Boy taken from mother who said ‘no’

Judge attacks social service worker for removing child after woman refused to buy her son an ice cream

A JUDGE has criticised a social worker who removed a child from his mother’s care after she refused him an ice cream.

The social worker said the woman was failing to meet her son’s “emotional needs”, and highlighted how she would not let him get his hair cut “in the way that he liked”. Mr Justice Mostyn, of the Family Division of the High Court in London, said the criticisms were “utterly insubstantial” and “obviously inconsequential”.

He said the social worker had outlined her evidence in a 44-page witness statement which was “very long on rhetoric” but “very short indeed” on concrete examples of deficient parenting. He said it was hard to pin down within her “swathes of text” what exactly was being alleged against the mother.

The judge set out his complaints in a ruling after analysing the boy’s case at a family court hearing in Swansea. The social worker was at the time working for Carmarthenshire council.

A lower-ranking judge had ruled that the boy, now eight, should be taken from his mother’s care to live with foster parents. The woman had continued to see the boy so her parenting skills could be assessed. She had then asked Mr Justice Mostyn to allow her son to be returned home, as Carmarthenshire social services bosses had opposed her application.

The judge ruled in her favour and said the boy should be returned to his mother and his care supervised by social services. He said: “The local authority’s evidence in opposition to the mother’s application was contained in an extremely long 44-page witness statement made by the social worker.

“This witness statement was very long on rhetoric and generalised criticism but very short indeed on any concrete examples of where and how the mother’s parenting had been deficient.

“Indeed, it was very hard to pin down within the swathes of text what exactly was being said against the mother.”

He said the social worker had been asked to “identify her best example” of the mother “failing” to meet the boy’s emotional needs.

“Her response was that until prompted by the local authority, the mother had not spent sufficient one-toone time [with her son] and had failed on one occasion to take him out for an ice cream,” said the judge.

“This struck me as an utterly insubstantial criticism.”

He added: “A further criticism in this vein was that the mother had failed to arrange for [his] hair to be cut in the way that he liked.

“Again, this is obviously inconsequential.”