Social worker’s jargon is like a foreign language says angry judge

A SOCIAL worker’s report for a family court hearing was so riddled with jargon it ‘might as well have been written in a foreign language’, a judge said.

Tina Pugh’s paper, about a woman seeking to care for two young children, included phrases such as ‘imbued with ambivalence’ and ‘ having many commonalities emanating from their histories’.

Judge Jeremy Lea said that while he thought he knew what the social worker was trying to say, her report would probably be baffling to the woman it was actually about.

He added: ‘Reports by experts

‘Asked to convey a narrative’

are not written solely for the benefit of other professionals, the advocates and the judge.

‘ The parents and other litigants need to understand what is being said and why.’ The woman, identified only by the initials SH, had asked to bring up two young children who were born to a teenage mother in a violent relationship.

One of the children may be her grandchild, the family court in Nottingham heard.

Miss Pugh was called in to produce an independent report to add to the work of Derbyshire social services. She recommended that the children should not go to the woman.

Jargon-filled passages picked out by the judge included: ‘I do not intend to address the couple’s relationship suffice to say it is imbued with ambivalence: both having many commonalities emanating from their histories that create what could be a long lasting connection of alternative relationships that are a reflection of this.

‘Such is this connection that they may collude to undermine the placement.’

Another said: ‘In narrowing down the issues SH clearly believes that paternity issues had a significant interplay on [the woman’s son’s] ability to say no to the mother.’

A third confusing passage read: ‘Due to SH’s apparent difficulties identifying the concerns, I asked her to convey a narrative about her observations.’ Faced with this particular section, the judge said: ‘ What would be wrong in saying, “I asked her to tell me?”’

Judge Lea added: ‘I suspect, as far as SH was concerned, these passages might just as well have been written in a foreign language.

‘Did [Miss Pugh] discuss issues with SH in a language she would understand? SH is, and I am sure she will forgive me for saying so, a simple soul.

‘She does not have a large vocabulary but speaks in plain language and would not readily comprehend a lot of what Tina Pugh has written about her.’

The judge said Miss Pugh had based her report on two meetings with the woman and on case papers.

She did not meet the two young children, aged four and two, nor did she meet other family members.

Miss Pugh also criticised SH for failing to ‘familiarise herself with the paperwork’ when in fact she had never been given the case papers.

The judge decided that SH should be given the chance to raise the children – who would otherwise be put up for adoption – saying her parenting abilities ‘should not be judged by some stellar standard’.

He added: ‘Society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting which include the barely adequate and the inconsistent.

‘Public authorities cannot improve on nature.’