Commentary
At a time when psychologists in particular are concerned about psychological evidence being given by psychologists who are unregulated, this case illustrates the risks when an ‘independent’ social worker gives psychological evidence.
The learning points are of general application. The specifics of the case are for psychologists, psychiatrists and social workers.
Learning Points
-
Do not allow your own experiences and interests and your sympathy for the subject to cloud your judgment
-
Keep your personal experiences out of your testimony
-
Opinions need to be evidence-based.
-
Have regard to the totality of the evidence.
-
Expert investigation of a case should be in-depth and accurate.
The case
An application for care and placement orders brought by Coventry City Council in respect of Z who was born on the 05 November 2023 and the first child of her mother, XX
Expert evidence
The local authority instructed [ISW], Independent Social Worker to undertake a parenting assessment of the father and the mother, using the Parent Assess model.
An issue was referenced in Ms ISW's own bio at the beginning of her report. She said,
"My areas of expertise are in neurodiversity, developmental trauma and attachment. I am currently completing a post-graduate level Certificate in Traumatic Stress Studies led by world renowned psychiatrist, trauma expert and author, Dr Bessel van der Kolk."
Issue
At the heart of the case was the central dispute between Ms ISW and all the other professional evidence in the case. Ms ISW was the only professional person who had formed the view that the father and the mother could care for Z, although even she would have seemed to accept that this could not be immediately, nor could they care for her independently. The precise timing of when they would be able to resume care was not clear from her evidence.
Discussion
There were many aspects of Ms ISW's evidence which the court found incredibly troubling. The judge was afraid that the first, and perhaps most significant, was his assessment that she had lost sight of the need to be an independent and fair witness before the court. Her overall presentation was incredibly defensive. It was apparent that Ms ISW brought to her role and to her evidence a number of personal experiences and beliefs, which, in my assessment, led her to error and affected her ability to remain dispassionate and balanced. She referred on several occasions about her work with Dr Bessel van der Kolk, and her views on the impact of trauma upon parents and children, including herself, as she told the court she was a survivor of trauma in her own life. She was anxious to tell the court her own views about the impact of trauma upon parents, which was informed by her interest in this subject. But the judge said that with the greatest respect to the work of Dr van der Kolk, and the increasing understanding of trauma-based responses, this was not what Ms ISW was asked to do. He was absolutely clear that she had allowed her own experiences and interests and her sympathy for what these parents had been through to cloud her judgment. Ms ISW also went way beyond her remit and expertise and confused her role as an independent social worker with that of a psychologist. It was apparent that she had a great interest in psychology, but she is not trained in that field, although that did not appear to prevent her from forming her own views and ignoring the recommendation of the court appointed psychologist, who has over twenty-five years' experience of preparing court reports.
Ms ISW is not qualified to diagnose neurodiversity (however much she may know as a result of her experiences). For reasons the court could not understand, she seemed reluctant to accept the recommendations which Professor Wilcox had made for each of the parents, preferring her own view of what kind of therapy might be the most effective. She had neither the qualifications nor experience to do so. She provided her own 'timelines' for when the parents might be able to engage in the work, the period by which they may not experience disruption as a result of addressing their issues, and when they might be able to resume the care of their daughter without any evidence to substantiate them. It seemed to the judge that in appointing herself as social worker, psychologist, therapist and judge, Ms ISW had fallen into significant error.
Further, the judge found that her analysis was superficial and inaccurate. He gave two specific examples. Ms ISW refused to accept that there was any basis for professionals to be concerned about the relationship between the father and the mother. She specifically told the court that there were "some unhealthy features" but that this did not pose a risk to Z. She based this opinion on the fact that she had spent 26 hours with the couple, and they had only ever presented as being loving, supportive and warm towards each other.
But this evidence completely ignored the wider and more complex picture which was apparent from the totality of the other evidence, which is available to the court, and was available to Ms ISW. The father's history made him incredibly vulnerable, emotionally needy and lacking in self-esteem. The mother was compliant and unassertive. Whilst they only had to think about each other and making each other happy, it was absolutely correct that the relationship suited them both, and there is no need for arguments or coercion. At this time, they only fell out about what to watch on Netflix and which puzzle to do. But the father did have a conviction for behaving in a controlling and coercive way when his needs were not being met. If he felt that the mother was concentrating too much on Z, it was entirely predictable that he might seek to control his partner in the way that he had done before.
Further, Professor Wilcox was clear that in order for the relationship to be a healthy one (and even Ms ISW agreed that their co-dependency upon each other was not healthy and needed to change), the mother would need to have some assertiveness work. But it was obvious that in the event that she were to change, and become less compliant, there was a risk that this would change the dynamic between them, and that this might lead to arguments and previous patterns of behaviour. Ms ISW's analysis completely failed to acknowledge this risk in any way.
The second example was in relation to the home conditions. Put simply, Ms ISW placed reliance upon her own observations that the couple were maintaining their flat to an acceptable level, and that this was an area in which they had made progress. This completely ignored the observations of the other professionals who had visited the flat and found that there was an on-going issue, and that the flat was not being cleaned consistently. The judge was incredibly concerned when Ms ISW was asked to consider the recent photographs of the flat (taken on the 11th July), which show the kitchen, bathroom and lounge to be cluttered and dirty. Rather than to tell the truth about what she saw, Ms ISW, in a wholly unprofessional way in the court’s view, tried to suggest that there were other authorities for whom she worked who would not regard the state of the flat to be a significant concern. This was utterly disingenuous, and potentially dangerous in the court’s view. To give these parents the message that their flat was a suitable place for Z to be, when it was in the state that it was, was both wrong and unprofessional.
The mother and the father's issue with keeping themselves clean, keeping their flat clean and being able to manage their money were long-standing and despite significant support, had not improved sufficiently for this to be an area which was no longer of concern. In ignoring this evidence, Ms ISW had been overly optimistic about the risk of Z's needs being neglected in the care of her parents.
During the course of her work with the father and the mother, Ms ISW allowed her sympathy for them to get the better of her. She helped the father to complete a Criminal Injuries Compensation Claim, despite the fact that other professionals, including his Offender Manager, were very concerned about the risk of him being exploited if he were to receive a large pay out. She assisted the parents in buying items for the flat. She appeared to discuss with them, and encourage them, to think about a move away from Coventry. This conduct was irresponsible, even if Ms ISW sought to persuade herself that it came from a place of wanting the best for the father and the mother.
Finally, Ms ISW completely failed to consider Z's welfare when making her recommendation. There was little to no reference to the time that Ms ISW's plans would take, or what it would mean for Z to wait in foster care whilst the work was done, or what the risks were of any rehabilitation plan being unsuccessful. This was inexcusable from an independent social worker, who must always have the needs of the child at the forefront of their recommendation. The judge agreed wholeheartedly with the views of the other professionals that Ms ISW had allowed Z's needs to be lost in her desire to support the parents to achieve the return of their child.
For all of those reasons, the court could not accept the evidence of Ms ISW and preferred the evidence of Professor Wilcox, the allocated social worker and the Guardian, who were all very clear about the risks to Z in the event that she was to return to the care of her parents.