|
Archived Transcript for 12 October 2001:
Pages 1 to 50
1
1 Friday, 12th October 2001
2 (9.30 am)
3 MR GARNHAM: Good morning, sir. I gather that there have
4 been some observations in the press that have attracted
5 the concern of some of my friends.
6 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Turner?
7 MR TURNER: Sir, in view of something of a flurry of
8 critical publicity in the last 24 hours, I am anxious to
9 give the Inquiry at least an interim report on some of
10 the concerns raised.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: Could you just wait a moment? I am sorry
12 about this, Mr Turner. Mr Turner, would you be kind
13 enough to begin again? Sorry about that.
14 MR TURNER: Sir, in view of something of a flurry of
15 critical publicity in the last 24 hours, I am anxious to
16 give the Inquiry at least an interim report on some of
17 the concerns raised.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you.
19 MR TURNER: Some of the media reports were somewhat
20 misleading, and in their effect inevitably tend to
21 undermine confidence in much of the excellent work being
22 done by the present Children's Social Work Team, under
23 the leadership of the current Director of Social
24 Services.
25 Sir, Brent Social Services has a clear policy of not
2
1 placing any unaccompanied child under the age of 16 in
2 bed and breakfast accommodation, and following the
3 concern expressed yesterday, a check has been undertaken
4 of all current placements in bed and breakfast
5 accommodation, and I can confirm that there are no
6 unaccompanied children, under the age of 16, in such
7 accommodation.
8 We have checked our records, and we have not been
9 able to identify a 13-year old child who was discharged
10 from foster care in 1999, and who was re-referred in
11 2001. We have also tried to track the case of a child
12 whose mother received a custodial sentence and who
13 allegedly did not receive an appropriate service from
14 Brent Social Services. We have not yet been able to
15 identify such a case, but we are continuing to make
16 enquiries, to identify the young person, to see if
17 indeed we failed to provide a satisfactory service.
18 I am about to invite the Borough Solicitor to make
19 urgent contact with Mr Armstrong's solicitors to invite
20 them, if they can, to provide further information from
21 him to enable us to identify any cases which were of
22 concern to him, so I can in due course report fully to
23 you.
24 Sir, that is the position thus far and I wanted you
25 to know that the matter is receiving our attention.
3
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Mr Turner, I am exceedingly grateful for such
2 a speedy and positive response to the concerns that
3 I think we both had in the light of the evidence that
4 had been brought to the Inquiry, and I find your report
5 very reassuring, and I am most grateful to you and the
6 colleagues in Brent who have handled it in that way,
7 thank you. Ms Lawson?
8 MS LAWSON: Sir, the Evening Standard managed to go one
9 better than the BBC, because they managed to give the
10 impression that you had ordered Haringey's
11 representatives, in the light of Mr Armstrong's
12 evidence, to give you up to date information about their
13 position, and I simply make it quite clear to those who
14 may be listening that that did not arise at any stage.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Ms Lawson, I am grateful to you for putting
16 that record straight. Thank you. Mr Garnham?
17 MR GARNHAM: Sir, as you will know and others may not, this
18 morning's proceedings began in an adjacent building when
19 we interviewed, cross-examined, examined, Dr Dempster by
20 videolink, Dr Dempster being in New Zealand. That video
21 examination was recorded on videotape and will be played
22 to the Inquiry at a convenient moment. Sir, I propose
23 that we hold it back for the time being, rather than
24 delay our live witnesses today, and fit it in when we
25 have a convenient gap.
4
1 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Garnham. That does seem
2 sensible, thank you.
3 MR GARNHAM: Sir, I will ask Miss Gibson to call the first
4 witness.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you Miss Gibson.
6 MS GIBSON: Thank you, sir. If I could call Valerie Tyrrell
7 to give her evidence.
8 MS VALERIE TYRRELL (affirmed)
9 MS GIBSON: Thank you, Ms Tyrrell. Could you begin by
10 giving the Inquiry your full name and professional
11 address, please?
12 MS TYRRELL: I am Valerie Elizabeth Tyrrell. My
13 professional address is Barham House, Wembley Centre for
14 Health and Care, Chaplin Road, Wembley.
15 MS GIBSON: You have made one statement for the Inquiry
16 which is found at volume 5, page 62; if you could be
17 supplied with a copy of that. Just have a look at that.
18 Are the contents of that statement true to the best of
19 your knowledge and belief?
20 MS TYRRELL: Yes, they are. I would like to make one
21 amendment. At paragraph 6, the date is incorrect. It
22 is from 1/4/98, not 99.
23 MS GIBSON: And it is right that you have been in post as
24 the Specialist Nurse for Child Protection for Brent
25 since 26th July 1999?
5
1 MS TYRRELL: That is correct.
2 MS GIBSON: And when you came into that post, it had been
3 vacant since January of 1999?
4 MS TYRRELL: No, it had been vacant for considerably longer
5 than that, since approximately January 1998.
6 MS GIBSON: I am sorry, that is the amendment you have just
7 made.
8 MS TYRRELL: It is.
9 MS GIBSON: You mention in your statement that that post had
10 been covered by other people from April, by
11 Jane Vertkin, who devoted about 30 per cent of her time
12 to that role; that was April 1999, is it?
13 MS TYRRELL: April 1998.
14 MS GIBSON: So all of those dates should be 1998?
15 MS TYRRELL: They should.
16 MS GIBSON: Thank you. So she had been devoting about
17 30 per cent of her time to that role when you came into
18 it?
19 MS TYRRELL: That is correct.
20 MS GIBSON: And from the end of April 1998 again,
21 Robin Daley, the designated nurse for Kensington and
22 Chelsea, covered the post.
23 MS TYRRELL: Yes.
24 MS GIBSON: So when you came into your work, was there
25 a considerable backlog for you to catch up on, given
6
1 that there had been no one who had been devoting all of
2 their time to the role?
3 MS TYRRELL: I would not describe it as considerable, but
4 there was a lot of work to do indeed, yes.
5 MS GIBSON: Can I ask you about the links that you have with
6 health liaison visitors, medical staff and Social
7 Services, and what your role is in co-ordinating all of
8 those services?
9 MS TYRRELL: Yes, I work in close collaboration with Social
10 Services, with the staff at Central Middlesex Hospital,
11 particularly with Dr Ruby Schwartz, and the named nurses
12 at Central Middlesex. I work in close collaboration
13 with the designated doctor and with senior staff within
14 Parkside Health.
15 MS GIBSON: You mention that Child Protection Guidelines,
16 which are found at volume 40, page 19 of our bundles --
17 and I wonder if you could have a copy of those -- these
18 came into force in January 1999, is that correct?
19 MS TYRRELL: That is correct.
20 MS GIBSON: If you could look at page 21 of those
21 guidelines, it mentions there that there needs to be
22 informed awareness about the indicators of abuse. What
23 is done to ensure that the staff that you deal with are
24 made aware of indicators of abuse?
25 MS TYRRELL: I am not looking at the same page as you, I do
7
1 not think, I am sorry.
2 MS GIBSON: It is a document headed "Introduction"; it is at
3 page 21.
4 MS TYRRELL: Page 21 of the guidelines?
5 MS GIBSON: No, page 21 of the bundle. I wonder if you
6 could be assisted with that, it is 40/021.
7 MS TYRRELL: Thank you.
8 MS GIBSON: You have that now. There in the second section
9 of numbers, while you say child protection may only be
10 a small part of one's work, it requires informed
11 awareness of known indicators and predicators,
12 presumably of abuse. What is done to ensure that staff
13 are aware of those?
14 MS TYRRELL: We have internally in Parkside Health a robust
15 system of training, a rolling programme of training for
16 staff that is run on a quarterly basis, and within that
17 training, we have sessions on child protection awareness
18 and indicators of child abuse. The session on the
19 indicators of child abuse is run by myself and the
20 consultant paediatricians. There is also within Central
21 Middlesex Hospital a programme of training that is run
22 by Dr Ruby Schwartz for the Directorate and all staff
23 have access to that training.
24 MS GIBSON: You say all staff have access to that training;
25 to what extent is that training compulsory, or is it up
8
1 to members of staff to enrol on that?
2 MS TYRRELL: It would be up to members of staff to enrol on
3 that with guidance from their managers and alongside the
4 named nurses for child protection.
5 MS GIBSON: So none of that child protection training is
6 compulsory in any way?
7 MS TYRRELL: The internal training at Parkside is mandatory
8 for new staff to attend, and we recommend that they
9 attend an update three-yearly. I am unclear as to the
10 requirement within Central Middlesex in that respect.
11 MS GIBSON: Can I ask you now -- at the bottom of that page
12 you deal with children in need.
13 MS TYRRELL: Yes.
14 MS GIBSON: What is done by Parkside to ensure that children
15 in need are identified?
16 MS TYRRELL: The system in Parkside focuses on the community
17 nursing aspect of work with children, and the health
18 visitors and school nurses are trained to identify
19 children in need, children who are vulnerable, and may
20 need extra resources.
21 MS GIBSON: Thank you. At page 38 in the bundle again,
22 rather than on the actual document, there you deal with
23 transfer into the borough of children in need.
24 MS TYRRELL: Yes.
25 MS GIBSON: There is nothing in this guidance relating to
9
1 transfer out of the borough of children in need. What
2 is done in that respect?
3 MS TYRRELL: If a child in need transfers out of the
4 borough, there is actually a protocol for that.
5 MS GIBSON: Was that in place in 1999?
6 MS TYRRELL: Oh yes, and school nurses and health visitors
7 follow a procedure to ensure that the receiving school
8 nurse or health visitor in the outside borough has that
9 information. If we have particular concerns about
10 a child or indeed if a child is on the Child Protection
11 Register, that information comes into my office, and
12 I also liaise with the designated or named nurse in the
13 receiving borough.
14 MS GIBSON: Thank you. Now dealing with guidance in
15 relation to the way in which information should be
16 transferred from Central Middlesex Hospital, in relation
17 to a child on the ward, to the community nursing
18 services, what was in place at the time we are dealing
19 with, 1999, to ensure that information was transferred
20 out from the hospital to community nursing services?
21 MS TYRRELL: When I first came into post, I was unaware of
22 the system from Barnaby Bear Ward to the community. My
23 understanding is that the ward would inform the school
24 nurse or the health visitor of the discharge of a child
25 into the community. It became clear over time that that
10
1 system was working but there were loopholes within it,
2 in terms of if the ward staff were unaware of who the
3 health visitor or school nurse was. It also became very
4 clear to me that the system of liaison out of Accident &
5 Emergency to health visitors or school nurses was weak.
6 MS GIBSON: And what was done to remedy those gaps?
7 MS TYRRELL: We have ensured that the ward have information
8 about the Education Welfare Office service in terms of
9 children without a school. We have also ensured that
10 they have a list of geographical health visitors whom
11 they can refer to. They also have communication with
12 myself and my own office.
13 As far as Accident & Emergency attendance of
14 children is concerned, it came to my notice both through
15 the Part 8 review for this case and also from feedback
16 from community staff that the current A&E system was not
17 working well, and so at the beginning of this year we
18 instituted a new system.
19 Would you like me to explain that system?
20 MS GIBSON: That would be helpful, thank you.
21 MS TYRRELL: All children who attend Central Middlesex A&E
22 Department have an accident and emergency record and
23 a copy of that record now is sent to the administrator
24 in my office. She processes that information, with the
25 help of our computer system, and sends it to the
11
1 relevant health professionals.
2 If the children are out of our borough, that
3 information goes to the Child Protection Office of the
4 receiving borough. If it comes to notice that we do not
5 know a child, as would be in this case, a child without
6 a general practitioner, or without a school, and my
7 administrator has done all her enquiries, then those
8 Accident & Emergency attended are brought to my own
9 notice.
10 MS GIBSON: And what do you then do to ensure that that
11 child is attending a school or does have a general
12 practitioner?
13 MS TYRRELL: I then link with the school nurse lead and
14 advise and discuss with her the appropriate action to
15 take. That would be to contact the Education Department
16 to ensure whether Education know the child. If I am
17 really concerned about the information on the A&E
18 referral form, I also liaise myself with Dr Ruby
19 Schwartz in the hospital and I would also liaise with
20 Social Services, if that was the case. We then -- the
21 school nurse will also again, depending on the level of
22 our concern, either send an appointment letter to the
23 family to attend clinic or will do a home visit.
24 MS GIBSON: Thank you. And in the case of a child not
25 attending school, is the Education Welfare Department
12
1 notified?
2 MS TYRRELL: Yes, we would liaise with Education both in
3 terms of the school -- and if it came that they did not
4 know a school, then we would liaise with Education
5 Welfare, indeed.
6 MS GIBSON: That is the system in place now, but would you
7 agree that again at the time of Victoria's case, the
8 system in place was inadequate? I think as you have
9 mentioned before in your evidence, there were loopholes
10 and children could fall through those loopholes?
11 MS TYRRELL: Yes, I would agree.
12 MS GIBSON: Thank you very much, Ms Tyrrell.
13 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Ms Gibson. Mr Mason?
14 MR MASON: Thank you, sir. Very briefly, Ms Tyrrell, for
15 the benefit of those who are not terribly familiar with
16 NHS structures, is Central Middlesex Hospital part of
17 Parkside Health?
18 MS TYRRELL: No, it is not.
19 MR MASON: And can you please briefly explain the
20 relationship between the two?
21 MS TYRRELL: Yes, it is the Acute Trust within Brent, and we
22 are the Community Trust within Brent, and we liaise very
23 closely together to ensure congruence and continuity of
24 service.
25 MR MASON: Thank you, and the procedures that you referred
13
1 to in your evidence are Parkside procedures, am I right,
2 the documents?
3 MS TYRRELL: That is correct.
4 MR MASON: Thank you very much. Thank you, sir.
5 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you, Mr Mason.
6 Ms Tyrrell, could you just clarify, are you now the
7 Designated Nurse?
8 MS TYRRELL: I carry -- the title on my job description is
9 a Specialist Nurse for Child Protection, but I carry the
10 responsibilities of the Designated Nurse role.
11 THE CHAIRMAN: There seems to be some uncertainty about
12 that, so let me just be clear: would you be recognised
13 as the Designated Nurse?
14 MS TYRRELL: Yes, I would.
15 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much. Miss Gibson?
16 MS GIBSON: Sir, I have no further questions. Thank you
17 very much for attending and sorry for the wait.
18 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much indeed.
19 (The witness withdrew)
20 MS GIBSON: Sir, the next witness is Michelle Hines.
21 THE CHAIRMAN: Thank you very much, Miss Gibson. Ladies and
22 gentlemen, just while Ms Hines is coming forward, when
23 there is a change of witness -- and we are seeing rather
24 a lot of witnesses -- that is an obvious time to have
25 a chat, and -- perhaps better than that, let me put that
14
1 more politely, and say exchange a word or two, and
2 I think we are as guilty of that as everybody else, but
3 we need to be careful that we do respect the oath
4 taking, so could I have your help with that, please?
5 Thank you.
6 MS MICHELLE HINES (sworn)
7 MS GIBSON: Ms Hines, can you begin by giving the Inquiry
8 your full name and professional address, please?
9 MS HINES: My name is Michelle Hines, my professional
10 address is Brent House Annex, 356 to 358 High Road,
11 Wembley.
12 MS GIBSON: And you have made a statement for the Inquiry
13 which is found at volume 1, page 71; if you could be
14 shown a copy. Are the contents of that statement true
15 to the best of your knowledge and belief?
16 MS HINES: Yes, they are.
17 MS GIBSON: You were a senior social worker, working in the
18 Child Protection Investigation and Assessment Team in
19 Brent at the time; how long had you been a senior social
20 worker for?
21 MS HINES: I had been a senior social worker since 1995.
22 MS GIBSON: And you have been in Brent since December 1992?
23 MS HINES: That is correct.
24 MS GIBSON: What sort of training did you receive to ensure
25 you were kept up to date with child protection
15
1 procedures?
2 MS HINES: There was ongoing training.
3 MS GIBSON: How frequently would that occur?
4 MS HINES: I would say -- I have been on training about once
5 or twice a year.
6 MS GIBSON: And did you receive any form of induction when
7 you joined Social Services in Brent?
8 MS HINES: Not when I first joined I did not.
9 MS GIBSON: And were you aware of any people joining your
10 team while you were there more recently -- did they
11 receive any induction?
12 MS HINES: Some of them did.
13 MS GIBSON: Was that rather haphazard, whether they received
14 induction or not?
15 MS HINES: I think it was dependent on how the team was at
16 the time, how many people were in the team.
17 MS GIBSON: Am I right in saying that your team had a heavy
18 workload, and you had to work long hours?
19 MS HINES: That is correct.
20 MS GIBSON: And we know that you occupied the same floor in
21 the building as the Intake Duty Team, managed by
22 Edward Armstrong.
23 MS HINES: That is correct.
24 MS GIBSON: And is it right that his team was also extremely
25 busy, a lot of cases?
16
1 MS HINES: Yes, there was a lot of cases.
2 MS GIBSON: Were there sometimes difficulties between the
3 two teams as to who was to take on responsibility for
4 a case?
5 MS HINES: Not when I was in the team.
6 MS GIBSON: Were there ever any debates about whether a case
7 was a child in need case and therefore should belong to
8 Mr Armstrong's team, or whether it was a child
9 protection case, that you can recall?
10 MS HINES: There were debates.
11 MS GIBSON: And given that both teams were quite pressured
12 in the work they were doing, would that be a frequent
13 occurrence, to see who was to have responsibility for
14 a case?
15 MS HINES: I mean, if the Child Protection Team felt it was
16 child protection concerns, the referrals always came to
17 Child Protection, as far as I am aware.
18 MS GIBSON: Did Mr Armstrong ever suggest that a case should
19 be a Child Protection case, but it was returned back to
20 his team by your team, saying that no, it was a child in
21 need case?
22 MS HINES: On occasions.
23 MS GIBSON: And was there dispute about that?
24 MS HINES: Not that I can remember.
25 MS GIBSON: Well we know that both of your teams were very
17
1 busy, so was there not on occasion some friction about
2 who was to take on work?
3 MS HINES: When I was in the team, I felt that there was no
4 friction, but I left the team in September 1999, so
5 since then, I cannot speak about it.
6 MS GIBSON: Can I just ask you now about supervision? You
7 yourself undertook supervision of junior social workers
8 below you. Were you given any guidance as to how you
9 should conduct that supervision by more senior
10 management?
11 MS HINES: Yes, I have been on a supervision course.
12 MS GIBSON: And what did that consist of?
13 MS HINES: Basically about supervision, things to look out
14 for, do supervision contracts and obviously what
15 supervision should entail, and your accountability
16 towards your workers.
17 MS GIBSON: And how would supervision take place in practice
18 of the social workers who were junior to you?
19 MS HINES: We would make a date on when we would meet, it
20 was usually three-weekly, monthly, and we would meet, we
21 would take time out, meet and talk, and discuss the
22 cases that they had.
23 MS GIBSON: Would they choose which cases to discuss with
24 you?
25 MS HINES: We would usually discuss all cases that they had.
18
1 MS GIBSON: And would you look through all of the files that
2 they were working on on a regular basis, or was it up to
3 them to refer particular concerns to you?
4 MS HINES: I did not look through all the files on a regular
5 basis, but on occasions I did.
6 MS GIBSON: And what about your supervisor, that was
7 Tina Roper?
8 MS HINES: Mm.
9 MS GIBSON: How frequently would she supervise your work?
10 MS HINES: When Tina was my manager, we used to have regular
11 supervision, probably monthly -- three-weekly to
12 monthly.
13 MS GIBSON: And again what was the process for supervision?
14 MS HINES: She would book dates with me and we would meet
15 and discuss my cases.
16 MS GIBSON: Was it a case of you taking to her the cases you
17 were particularly concerned about?
18 MS HINES: I used to discuss all my cases, that I can
19 remember.
20 MS GIBSON: How many cases would you have at any one time?
21 MS HINES: Probably up to ten, ten cases.
22 MS GIBSON: So were you really able to discuss all ten cases
23 in a thorough way during your supervision session?
24 MS HINES: I felt it was in a thorough way.
25 (10.00 am)
19
1 MS GIBSON: And would your manager look through all of your
2 files to see that they accorded with good practice?
3 MS HINES: On occasions.
4 MS GIBSON: You mention at paragraph 5 of your statement
5 that there was some procedure for determining the
6 prioritisation of child protection investigations which
7 were more urgent. What considerations would you take
8 into account in determining how urgent a child
9 protection case was?
10 MS HINES: Obviously if a child had suffered significant
11 harm, that was urgent, like, for example, if a child had
12 gone to school and said they had been hit, that he had
13 been bruised, that would be urgent, that would be a case
14 that we would go out on.
15 MS GIBSON: So if you had knowledge of actual injuries, that
16 was a case you would go out on?
17 MS HINES: Yes.
18 MS GIBSON: What about likelihood of significant harm? What
19 would the response be there?
20 MS HINES: It would be still child protection, but we would
21 make an appointment to see the mother, see the child.
22 MS GIBSON: And how long would it take for an appointment to
23 be given?
24 MS HINES: Again, that would be dependent on the content of
25 the referral, but usually it would be within the week.
20
1 MS GIBSON: Did you think that that was an adequate time
2 response, if a child was at some risk of significant
3 harm?
4 MS HINES: As I said, it would depend on the content of the
5 referral. If it was quite vague, then a week I would
6 say was okay, but if it was something that we were
7 particularly concerned about, we would try to see them
8 as soon as possible.
9 MS GIBSON: You say if the content of the referral was quite
10 vague; was it not your responsibility to investigate and
11 to seek clarity?
12 MS HINES: Yes, we did. We used to clarify with the
13 referrer what they meant.
14 MS GIBSON: But if it was vague, it could wait for a week?
15 MS HINES: No, we would clarify it, but once we had
16 clarified it, if it was not felt to be that much of
17 a priority, considering all the cases we had, sometimes
18 it could be a week before the family was seen.
19 MS GIBSON: Did you feel that you were not able to respond
20 as quickly as you might like to because you were so
21 overburdened with work that you had to leave some cases
22 if you like on the back burner, because there was so
23 much that was urgent to do?
24 MS HINES: That is correct.
25 MS GIBSON: Did you think that that was an adequate way to
21
1 perform your role in terms of protecting children in the
2 Brent area?
3 MS HINES: I mean, we can only work with the resources that
4 we have. If we have not got enough workers to do the
5 work -- we were working long hours anyway.
6 MS GIBSON: And what was done to refer these concerns about
7 the adequacy of response to senior management in Brent?
8 MS HINES: I mean, there were always adverts, you know, for
9 social workers to come to Brent, but there was not very
10 much response, from what I understand.
11 MS GIBSON: Is it fair to say that at that time, the
12 atmosphere in your office was one of considerable
13 demoralisation at the burden of work you had?
14 MS HINES: I would not say our team was demoralised.
15 I would say that we worked effectively, and we had done
16 as much as we could. I felt I -- I came from a very
17 good team.
18 MS GIBSON: Were there a number of locum workers on your
19 team?
20 MS HINES: There were.
21 MS GIBSON: And what was done to ensure that they were
22 familiar with procedures?
23 MS HINES: Usually they would shadow one of the workers that
24 had been there, you know, one of the experienced
25 workers, and we would try to help them as much as we
22
1 could.
2 MS GIBSON: Was there any formal induction process that you
3 were aware of?
4 MS HINES: I think, as I said, some people did get an
5 induction, from what I can remember, and some people did
6 not.
7 MS GIBSON: And what would determine whether or not someone
8 got an induction?
9 MS HINES: I think it depended on the staff available at the
10 time.
11 MS GIBSON: You say at paragraph 9 of your statement that it
12 is your understanding that guidance and protocols were
13 contained in volume C of the Brent Child Protection
14 Procedures.
15 MS HINES: Yes.
16 MS GIBSON: Your understanding; could you clarify why you
17 phrase it that way? Were you actually familiar with
18 those documents?
19 MS HINES: I was familiar with them, they were in the
20 office, and we would refer to them.
21 MS GIBSON: How frequently would you refer to them?
22 MS HINES: When we needed to.
23 MS GIBSON: Were you actually given any training in the use
24 of those procedures and manuals?
25 MS HINES: I have had child protection training.
23
1 MS GIBSON: You have had general child protection training,
2 but what about in these particular procedures?
3 MS HINES: I would not say in the procedures.
4 MS GIBSON: Did you find these manuals to be user friendly?
5 MS HINES: I would not say user friendly.
6 MS GIBSON: Did workers find them quite difficult to
7 negotiate your way round them? They are quite
8 voluminous documents.
9 MS HINES: I think as long as you know the chapter that you
10 want to look up, you would look up the chapter and find
11 the information out.
12 MS GIBSON: So no particular reason why you should not
13 follow those procedures in any particular case?
14 MS HINES: No.
15 MS GIBSON: Can I turn now to your involvement with
16 Victoria's case? On 14th July, you were on duty when
17 a referral was received. If we could have a look at
18 that referral document, which is at volume 5, page 34.
19 If you could look at page 34 and then over the page to
20 page 35, is that the referral that you received on
21 14th July?
22 MS HINES: Yes, it is.
23 MS GIBSON: And can you help with what documents you
24 received with that referral, or would it have just been
25 that document that you had sight of?
24
1 MS HINES: At the time, it was this document.
2 MS GIBSON: There is reference on the top of that document
3 at page 34 to Ealing Social Services; if you could have
4 a look at that? Can you help us with whose handwriting
5 that is in?
6 MS HINES: Kate Thrift.
7 MS GIBSON: It is all in Kate Thrift's handwriting?
8 MS HINES: Mm.
9 MS GIBSON: Do you recall if that information was on the
10 document when you saw it on 14th July?
11 MS HINES: It would have been, yes.
12 MS GIBSON: And then over the page at 35, in the body of the
13 document there, with details of referral again there is
14 reference to Ealing.
15 MS HINES: Yes.
16 MS GIBSON: What was your understanding of how the
17 information linking this case to Ealing Council as the
18 placing authority in the bed and breakfast
19 accommodation, how that link was made?
20 MS HINES: What do you mean, by the person taking the
21 referral?
22 MS GIBSON: Can you help us how that piece of knowledge came
23 to be acquired? It may be that you cannot.
24 MS HINES: I cannot, sorry.
25 MS GIBSON: Can you help with the process before you
25
1 received that referral? We know that that was taken by
2 Kate Thrift, not by yourself. What would she have done
3 before passing the referral on to you?
4 MS HINES: I mean, what she should have done is taken
5 a referral, taken as much information as she could on to
6 the referral, she would then pass it to one of the
7 seniors or the manager of the Duty Team for them to
8 receive it and actually say that they have got it, sign
9 to say that they have seen it.
10 MS GIBSON: When you say she would take as much detail,
11 would she at that stage undertake any checks on the
12 database to see if the family were already known to
13 Social Services?
14 MS HINES: In Brent, that was an Admin task. Admin go into
15 the computer to see if the family has ever been known
16 before.
17 MS GIBSON: So what would the process be, from Kate Thrift
18 receiving the referral? Would she go to Admin and get
19 those checks done before those documents were referred
20 on to you?
21 MS HINES: In the case of child protection, I think it would
22 go straight to the manager, so it could be quickly
23 passed to the Child Protection Team.
24 MS GIBSON: And at what stage then would the checks be
25 undertaken? Who would ensure that they were done?
26
1 MS HINES: The person that took the -- the manager that
2 looked at this referral should have then alerted us that
3 there was a referral coming over and asked Admin to
4 check it, check whether the family were known.
5 MS GIBSON: So can you help us with how that information was
6 checked in this particular case?
7 MS HINES: Not really, because I did not take the referral
8 and I did not pass it to the manager, so when it came to
9 my desk, I then dealt with it. So I do not know, you
10 would have to ask the person who took the referral that.
11 MS GIBSON: Is it not part of your job to check when you are
12 undertaking a child protection investigation that all
13 the relevant index checks on the family have taken
14 place, because that might contain some very important
15 information for an investigation.
16 MS HINES: At that time, I was told the family were not
17 known -- from what I can remember, the family were not
18 known at that time.
19 MS GIBSON: We know now that Martin Punch seems to have made
20 a link at this time between the earlier anonymous
21 referral on 18th June -- did you learn of that link at
22 the time you were dealing with the case?
23 MS HINES: No, I did not.
24 MS GIBSON: Again, what would you do to check with Admin
25 that all possible links had been investigated before you
27
1 ceased your dealing with the case?
2 MS HINES: I mean, usually there is a pink and a yellow form
3 that says the family are known or not known, and if they
4 are known, it will give a number to say that you can
5 check it, to say what that last -- previous referral
6 was.
7 MS GIBSON: Do you recall in this case whether you received
8 a pink or yellow form?
9 MS HINES: I cannot remember.
10 MS GIBSON: Would there be many occasions when you did not
11 receive a pink and yellow form?
12 MS HINES: No, there would not be.
13 MS GIBSON: Did that ever happen?
14 MS HINES: As I said, sometimes the referral would come
15 straight to us if it was urgent. We would then give it
16 back to Admin, who would then put the forms on and bring
17 it to us.
18 MS GIBSON: So if you got a referral without those pink and
19 yellow forms showing that the checks had been
20 undertaken, was it not your responsibility to ensure
21 that you did at some stage get those forms, so you had
22 the complete picture?
23 MS HINES: Yes, definitely.
24 MS GIBSON: Can you assist us with what happened in this
25 case?
28
1 MS HINES: From what I can remember, the family were not
2 known, that was the information that I had.
3 MS GIBSON: Can you look at that volume again, page 29?
4 Would you ever receive a copy of a print-out like that
5 on your file?
6 MS HINES: Yes.
7 MS GIBSON: So you would get screen print-outs showing links
8 between cases?
9 MS HINES: Yes, we would.
10 MS GIBSON: Have you seen this document before?
11 MS HINES: Yes, I have.
12 MS GIBSON: What stage did you see this at?
13 MS HINES: I can remember when I saw Janet Palmer, she
14 showed me this document.
15 MS GIBSON: When was that?
16 MS HINES: It was a long time after.
17 MS GIBSON: A long time after you were dealing with this
18 case, do you mean?
19 MS HINES: Yes. I could have seen it at the time, I cannot
20 remember, but I remember seeing it when I saw
21 Janet Palmer.
22 MS GIBSON: You say you could have seen this at the time;
23 would that normally come to you with the pink and yellow
24 forms when you got a referral, this type of document
25 from Admin?
29
1 MS HINES: Yes, it would.
2 MS GIBSON: So if an administration officer had undertaken
3 this check, there would be no good reason for him not to
4 pass the document on to you at the time?
5 MS HINES: No.
6 MS GIBSON: So do you think it is likely that you did see
7 this?
8 MS HINES: I could have seen it, but as you can see, it says
9 the same information, the referral that is noted in "See
10 also", it is the same referral as the one we are talking
11 about.
12 MS GIBSON: Well the referral number at the top for this
13 referral is 1010060, and if you look in the box by
14 "Category", "See also" -- it is a different number,
15 1009966. What would that indicate to you?
16 MS HINES: That there was a different referral.
17 MS GIBSON: So it does appear from looking at that that
18 there was a different referral. On seeing that
19 information, what would you do to pursue that, to check
20 out what this different referral was?
21 MS HINES: Ask Admin to check it.
22 MS GIBSON: So is it likely again at this time that you
23 would have asked Admin to check what this referral was?
24 MS HINES: I would have if I had seen it.
25 MS GIBSON: Can you help with whether you recall --
30
1 MS HINES: I cannot recall.
2 MS GIBSON: Because we know now that that other number
3 relates to an anonymous referral on 18th June,
4 expressing concerns about Victoria, from a relative. If
5 you had checked that information, would that have
6 altered your approach to dealing with this case?
7 MS HINES: Yes, it would have, but I was not aware there was
8 another referral at the time.
9 MS GIBSON: How would your actions in this case have been
10 different if you had been aware of an anonymous referral
11 on 18th June?
12 MS HINES: Obviously because there was concerns expressed
13 previously about this child.
14 MS GIBSON: So the previous expression of concerns, would it
15 be fair to say that would have heightened your concern
16 about the case?
17 MS HINES: It would have.
18 MS GIBSON: And what would you have done in the light of
19 that?
20 MS HINES: Obviously, as I said, gained more information,
21 what the referral was about, what had been done about
22 the referral, what was the conclusion of the outcome of
23 the last referral, the assessment done, and if it had
24 any relevance to this one.
25 MS GIBSON: Would you in this case have ceased police
31
1 protection in the way that you did, had you had this
2 piece of information at the time?
3 MS HINES: As I said, it depends, because once the medical
4 evidence had been established that the injuries were not
5 non-accidental, as was first thought, that may have
6 seemed like an abuse of police protection, if it was
7 said that the injuries were not --
8 MS GIBSON: We will come to that later. Would this piece of
9 information have altered your dealings with the case,
10 because we know that as soon as you learnt from Central
11 Middlesex that this was a case of scabies, rather than
12 of non-accidental injury, you transferred this case over
13 to the Child in Need Team, but if you had had this piece
14 of information in addition, would your response have
15 been different?
16 MS HINES: I think it would have been different.
17 MS GIBSON: And in what way different?
18 MS HINES: Before the police protection had been lifted, we
19 would have obviously gone out and made enquiries.
20 MS GIBSON: And what sort of enquiries would you have made?
21 MS HINES: Spoken to the childminder, spoken to the
22 hospital, spoken to Mrs Kouao and spoken to the child.
23 MS GIBSON: Do you accept that it is a considerable
24 oversight in this case that you did not pursue this link
25 with the earlier referral, because it seems that the
32
1 information was available.
2 MS HINES: Well from what I remember at that time, I was not
3 aware that there was any previous referral, I thought
4 the case was not known. That was the information that
5 I can remember we were working with at the time.
6 MS GIBSON: Were there problems at this time in getting
7 information from administrative staff?
8 MS HINES: At the time, I know that admin staff were very
9 overstretched and very pressurised, and sometimes you
10 did wait a long time for them to do checks for you.
11 MS GIBSON: Was that the case even in child protection
12 referrals?
13 MS HINES: Usually with child protection referrals, we will
14 say, "We need this information now, it is very urgent",
15 and they would be done as soon as they could do them.
16 MS GIBSON: Usually but not always?
17 MS HINES: Well if it was child protection, the social
18 workers would actually say, "We need this information
19 now", and it would be done.
20 MS GIBSON: I am trying to understand this, because it seems
21 that your usual procedure would be to pursue these links
22 vigorously in the case of child protection, it was
23 important, and we know that this information was
24 available on the database, making the link. I do not
25 follow why it was not established, and why you think you
33
1 might have missed it in this case.
2 MS HINES: Time could have played a factor, because I think
3 by the time this referral came to the Child Protection
4 Team, it was nearly 5.00, and I cannot remember whether
5 there was any Admin at the time, I do not remember.
6 I mean, I think by the time I called the police, it was
7 just after 5.00 or 5.00.
8 MS GIBSON: We know that this particular entry was -- or
9 this particular match was made on 15th July from looking
10 at the entry created by Martin Punch, so it seems that
11 this was not completed on 14th July. What would be done
12 with this piece of information on 15th July?
13 MS HINES: It would have been linked with the papers, with
14 the file, I would have thought, but on the 15th, from
15 what I can remember, the case had already been passed
16 back to the Child in Need Team.
17 MS GIBSON: Would you be made aware of this link on
18 15th July?
19 MS HINES: I was not made aware of anything more to do with
20 this case on 15th July.
21 MS GIBSON: So are you saying that that link was never
22 communicated to you, and it would have gone to the Child
23 in Need Team on 15th July?
24 MS HINES: Yes.
25 MS GIBSON: Or might it have been the case that you saw this
34
1 after police protection had come to an end, and it had
2 already been referred to the Child in Need Team, so
3 responsibility was transferred to them and you felt this
4 was not your responsibility any more?
5 MS HINES: No, it was not brought to my attention.
6 MS GIBSON: You say in your statement that when you spoke
7 about this referral to Kate Thrift, and saw the referral
8 form, your response was that this was definitely a child
9 protection matter. Can you help us with why you reached
10 that conclusion?
11 MS HINES: Because of the content of the referral.
12 MS GIBSON: And what is it about the contents of the
13 referral in particular which made you place the child
14 protection label on this case?
15 MS HINES: Because of the bruising, noted bruising on the
16 feet, I think it said bloodshot eyes.
17 MS GIBSON: And can you help me with your general procedure?
18 On receiving a referral of this nature you have
19 identified clearly as a child protection matter, what
20 would you then do in terms of ensuring the child's
21 safety?
22 MS HINES: Usually we would obviously do a visit straight
23 away. I mean, with this referral, the child was in
24 hospital, but on other occasions when the child is at
25 school, for example, or somewhere else, at nursery, we
35
1 would try to make contact with the parents, because
2 obviously a child of that age you cannot go and
3 interview without permission from the parents, so we
4 would try to obviously -- speak to my manager, try to
5 make contact with the parents of the child to ask
6 permission to speak to the child, see the child and do
7 our enquiries and make an assessment of the situation.
8 MS GIBSON: So seeing the child is of paramount importance
9 in this situation?
10 MS HINES: Yes.
11 MS GIBSON: Why is that?
12 MS HINES: Because you need to see the child to get an
13 overall picture, and that has to be in your assessment.
14 You need to see the child.
15 MS GIBSON: Did you see Victoria in this case?
16 MS HINES: No, I did not.
17 MS GIBSON: Do you accept that was an omission in your
18 investigation of this child protection referral?
19 MS HINES: No -- I would not say so, because I would have
20 seen the child the following day. The child was in
21 a safe place, in hospital, all the safeguards had been
22 put into place, we had phoned the Emergency Duty
23 Service, we had phoned -- the police had been informed.
24 The carer -- the person that brought the child to the
25 hospital had been informed that this child was in police
36
1 protection, the hospital had been informed that the
2 child was in police protection, so the child was felt to
3 be safe and it was late in the evening and our
4 investigation would have started the following day.
5 MS GIBSON: So you say it was late in the evening when you
6 received this referral; what you put in place, is it
7 fair to say, was a form of holding measure overnight
8 until you could investigate the case more thoroughly the
9 next day?
10 MS HINES: Correct.
11 MS GIBSON: Would your response have been different if you
12 had received this referral, say, at 10.00 in the
13 morning?
14 MS HINES: It would have been, because we would have done
15 our investigation that day.
16 MS GIBSON: What would have happened, just take us through
17 it, if you had received this referral at 10.00 in the
18 morning?
19 MS HINES: We would have tried to make contact with who was
20 supposed to have had parental responsibility, or who we
21 thought had parental responsibility, to see whether or
22 not they would give us permission to speak to the child.
23 If we could not get that, I would have obviously spoken
24 to our Legal Department, because we may have had to have
25 sought an emergency protection order, giving us
37
1 directions to speak to the child, and --
2 MS GIBSON: So earlier in the day, the response would have
3 been more likely to be an Emergency Protection Order
4 rather than the use of police protection?
5 MS HINES: Definitely.
6 MS GIBSON: So your response varies quite considerably
7 because of the timing?
8 MS HINES: Yes.
9 MS GIBSON: You called Miss Cameron to inform her about the
10 Police Protection Order, and you had a brief discussion
11 with Miss Cameron. We know that Kouao was present at
12 the time, and you also spoke to her. Was it your
13 intention when you phoned Miss Cameron to speak to her
14 about the case?
15 MS HINES: I did not know she would have been there.
16 MS GIBSON: To speak to Miss Cameron, not Kouao.
17 MS HINES: Yes.
18 MS GIBSON: And what would you have planned to discuss with
19 Miss Cameron about the case?
20 MS HINES: It was to tell her that, if she should see the
21 mother, that the child was in police protection, because
22 we did not know the whereabouts of her mother at that
23 stage -- well, the person we thought was the mother, to
24 actually inform her that if she does make contact with
25 her, that her child was in Central Middlesex Hospital
38
1 and the child was the subject of police protection, and
2 the child was not to be removed or the police would be
3 called.
4 MS GIBSON: Was it any part of your plan at any stage to
5 interview Miss Cameron about the circumstances of the
6 case?
7 MS HINES: Had I been carrying out a Section 47
8 investigation, that would have been one of the people
9 I would have seen.
10 MS GIBSON: Were you not carrying out a Section 47
11 investigation in this case?
12 MS HINES: What I am saying is, the following day it
13 changed, so it was not -- I was not dealing with the
14 case any more, but if I had been, I would have seen the
15 childminder, along with the other people that I have
16 already mentioned.
17 MS GIBSON: And why would it have been important to see the
18 childminder?
19 MS HINES: Because she probably had a lot of information, if
20 she had been caring for the child.
21 MS GIBSON: And is it not part of your role to gather
22 information about a child, to see what the wider
23 circumstances are?
24 MS HINES: That would have been my responsibility, if I had
25 been carrying on the assessment.
39
1 MS GIBSON: When a child is taken into police protection, it
2 is part of your duty to investigate, to carry out an
3 investigation into the case.
4 MS HINES: That is correct.
5 MS GIBSON: And we know that Victoria was taken into police
6 protection; what investigation did you carry out to
7 establish what Victoria's circumstances were?
8 MS HINES: I was going to carry out my investigation, as
9 I said, the following morning. The child was in a safe
10 place. The following morning, the case had a completely
11 different stance on it, because we had been informed
12 that the case was not actually child protection, it was
13 a child in need case, and it was a medical problem, it
14 was not non-accidental injuries, so it was then deemed
15 to be child in need.
16 MS GIBSON: Can I ask you now about your discussions with
17 Kouao at Miss Cameron's house? She informed you that
18 the injuries on Victoria were self-inflicted. What did
19 she say about the causation of those injuries?
20 MS HINES: I did not go into it with her, she just said that
21 Victoria, or at the time her name was Anna, Anna had
22 done them herself.
23 MS GIBSON: Did you find that surprising?
24 MS HINES: Surprising, yes, at the time. I mean, I said to
25 her that I would need to discuss this fully with her the
40
1 following morning, and she needed to come to the office.
2 I gave her the address of the office and she agreed to
3 come to the office at 9.30.
4 (10.30 am)
5 MS GIBSON: Did she explain in what way Anna, as she was
6 then referring to Victoria, in what way she had caused
7 those injuries?
8 MS HINES: No, she did not.
9 MS GIBSON: Did she mention scabies to you?
10 MS HINES: No.
11 MS GIBSON: Would it not have been important to investigate
12 with her the mechanism for the cause of those injuries?
13 MS HINES: That was what I was going to do the following
14 morning.
15 MS GIBSON: Is time not of the essence when you are
16 investigated child protection matters, to ensure that
17 someone does not have time, for example, to fit their
18 story to medical evidence?
19 MS HINES: Time is of the essence, I would agree with you,
20 but as I said, the child was in a safe place, in the
21 hospital environment, and I was going to do my
22 investigation the following day.
23 MS GIBSON: You had a plan to meet with Kouao at 9.30 in
24 your office the following morning; she did not turn up
25 for that meeting, because we know she was at hospital.
41
1 Did it not concern you that she had failed to turn up
2 for an interview with you, and had chosen to go to the
3 hospital where the child was instead?
4 MS HINES: Not at that time, because obviously I rang the
5 hospital straight -- when she did not turn up for the
6 appointment, I then rang the hospital, and I was
7 informed by, I think it was Dr Dempster, that the case
8 was not child protection at all, and more or less it was
9 not to be seen as child protection, it was actually
10 a child in need, so I felt that maybe the doctors had
11 informed Mrs Kouao of this information, and that is why
12 she had stayed at the hospital.
13 MS GIBSON: You say you thought that, but did you explore
14 with anyone whether that was or was not the case, or was
15 that just your interpretation?
16 MS HINES: My interpretation was that the doctors had
17 informed me that it was not child protection, it was
18 a child in need case, and I brought it to the attention
19 of my manager, who then passed it to the Child in Need
20 Team, who was supposed to have carried out a child in
21 need assessment.
22 MS GIBSON: Might it not, on the face of it though, have
23 been concerning that Kouao, who was supposed to be
24 interviewed by you, was at the hospital instead with the
25 child? I mean, in terms of child protection, she could
42
1 have been there, let us say, telling the child what to
2 say, before you had the opportunity to interview her.
3 MS HINES: That could have been the case, but I mean,
4 I cannot speculate on that.
5 MS GIBSON: In this case, we know, and you have already
6 said, that your initial view was this is definitely
7 a child protection matter.
8 MS HINES: Mm.
9 MS GIBSON: What did you do to investigate whether the
10 diagnosis that was made was correct, and whether all
11 factors had been taken into account?
12 MS HINES: Well, I was told this child was seen by Dr Ruby
13 Schwartz, who is a consultant paediatrician who is
14 highly respected in Brent, she is a member of the ACPC.
15 When I went to Brent, she was one of the trainers on
16 child abuse courses. So I felt if Dr Schwartz had seen
17 the child, her diagnosis would have been correct, and
18 I did not feel I could have disputed that.
19 MS GIBSON: Do you ever in cases seek a second opinion, if
20 you have doubts, on the basis of information you have
21 received about the circumstances of the case, that
22 a diagnosis is correct?
23 MS HINES: I personally have never disputed a case.
24 MS GIBSON: Would you know the mechanism by which you would
25 do that?
43
1 MS HINES: Obviously if a junior doctor had seen a child,
2 I may say, "Has Dr Schwartz seen the child?", because
3 Dr Schwartz was always the person that I felt was
4 a highly respected person at Central Middlesex Hospital,
5 and I would always rely on her diagnosis.
6 MS GIBSON: Well the information that you had had on the
7 referral was that the child had been seen by her carer
8 with cuts and bruises, and then you learnt later that
9 the diagnosis was something completely different. Do
10 you or did you at that time know what scabies was?
11 MS HINES: I knew it was a skin -- some form of skin
12 disease.
13 MS GIBSON: How much did you know about it?
14 MS HINES: Not a lot.
15 MS GIBSON: Did you know what caused it, for example?
16 MS HINES: Could be unhealthy living conditions.
17 MS GIBSON: And it seems in this case that if the child did
18 have scabies, that it had been to such a degree that she
19 had injured herself by scratching.
20 MS HINES: Mm.
21 MS GIBSON: So presumably a fairly severe case of scabies?
22 MS HINES: Mm.
23 MS GIBSON: Is it not part of your role to investigate
24 whether a child is at risk of significant harm from
25 neglect, not simply from physical injury?
44
1 MS HINES: Information like that was not passed to me, so
2 I did not act on that. As I said, it was felt to be
3 child in need afterwards.
4 MS GIBSON: You say information was not passed to you, but
5 is it not your role as the social worker in the case to
6 co-ordinate the information?
7 MS HINES: I mean, at that time in Brent, there were two
8 separate teams, one being Child Protection and one being
9 Child in Need, and the Child Protection Team dealt with
10 Section 47 investigations; the Child in Need Team dealt
11 with general concerns, social concerns, and the
12 information that was fed back to me from the hospital
13 was that it was a housing and education issue, which
14 would be dealt with by the Child in Need Team, and that
15 is why it was passed back.
16 MS GIBSON: Did you not see it as any part of your role to
17 critically evaluate the information you were presented
18 with?
19 MS HINES: At that time, no.
20 MS GIBSON: But do you actually think that that was your
21 role, as the social worker charged with investigating
22 this case, which was initially a child protection
23 referral?
24 MS HINES: As I said, the Section 47 investigation quickly
25 went into a child in need investigation once the medical
45
1 evidence was received from the hospital.
2 MS GIBSON: But that was as a result of your evaluation of
3 the case, that it became a child in need case.
4 MS HINES: In conjunction with speaking to my manager.
5 MS GIBSON: And what did you tell your manager about this
6 case?
7 MS HINES: Well, I showed her my write-up, and explained to
8 her what Dr Dempster had told me, that it was not
9 a child protection concern, it was actually a medical
10 condition, and my manager then agreed that it was not
11 a Section 47 investigation, but she did say she wanted
12 that information in writing, which Dr Dempster did fax
13 to us.
14 MS GIBSON: We know that you had a letter from Dr Dempster,
15 but I just want to look again at -- you have got the
16 referral in front of you that you received, and the
17 reference to cuts and bruises. What was done to
18 investigate the apparent discrepancy between that and
19 the information that you received on 15th July, about
20 this being a case of scabies?
21 MS HINES: The child was medically examined by a consultant,
22 who informed me, through Dr Dempster, that -- well, they
23 did not mention the cuts and bruises, they just said the
24 child was suffering from scabies.
25 MS GIBSON: But you had information in front of you relating
46
1 to cuts and bruises. Did you think that scabies could
2 be related to cuts and bruises, or --
3 MS HINES: I mean, I am not medically trained, so I cannot
4 really answer that, but the child was seen by the
5 consultant paediatrician, and I assume if it was not
6 scabies they would say it was not scabies.
7 MS GIBSON: Can I ask you to look at the Brent Interim Child
8 Protection Procedures Manual, and that is volume 19,
9 please? If you could go first to chapter 8, which is at
10 page 164, that gives details of what you must do on
11 receipt of a referral. 1.2.1:
12 "To obtain as much information as possible from the
13 person making the referral."
14 Did you consider that you did that in this case?
15 MS HINES: The referral was taken by Kate who was a very
16 experienced worker, and she took all the information
17 that she said was available at the time.
18 MS GIBSON: But again, you are the social worker dealing
19 with this case. We have already been through the change
20 in this case overnight from what you thought was a child
21 protection case to a child in need case. Is it not part
22 of your role to investigate, with the referring agency,
23 CMH, why they had drawn that conclusion?
24 MS HINES: Well, I did speak to Dr Dempster, as I said, and
25 she said -- well, she was asked to provide information
47
1 in writing as to why this was not a child protection
2 case any more, which she did do.
3 MS GIBSON: So you did not think to explore with her the
4 reason for the diagnosis?
5 MS HINES: As I said, I did not -- I am not medically
6 trained, so I did not feel I could dispute Dr Schwartz's
7 findings.
8 MS GIBSON: Can you turn now to page 171? This is a list of
9 people that should be contacted to find the nature and
10 extent of the -- and then the manual tails out at that
11 point, but a list of people to be contacted by yourself;
12 the referrer we know you contacted, but did you contact
13 a school nurse or a school in relation to this child?
14 MS HINES: When I was -- obviously, as I said, the referral
15 came in late in the day. By the time it came to us, all
16 these agencies would have been closed. I was going to
17 carry out my investigation the following morning, which
18 would have meant checking all these people, and doing
19 what I was supposed to be doing, but as I said, because
20 it then went from child protection to child in need
21 early in the morning, it was passed back to the Child in
22 Need Team, so I had no further input with the case.
23 MS GIBSON: So is it not the case that once you embark on
24 a Section 47 investigation, you must satisfy yourself of
25 these points before you complete that investigation?
48
1 MS HINES: It is dependent on the referral. This referral,
2 we took it at being a Section 47 initially because of
3 the marks on the child. Very quickly it was established
4 that it was a medical reason, it was not child
5 protection, so in essence, it was not a Section 47
6 investigation any more, it was a child in need
7 investigation, because if she had had scabies in the
8 morning, she had had scabies the day she was presented.
9 MS GIBSON: And what was your expectation of what would
10 happen in relation to a child in need assessment in this
11 case?
12 MS HINES: Well, you go through a child in need assessment,
13 which looks at all the agencies and what services and
14 supports the family needs.
15 MS GIBSON: Is there anything done by your team to alert
16 particular cases coming from your side over to the child
17 in need side where there may be a need for a swift
18 investigation into the circumstances of a child?
19 MS HINES: From the Child Protection Team, it would have to
20 go through the manager to put it back to child in need.
21 MS GIBSON: And what did you do in this case to ensure --
22 for example, we know that you had information on your
23 referral form that the child was not attending school,
24 and did not have a general practitioner. What was done
25 to bring those particular concerns to the child in need
49
1 manager?
2 MS HINES: You mean from the letter from Dr Dempster?
3 MS GIBSON: Yes.
4 MS HINES: That would obviously have been put on the file
5 and that should have been looked at as part of the child
6 in need assessment.
7 MS GIBSON: Put on the file but no procedure in place for
8 highlighting those points to the manager of the intake
9 team?
10 MS HINES: There should have been. Usually the manager will
11 do recommendations of what needs to happen, when it goes
12 over.
13 MS GIBSON: And whose responsibility would that be?
14 MS HINES: It could be the social worker or the managers.
15 MS GIBSON: Do you accept that it was a shortcoming in this
16 case that you never actually saw Victoria to satisfy
17 yourself about her circumstances?
18 MS HINES: I do accept that now, yes.
19 MS GIBSON: We know that you actually did catch sight of
20 Victoria a few days later in the reception area of your
21 office. Can you describe what you saw on that occasion?
22 MS HINES: It was just a little girl, she was sitting down,
23 and the woman that she was with was saying she wanted
24 a taxi to take her to Ealing, which I do not think the
25 Duty Team were giving her, so she was making a bit of
50
1 a scene at reception.
2 MS GIBSON: She was making a bit of a scene, and can you
3 describe what she looked like and what Victoria looked
4 like on this occasion?
5 MS HINES: I cannot describe what Victoria looked like
6 because she was sitting down at the side of reception,
7 but the woman in question, she was very well turned out,
8 dressed up very nicely.
9 MS GIBSON: And did you not consider, given that you were
10 aware of this case in the child protection forum
11 previously, that those observations were important
12 observations that should have found their way into the
13 case file, the differential appearance between the
14 apparent mother and child?
15 MS HINES: I did not say there was a differential in
16 appearance.
17 MS GIBSON: You have described Kouao as looking smart; in
18 your Crown Prosecution Service statement you described
19 her as wearing designer clothes.
20 MS HINES: I did not say anything about the child.
21 MS GIBSON: You described the child as being African in
22 appearance; what did you mean by that?
23 MS HINES: That she was of black African Caribbean origin --
24 or black African origin. I did not mention about her
25 clothing, because I could not have commented on that.
|
