrote this statement you included
11 the words: "Unbeknown to me the child was already under
12 police protection at that stage".
13 MS KOZINOS: Yes, I did not know then that the child had
14 been subject to any police protection.
15 MR GARNHAM: Order.
16 MS KOZINOS: Order.
17 MR GARNHAM: As it was called.
18 MS KOZINOS: Then, yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: What is your understanding now?
20 MS KOZINOS: From my recollection of the bits I have read of
21 the Inquiry was that there was one but not like the
22 Part 8 has suggested at North Mid. I think it was from
23 Central Middlesex.
24 MR GARNHAM: Yes. Are you now under the impression that
25 Victoria was in police protection at the time of the
120
1 strategy meeting?
2 MS KOZINOS: No, she was not, that is why I corrected it.
3 It was something --
4 MR GARNHAM: So we also need to correct that sentence I have
5 just read?
6 MS KOZINOS: Absolutely. It was something that was
7 suggested to me at the Part 8 and I responded to in my
8 statement.
9 MR GARNHAM: Was it in the Part 8 review that you first got
10 wind of the possibility that Victoria might have been
11 under police protection at some stage?
12 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: Prior to the Part 8 review, had you ever heard
14 it suggested that Victoria had been under police
15 protection at any stage?
16 MS KOZINOS: Not that I recall.
17 MR GARNHAM: So the whole of this error that creeps into
18 paragraph 15 of your statement comes from the Part 8
19 review.
20 MS KOZINOS: And I actually refer to the Part 8.
21 MR GARNHAM: Yes. When did you first get to read the
22 material that came from the Central Middlesex Hospital?
23 MS KOZINOS: I -- not until after the child -- the Part 8.
24 MR GARNHAM: Not until after the child had died?
25 MS KOZINOS: Yes. Because my involvement -- I was no longer
121
1 involved after the strategy meeting at that stage.
2 MR GARNHAM: One of the things you called for in the
3 recommendations that were made at this strategy meeting
4 was further enquiries to be made from the CMH.
5 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
6 MR GARNHAM: I think you used the word "further enquiries",
7 suggesting you knew something about the CMH.
8 MS KOZINOS: We knew that from the hospital social worker
9 she had reported -- from what I can remember there had
10 been admission into --
11 MR GARNHAM: The CMH.
12 MS KOZINOS: That is right, but we did not know the details,
13 from what I can recollect.
14 MR GARNHAM: And you --
15 MS KOZINOS: Requested information.
16 MR GARNHAM: Requested further information about that.
17 MS KOZINOS: Absolutely.
18 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever see, in the period prior to
19 Victoria's death, the result of those inquiries?
20 MS KOZINOS: No.
21 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever see a fax from the CMH, setting
22 out what had happened when Victoria was in that
23 hospital?
24 MS KOZINOS: No.
25 MR GARNHAM: You say that you made a total of 18
122
1 recommendations and that is how you always put it; that
2 you made 18 recommendations. Are they not the
3 recommendations of the meeting as a whole?
4 MS KOZINOS: They are. It is. They are joint decisions.
5 MR GARNHAM: That is not just me being picky, but the
6 purpose of these strategy meetings is to try and reach
7 a common view, is it not?
8 MS KOZINOS: Absolutely.
9 MR GARNHAM: Is that what happened in this case?
10 MS KOZINOS: Yes, because it is the social worker in
11 a sense, if it was allocating the police officer, that
12 had to carry through those decisions.
13 MR GARNHAM: So we should read your references to
14 "I recommended" as "we decided that"?
15 MS KOZINOS: Yes, absolutely.
16 MR GARNHAM: The report as we have it in these bundles does
17 not say who is to carry out each of the tasks, does it?
18 MS KOZINOS: No, not specifically to all of the tasks.
19 MR GARNHAM: Why not?
20 MS KOZINOS: Because it was very clear from the people who
21 attended, through their notes and also what we discussed
22 in decisions, who was to carry them out.
23 MR GARNHAM: Go back to the report, please.
24 MS KOZINOS: My report or the strategy meeting?
25 MR GARNHAM: The strategy meeting, page 94 in volume 6.
123
1 Paragraph 5.2: "Who will undertake this work?" Blank.
2 Why did you not fill that in?
3 MS KOZINOS: Because we discussed it for each point.
4 MR GARNHAM: Why did you not record the outcome of that
5 discussion?
6 MS KOZINOS: Well I have. Unless otherwise stated Hospital
7 Social Worker or Police Child Protection Team, it is the
8 social worker from our office that carries the decisions
9 out, with the lead agency.
10 MR GARNHAM: Where do we learn that from?
11 MS KOZINOS: Because it says "hospital social worker" where
12 we are asking --
13 MR GARNHAM: Where do we learn that if you do not direct the
14 observation expressly to the hospital social worker or
15 the police, that it is to be done by the allocated
16 social worker?
17 MS KOZINOS: No, it does not say "excepted" precisely --
18 MR GARNHAM: It should do, should it not?
19 MS KOZINOS: But the people who attended the meeting were
20 very clear: there were joint decisions and they knew
21 what decisions they had to carry out.
22 MR GARNHAM: The allocated social worker was not there.
23 MS KOZINOS: No.
24 MR GARNHAM: So how would she know?
25 MS KOZINOS: Because the strategy meeting was fed back fully
124
1 to her Team Manager who would have briefed her.
2 MR GARNHAM: Namely Carole Baptiste?
3 MS KOZINOS: That is right but also I work in the same
4 office as Lisa. If there was any point or any decision
5 she was unclear about she could refer back to me.
6 MR GARNHAM: Why make life difficult for her and for you by
7 not expressly allocating each task to an individual?
8 MS KOZINOS: Because at the time it was clear to all those
9 involved, and if it was not no-one had expressed an
10 uncertainty after.
11 MR GARNHAM: Who did you expect to obtain the medical report
12 in task 1?
13 MS KOZINOS: The North Tottenham social worker.
14 MR GARNHAM: The North Tottenham social worker?
15 MS KOZINOS: The allocated social worker.
16 MR GARNHAM: So you were not expecting that to be obtained
17 by the hospital social worker?
18 MS KOZINOS: No, but they would assist us in the process if
19 we were having difficulties.
20 MR GARNHAM: Who should obtain the skeletal reports?
21 MS KOZINOS: Again, our social worker.
22 MR GARNHAM: Who should inform the mother of the referral to
23 Social Services?
24 MS KOZINOS: Ourselves.
25 MR GARNHAM: I did not get your answer.
125
1 MS KOZINOS: There might be also the hospital social worker
2 there.
3 MR GARNHAM: How are we to discern that from this document?
4 MS KOZINOS: You are not now but it was clear to them at the
5 time. Granted it is not very clear now.
6 MR GARNHAM: And including clear to the woman who was not
7 present but who was going to have to be doing this job,
8 was it?
9 MS KOZINOS: It must have been clear because she did not
10 come back to me or query any of the recommendations.
11 MR GARNHAM: Recommendations number 4 says, "obtain report
12 from hospital social worker re concern of neglect".
13 MS KOZINOS: Yes, that is our social worker obtaining the
14 report from our hospital social worker.
15 MR GARNHAM: I see, so Lisa Arthurworrey --
16 MS KOZINOS: Sorry, I have read that wrong. Hospital social
17 worker. It says here clearly?
18 MR GARNHAM: It may be clear to you but I am afraid it is
19 not to me. The words you have written are: "Obtain
20 report from hospital social worker re concern of
21 neglect". Who should be obtaining what from whom?
22 MS KOZINOS: Our social worker should be obtaining it from
23 Karen.
24 MR GARNHAM: And what should Karen -- I assume you mean
25 Karen Johns?
126
1 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
2 MR GARNHAM: What should she be producing to your social
3 worker?
4 MS KOZINOS: The report regarding the concerns of neglect.
5 MR GARNHAM: Who is to produce the report? Is she to
6 produce the report or is she supposed to get it from
7 somebody else?
8 MS KOZINOS: From where she got the information from.
9 MR GARNHAM: Were you expecting as a result of that that she
10 sit down and write a report based on what she heard or
11 her to go back and ask nurses and doctors to write
12 a report?
13 MS KOZINOS: Either. Preferably doctors and nurses.
14 MR GARNHAM: You think that emerges clearly from that note,
15 do you?
16 MS KOZINOS: Not now but at the time they were clear.
17 MR GARNHAM: Item 6 says:
18 "Staff nurse/hospital to monitor contact with mother
19 and child and report back any concerns."
20 Yes?
21 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: How was that to be obtained?
23 MS KOZINOS: From our social worker.
24 MR GARNHAM: So she was to contact the staff nurses and the
25 hospital and ask them to monitor this contact and then
127
1 she was to obtain and report back, was she?
2 MS KOZINOS: No, but they were going to feed back -- if
3 there were any concerns they would need to feed back to
4 the lead agency who was investigating.
5 MR GARNHAM: What does monitor mean then? Watch, keep your
6 eyes open?
7 MS KOZINOS: Yes, if anything alarming -- to monitor the
8 situation.
9 MR GARNHAM: I see. Could you have volume 37, please.
10 Page 73. Did you ever see that?
11 MS KOZINOS: No.
12 MR GARNHAM: Is this the sort of thing you would expect in
13 answer to recommendations number (iv) and (vi)?
14 MS KOZINOS: Do not know, have not read it.
15 MR GARNHAM: Have a look through it. I am not going to ask
16 you about the detail, I want to get a feel for the
17 adequacy of the response.
18 MS KOZINOS: Yes, this raises a lot of concerns.
19 MR GARNHAM: Was that sort of report the thing you were
20 looking for in response to (iv) and (vi)?
21 MS KOZINOS: Yes. Something of that nature.
22 MR GARNHAM: Sorry?
23 MS KOZINOS: Yes, something ...
24 MR GARNHAM: If you had got that you would have thought,
25 "That is fine, they have done what I have asked them to
128
1 do"?
2 MS KOZINOS: No. It raises further questions and we would
3 need to do further assessment.
4 MR GARNHAM: But they would have done what you asked them to
5 do?
6 MS KOZINOS: No, because it does not say -- did you say
7 (iv) -- it does not say when the child would be ready
8 for discharge, does it?
9 MR GARNHAM: No, but nor does (iv) and (vi):
10 "Obtain report from hospital social worker re
11 concern of neglect. Staff nurses/hospital to monitor
12 contact with mother and child and report back any
13 concerns."
14 So this is the sort of thing you were looking for?
15 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: Why did you recommend that the hospital social
17 worker inform Social Services when the child was ready
18 for discharge? What was the thinking behind that?
19 MS KOZINOS: Because we needed to carry out an assessment
20 before the child was discharged home because concerns
21 had been raised.
22 MR GARNHAM: What did you understand ready for discharge
23 would mean if you got an answer back in those terms?
24 MS KOZINOS: It would be when she was medically ready for
25 discharge.
129
1 MR GARNHAM: Was that the general understanding of the
2 meeting, that that is what that would mean?
3 MS KOZINOS: Yes. Hospitals would normally inform us when
4 a child is ready medically to discharge and if we had
5 concerns we would ask, or if we had not completed or
6 were uncertain we would ask them to keep the child until
7 we had completed our risk assessment.
8 MR GARNHAM: That was the understanding of the police
9 officer and the hospital social worker and the Haringey
10 social workers as to what was meant by that?
11 MS KOZINOS: Yes. What else could it be?
12 MR GARNHAM: What else could it be. It could be that you
13 were expecting the hospital to undertake some sort of
14 risk assessment on the safety of returning Victoria to
15 Kouao.
16 MS KOZINOS: No, we were to undertake the risk assessment.
17 MR GARNHAM: Thank you very much. When were these minutes
18 completed?
19 MS KOZINOS: After the meeting -- well, then.
20 MR GARNHAM: There and then?
21 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: Could you go over the page please to 95:
23 "Investigative interview is necessary depending on
24 child assessment" you have written. What does that
25 mean?
130
1 MS KOZINOS: When they do -- when the social worker and the
2 police officers doing a joint Section 47, when they
3 speak to the child, depending on what she says --
4 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
5 MS KOZINOS: -- that there was grounds for an interview. If
6 she had made allegations.
7 MR GARNHAM: So you expected the police and social workers
8 to speak to Victoria?
9 MS KOZINOS: Of course, it is part of the risk assessment.
10 MR GARNHAM: In order to carry out a risk assessment, then
11 in the light of that decide whether or not on
12 investigative interview was necessary?
13 MS KOZINOS: Depending what she had said.
14 MR GARNHAM: Did you mean a memorandum interview?
15 MS KOZINOS: If she was in agreement, yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: 7.1, what would be the objective of the
17 interview? Then you have written "S/S." What does that
18 mean?
19 MS KOZINOS: Sorry, I do not know.
20 MR GARNHAM: Sorry? Is that your handwriting?
21 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
22 MR GARNHAM: What do you mean by it?
23 MS KOZINOS: I am not sure, to be honest with you.
24 MR GARNHAM: Others are going to have to have read this
25 assessment of these minutes of yours. People like
131
1 Lisa Arthurworrey and other social workers and managers
2 and the police are going to read this and use this as
3 their guideline for the future conduct of this case. If
4 you do not know what that means how are they meant to?
5 MS KOZINOS: I accept that.
6 MR GARNHAM: You cannot even hazard a guess as to what S/S
7 means?
8 MS KOZINOS: I normally say that for Social Services.
9 MR GARNHAM: If that is what you meant here, what does that
10 mean?
11 MS KOZINOS: I am assuming in regards to the child
12 assessment I have put S/S for Social Services.
13 MR GARNHAM: So you intended, did you, that Social Services
14 and not the police should carry out the child
15 assessment?
16 MS KOZINOS: I do not know or talk to the child. I am
17 assuming here. I do not know.
18 MR GARNHAM: I have to suggest to you that it is hopeless if
19 you do not know what this form means.
20 MS KOZINOS: It is not the form --
21 MR GARNHAM: This part. This is the important part of the
22 form dealing with investigative interviews and medical
23 reports. It is hopeless if you do not know what you
24 meant by your entries here given that others are going
25 to have to try and interpret it, is it not?
132
1 MS KOZINOS: It does address the issue of the investigative
2 interviews as to pending child assessment.
3 MR GARNHAM: Tell us who is to do that, then?
4 MS KOZINOS: It is a joint investigation.
5 MR GARNHAM: Say a police officer eventually got hold of
6 this and read it, what would they have understood you to
7 mean was to be their involvement given that you have
8 written S/S.
9 MS KOZINOS: I do not know but the allocated police officer
10 was there at the time.
11 MR GARNHAM: I see. So do you know what she understood was
12 the understanding of the meeting?
13 MS KOZINOS: Yes, they were clear. We checked. Like we
14 said it was joint decisions.
15 MR GARNHAM: After they were written up, who got a copy of
16 these minutes?
17 MS KOZINOS: It is the responsibility of the social worker
18 or the Duty social worker, the allocated worker, to --
19 MR GARNHAM: Distribute?
20 MS KOZINOS: Get them typed up, put a copy on the file and
21 distribute them. My involvement, apart from allocation
22 against --
23 MR GARNHAM: But you can tell us what should happen to this.
24 MS KOZINOS: Yes, that is what I just said.
25 MR GARNHAM: Who should get a copy of this?
133
1 MS KOZINOS: The Police Child Protection Team.
2 MR GARNHAM: Any more?
3 MS KOZINOS: Social Services.
4 MR GARNHAM: Anybody else?
5 MS KOZINOS: In this case the hospital.
6 MR GARNHAM: The hospital should have got a copy of this,
7 should they?
8 MS KOZINOS: No, because we have always been told actually
9 to -- the copies of the strategy meetings are for Social
10 Services and the Police Child Protection Team because
11 they have joint investigations and it is about how to
12 proceed forward with the investigation with them two --
13 MR GARNHAM: Why did you not send a copy of this to the
14 hospital?
15 MS KOZINOS: I am not clear of the reasons why we do not
16 send them or the reason why that decision is in place.
17 I do not know.
18 MR GARNHAM: The reason I ask is that it does seem a little
19 bizarre that you have a child in hospital about whom
20 there are child protection concerns and you -- you,
21 social services -- decide not to hold the strategy
22 meeting in the hospital, contrary to your on
23 instructions; you have nobody present from the hospital
24 during the course of it except a social worker. You
25 have no medical staff present and the medical staff do
134
1 not get a copy of the minutes.
2 MS KOZINOS: It was standard practice that the copies went
3 to the Police Child Protection Team and Social Services.
4 MR GARNHAM: Did you telephone anybody from the medical side
5 during the course of this to see if they could shed
6 light on the vagueness you have described?
7 MS KOZINOS: The recommendations reflect that. I asked
8 to --
9 MR GARNHAM: That was not my question and I would be
10 grateful if you would answer it. Did you telephone any
11 doctor or nurse during the course of this meeting?
12 MS KOZINOS: No.
13 MR GARNHAM: Given you felt the medical input was vague, why
14 did you not telephone?
15 MS KOZINOS: Because I had asked for clarification for the
16 decisions.
17 MR GARNHAM: Why not get that information, that
18 clarification during the course of the meeting which is
19 meant to make the decision of how best to look after the
20 child?
21 MS KOZINOS: I did not.
22 MR GARNHAM: You should have done, otherwise you are
23 proceeding with one hand tied behind your back.
24 MS KOZINOS: And sometimes we do, in Section 47s, we do have
25 limited information, that is why we need to investigate
135
1 the concerns.
2 MR GARNHAM: Quite unnecessarily. One phone call would have
3 resolved whatever vagueness there was about the medical
4 input.
5 MS KOZINOS: Not necessarily. From who?
6 MR GARNHAM: Ring the consultant, ring the nurses on the
7 ward.
8 MS KOZINOS: That is more than one phone call.
9 MR GARNHAM: Either, not both.
10 MS KOZINOS: Accepted, probably. I do not know.
11 MR GARNHAM: That is all the more important, that sort of
12 sensible proactive step, is it not, where you are in
13 a position where your meeting is not provided with all
14 the information you want, not provided in particular
15 with medical reports and given that the description of
16 the medical concerns is vague, all the more important
17 just to pick up the phone?
18 MS KOZINOS: Point taken but in this particular case
19 I recommended decisions that would obtain that
20 information.
21 MR GARNHAM: You say you recommended that more information
22 was needed about scabies. That is in the part of the
23 statement of yours I read out. I think you misspell it
24 which is why I noticed it.
25 MS KOZINOS: Okay.
136
1 MR GARNHAM: What information had you got on scabies thus
2 far?
3 MS KOZINOS: One I can recall we were told that Victoria --
4 MR GARNHAM: Had scabies.
5 MS KOZINOS: Had or might, I cannot remember.
6 MR GARNHAM: You wanted to know what it was --
7 MS KOZINOS: The reasons for that is the only experience
8 I have had of scabies has been during my work in
9 residential where some of the young people who were
10 sleeping rough had got them and at the time my
11 recollection was possibly could be through neglect, so
12 I wanted that information checked out. I want to rule
13 it out.
14 MR GARNHAM: Again, something that might be ascertained
15 through a phone call.
16 MS KOZINOS: Possibly, I do not know.
17 MR GARNHAM: You recommended that Social Services should
18 complete checks re scalds and GP?
19 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
20 MR GARNHAM: Why did you use the word "complete"?
21 MS KOZINOS: It is a term, complete checks.
22 MR GARNHAM: Had some checks been done?
23 MS KOZINOS: I think there were attempts, if I can remember.
24 There was no record, from what I can remember.
25 MR GARNHAM: Do you know that Shanthi Jacob had attempted to
137
1 make enquiries about which school Victoria was involved
2 with?
3 MS KOZINOS: I do not recall.
4 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms Kozinos, could I ask you to keep your
5 voice up, please. It is very important that we hear
6 you.
7 MS KOZINOS: Sorry.
8 MR GARNHAM: You recommended that the hospital social
9 workers enquire about hospital photographs. Who was to
10 check that that had been done?
11 MS KOZINOS: Sorry, say that again?
12 MR GARNHAM: You recommended that the hospital social
13 workers make enquiries about hospital photographs.
14 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
15 MR GARNHAM: What is the procedure whereby you check that
16 that actually happens?
17 MS KOZINOS: Whether this recommendation is carried --
18 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
19 MS KOZINOS: That is done through supervision with the
20 allocated management and social worker.
21 MR GARNHAM: You recommended that the child should remain in
22 hospital.
23 MS KOZINOS: Yes, until we did the --
24 MR GARNHAM: Who was that recommendation made to?
25 MS KOZINOS: That is to the social worker.
138
1 MR GARNHAM: How could the social worker determine whether
2 or not the child remain in hospital?
3 MS KOZINOS: We would have asked the hospital until we
4 complete our assessment.
5 MR GARNHAM: So by the words "child remain in hospital", you
6 wanted the allocated social worker to contact the
7 hospital and say, "Please keep this child in hospital
8 until we are finished our allocation".
9 MS KOZINOS: But the hospital social worker is also feeding
10 back to the hospital as well.
11 MR GARNHAM: What responsibilities does the hospital social
12 worker have after she made her reference to you?
13 MS KOZINOS: After she has attended these?
14 MR GARNHAM: After she has referred the case to you, it is
15 your responsibility, not hers.
16 MS KOZINOS: But she is also part of that meeting, part of
17 the decisions and she is to feed back to the hospital
18 where the child is.
19 MR GARNHAM: So I understand what you say: What she should
20 do then is, she should go back after this meeting and go
21 to the hospital and say, "Do not let this child go until
22 we have completed the assessment".
23 MS KOZINOS: Until we have -- until Haringey Social Services
24 have completed the assessment.
25 MR GARNHAM: That is what you intended, was it?
139
1 MS KOZINOS: I think it was more to alert us of who we
2 believed then to be the mother attempted to remove
3 Victoria without us having completed our risk
4 assessment.
5 MR GARNHAM: How long did you envisage the risk assessment
6 taking?
7 MS KOZINOS: Not long, it should have been done as soon as
8 possible.
9 MR GARNHAM: By which you mean?
10 MS KOZINOS: As soon as possible.
11 MR GARNHAM: Well, that will not do, Ms Kozinos. What do
12 you mean in the context of this case by "as soon as
13 possible"?
14 MS KOZINOS: Before the child is ready for discharge.
15 MR GARNHAM: That is an entirely circular answer, since
16 I have just asked you how the arrangements are to be
17 made to keep the child in hospital and you said "until
18 it is discharged". So when did you expect, by days,
19 this assessment to be completed? One day, one hour, one
20 month, one year? What did you mean? How long should it
21 take?
22 MS KOZINOS: It depends when the child is ready to be
23 discharged. It should be done as soon as possible, at
24 least within that week I would say.
25 MR GARNHAM: So regardless of other criteria you expect the
140
1 assessment to be done within a week?
2 MS KOZINOS: No, I have just given you a date it should be
3 done. My answer to that is that it should be done
4 before the child is discharged --
5 MR GARNHAM: Say the hospital telephoned you and said, "We
6 are discharging her tomorrow"?
7 MS KOZINOS: Then we would have to carry out that risk
8 assessment before that child is discharged.
9 MR GARNHAM: I see. So the fixing of the time for the risk
10 assessment is determined by the date on which the
11 hospital say they are going to discharge?
12 MS KOZINOS: Not necessarily but what we do know is that the
13 child is safe. So we would complete a risk assessment
14 as soon as possible.
15 MR GARNHAM: In any event, no later than the date of
16 discharge?
17 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
18 MR GARNHAM: Because otherwise the child might be discharged
19 back to the person who might have been abusing her?
20 MS KOZINOS: Absolutely. We did have to make sure that the
21 child is not at risk once she is discharged.
22 MR GARNHAM: Where do we find in your notes at the strategy
23 meeting an indication to Lisa Arthurworrey that that is
24 what should happen?
25 MS KOZINOS: It does. It says, "Complete a Section 47" and
141
1 also to contact us if any attempts are made to remove
2 her.
3 MR GARNHAM: Sorry, I do not see how either of those amount
4 to an instruction that the assessment must be carried
5 out before the child is discharged.
6 MS KOZINOS: But it is a Section 47. The purpose of
7 a Section 47 or a risk assessment is to ensure that the
8 child is safe.
9 MR GARNHAM: Yes.
10 MS KOZINOS: And not at risk.
11 MR GARNHAM: So Lisa Arthurworrey should have interpreted
12 that as meaning you must complete the risk assessment
13 before this child is discharged?
14 MS KOZINOS: It is not "interpreted", it is a function of
15 our team and also the Team Manager would have been given
16 this information who is supervising the lead worker.
17 MR GARNHAM: So what should Lisa Arthurworrey have done had
18 the child been discharged the following morning?
19 MS KOZINOS: Without a risk assessment?
20 MR GARNHAM: Well, what time did this meeting finish?
21 MS KOZINOS: What time was it? I assume it would have taken
22 30 minutes, 45 minutes.
23 MR GARNHAM: 3 o'clock-ish in the afternoon?
24 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
25 MR GARNHAM: No social worker was allocated this case until
142
1 2nd August, I think.
2 MS KOZINOS: But the case was given straight away to the
3 responsible Team Manager.
4 MR GARNHAM: All right. Say she had allocated it --
5 Carole Baptiste -- that afternoon at 4 o'clock, and at
6 4.05 the hospital had phoned up and said, "We are going
7 to discharge her tomorrow morning."
8 MS KOZINOS: You would either have to do a risk assessment
9 that night and if it was not possible you would ask the
10 hospital and they would duly co-operate with us to keep
11 the child a day longer until that risk assessment is
12 done, but that child should not be discharged without
13 that risk assessment having been completed.
14 MR GARNHAM: That, you say, is common knowledge amongst
15 social workers and is implicit from what you put in your
16 recommendations?
17 MS KOZINOS: I would hope it is common knowledge to workers
18 in the Duty Investigation and Assessment Team.
19 MR GARNHAM: You recommended that there should be completion
20 of checks in France by International Services. How is
21 that to be done? Top of the page, number (xviii). How?
22 Presumably this is a job for the allocated social
23 worker. How does she do that?
24 MS KOZINOS: We have phone numbers and resources about where
25 we can contact international social services.
143
1 MR GARNHAM: So one phone call enables you to discover
2 whether the child is known in France?
3 MS KOZINOS: No, because we would need certain information.
4 One of the things, from what I can remember from what
5 the police suggested, is that we would need to complete
6 certain immigration checks to get certain information to
7 enable a social worker to do that. From what I can
8 recall.
9 MR GARNHAM: It is the police who are to complete the
10 investigation checks?
11 MS KOZINOS: Yes, number (xviii).
12 MR GARNHAM: What checks were they to carry out?
13 MS KOZINOS: The immigration checks. Karen said she needed
14 certain information.
15 MR GARNHAM: So they would phone up Immigration with the aim
16 of finding out, what, in respect of a French national?
17 MS KOZINOS: I think it was information so Lisa or
18 whoever -- I did not know it was Lisa at this time who
19 began the case as social worker -- to complete the
20 checks in France.
21 MR GARNHAM: Do you have any experience of contacting the
22 Immigration/Nationality Department in respect of
23 a national of an EC country?
24 MS KOZINOS: Not personally, no.
25 MR GARNHAM: What happens if, as is in fact the case, there
144
1 is no record of immigration of an EC national coming
2 into this country, how are things going to be
3 progressed?
4 MS KOZINOS: I am not sure because that was not known then.
5 If that was the case it would have had to have been
6 reviewed in supervision with the Team Manager.
7 MR GARNHAM: As regards the tasks that you expected the
8 allocated social worker to carry out, which is the bulk
9 of the list, how did she get to know what she is to do?
10 Is it one by reading these minutes and two by speaking
11 to her manager?
12 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
13 MR GARNHAM: Why did you not speak to her once she has been
14 allocated?
15 MS KOZINOS: I did not know the case went to her. My
16 involvement ended after the strategy meeting.
17 MR GARNHAM: You could have found out.
18 MS KOZINOS: I chair lots of strategy meetings. She could
19 have approached me. My understanding, at the time the
20 Team Manager was clear in terms of recommendations and
21 authorised them.
22 MR GARNHAM: You had some reservations about
23 Carole Baptiste's competence by this time, had you not?
24 MS KOZINOS: No, I said I was concerned about her
25 availability.
145
1 MR GARNHAM: Given you were concerned about her --
2 MS KOZINOS: Sorry, I said to you it was after the summer.
3 I recall Carole being there in the summer but it became
4 worse.
5 MR GARNHAM: At that time in the summer Carole Baptiste was
6 available and therefore you expected her to speak to the
7 allocated social worker?
8 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
9 MR GARNHAM: At the end of the strategy meeting why were
10 there then no arrangements to review progress put in
11 place?
12 MS KOZINOS: Because it is not standard practice to have
13 review meetings at Haringey. The decisions were
14 reviewed in supervision with the responsible Team
15 Manager and allocated social worker.
16 MR GARNHAM: Does that mean you never established review
17 strategy meetings at the conclusion of a first strategy
18 meeting?
19 MS KOZINOS: No, they were reviewed in supervision.
20 MR GARNHAM: So you are agreeing with me that you never did
21 that?
22 MS KOZINOS: Never did what, sorry?
23 MR GARNHAM: You never established a date for a review
24 strategy meeting at the end of a strategy meeting of
25 this sort?
146
1 MS KOZINOS: Not that I recall. Because it was going to be
2 allocated straight away it would be reviewed in
3 supervision.
4 MR GARNHAM: I see. Why no case conference directed in this
5 case?
6 MS KOZINOS: Because it is not at this stage, it is not --
7 I said we needed further information. Then that again
8 would be reviewed with the Team Manager and the
9 allocated worker in supervision.
10 MR GARNHAM: Did this look like the sort of case where
11 a case conference would become necessary to you?
12 MS KOZINOS: It looked a possibility. That is why I put at
13 this stage rather than no.
14 MR GARNHAM: Why not discuss with the allocated social
15 worker whether a case conference was becoming necessary?
16 MS KOZINOS: I did not know who the allocated social worker
17 was going to be.
18 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever find out who was the allocated
19 social worker?
20 MS KOZINOS: I gave it to the responsible Team Manager.
21 MR GARNHAM: Did you ever find out who was the allocated
22 social worker?
23 MS KOZINOS: No.
24 MR GARNHAM: Till when?
25 MS KOZINOS: Quite a while later.
147
1 MR GARNHAM: You certainly did by November but did you
2 before then?
3 MS KOZINOS: No. I chair a lot of strategy meetings. You
4 do not necessarily know who they go to after, unless
5 workers approach you; what is an issue.
6 MR GARNHAM: Was there any discussion by you with North
7 Middlesex Hospital after this strategy meeting?
8 MS KOZINOS: No.
9 MR GARNHAM: Did you discuss with them why no case
10 conference was being organised?
11 MS KOZINOS: No.
12 MR GARNHAM: Are you not obliged to?
13 MS KOZINOS: Not that I am aware of.
14 MR GARNHAM: Can you have volume 24, please? Page 374.
15 Haringey's ACPC handbook of June 1997, a document with
16 which you are familiar?
17 MS KOZINOS: No.
18 MR GARNHAM: You had never seen it before?
19 MS KOZINOS: No.
20 MR GARNHAM: You are at the time a senior practitioner in
21 the Duty Investigation Teams and you had never seen the
22 Haringey ACPC handbook?
23 MS KOZINOS: Not to my recollection.
24 MR GARNHAM: That is astonishing, is it not?
25 MS KOZINOS: Absolutely. We had the Purple Books.
148
1 MR GARNHAM: And not this handbook?
2 MS KOZINOS: No.
3 MR GARNHAM: Just turn on to page 452, please. Four
4 paragraphs from the top of the page:
5 "The decision not to convene a case conference
6 following a child abuse referral investigation should be
7 discussed by the social worker and team leader after
8 consultation with the CPT referrer and other
9 investigative agencies involved".
10 You were presumably unaware of that?
11 MS KOZINOS: I was unaware of it.
12 MR GARNHAM: You were unaware of the practice if there was
13 one, and of the rule if there was not --
14 MS KOZINOS: I have never known that to be standard
15 practice.
16 MR GARNHAM: That if the decision is made not to hold a case
17 conference, that should be discussed with the referring
18 agencies?
19 MS KOZINOS: I have not been aware of that decision, no.
20 MR GARNHAM: When you got to the end of this strategy
21 meeting, you were certain, were you, that this was
22 a child protection case?
23 MS KOZINOS: It needed investigating.
24 MR GARNHAM: A Section 47 investigation was needed?
25 MS KOZINOS: That is right.
149
1 MR GARNHAM: You were not to be involved any further with
2 it, it was then passed to the allocated social worker
3 and her manager?
4 MS KOZINOS: Yes, the responsible manager.
5 MR GARNHAM: And thereafter you had no further involvement
6 with this case until 1st November?
7 MS KOZINOS: That is correct.
8 MR GARNHAM: Can I just ask you to look at page 82, before
9 we leave that, please. In volume 6, I am sorry. These
10 are the guidance notes for completion of strategy
11 meeting minutes. I assume you are familiar with these?
12 MS KOZINOS: Yes, at the time, yes.
13 MR GARNHAM: We are having difficulty hearing you.
14 I wonder, Jean, if something can be done to change this.
15 You keep moving away from the microphone. If you try to
16 speak into the microphone that would help us.
17 About three-quarters, four-fifths of the way down
18 the page it says "Review Strategy Meetings":
19 "It may be appropriate to call a review meeting when
20 either there is insufficient information to proceed with
21 the investigation or if a period of monitoring is
22 arranged and needs reviewing."
23 Were you aware of that?
24 MS KOZINOS: Yes, but as I said it was not standard practice
25 to.
150
1 MR GARNHAM: Did you consider it as a possibility in this
2 case, a review strategy meeting?
3 MS KOZINOS: No.
4 MR GARNHAM: Why not?
5 MS KOZINOS: Because cases at the time were reviewed in
6 supervision. They were not standard practice.
7 MR GARNHAM: So let me see if I have the situation
8 accurately at the end of the strategy meeting. The
9 strategy meeting takes place at a venue contrary to
10 Haringey's Child Protection Guidelines?
11 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
12 MR GARNHAM: There is no attendance from a doctor or a nurse
13 and no contact made with the hospital during the course
14 of the meeting, yes?
15 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
16 MR GARNHAM: The minutes are distributed but not to the
17 hospital?
18 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
19 MR GARNHAM: No review strategy meeting is arranged and no
20 consideration is given to whether or not there should be
21 a review strategy meeting?
22 MS KOZINOS: They were not standard practice, no.
23 MR GARNHAM: But the answer to my question is yes, that is
24 correct, is it not?
25 MS KOZINOS: Yes.
|
