"No go to Sally's"

Christopher Links Member of Parliament for ---- 19 March ---- Dear Mr Links, The response you received on my behalf from Mr Palmer, however well meaning, simply beggared belief. Firstly, he failed to acknowledge that it is Social Services, and not Ofsted, that takes the lead in an investigation of alleged abuse. The decision to close our case and any decision to re-open it and arrange a second interview with my son is entirely a matter for Social Services. I would have thought that, as Director, ----, Social Services, Mr Palmer would know this and would not try and feed me the line that Ofsted found no evidence of abuse. Secondly, he wrote that he does not recommend re-interviewing my son because it would not necessarily produce a different outcome to the first attempt. As we know, the first attempt was a failure owing to the inexperience and lack of preparedness of the social worker and the police officer. In not re-interviewing my son, as Mr Palmer recommends, there is only one guarantee: no outcome whatsoever. He also wrote, and for the first time I have heard from anyone involved in this case, that re-interviewing my son would cause him unnecessary distress. Does he believe that he is in a better position to judge that than I am as Max’s mother? I can assure him that Max is happy and secure; the difference between the boy he was whilst in the childminder’s care and the boy he is now is like comparing night and day. Social Services ought to speak with him for two reasons: to investigate thoroughly an allegation of abuse, and to demonstrate to him that such treatment does not go unpunished. Has Mr Palmer considered the distress my son suffered at the hands of the childminder; the distress of other children in her care about which our son told us; the distress his father and I have had for almost a year, having to endure this drawn out complaints procedure in which we have encountered one incompetent and arrogant individual after another at Social Services and Ofsted; the distress we have had from not being able to talk to our son – and thus comfort him – about his experience, for fear of being accused of coaching him and thus contaminating potential evidence against the childminder? The latest proof of the incompetence and arrogance of certain individuals involved in my son’s case is attached. It is yet another letter of apology from Erin Abbey HMI, National Director Inspection Delivery, Ofsted. Her previous apology was for the fact the same investigator, Steven Busby, had been appointed to investigate two separate complaints about the childminder – the abuse and a breach of confidentiality when she brought a friend to my house while my son was at home, and the friend posted hate mail through our door. These two roles compromised Mr Busby’s impartiality, as Mrs Abbey agreed. She then apologized that the newly-assigned investigator had in fact also been involved in my son’s case and could not therefore be impartial. The second newly-assigned investigator, Ursula Moore, visited me at home on 16 March. She confirmed I was correct in pointing out that Mr Busby had provided incorrect information: namely that the childminder had not brought a friend to my home, but that she had parked round the corner and the friend had stayed in the car. This was entirely his error, but one which led to him closing his investigation into my complaint. Thirdly, Mr Palmer failed to acknowledge the gaping hole in the Stage 2 investigation by Social Services: that on learning of the admission by the social worker of her lack of preparedness for interviewing a minor, Social Services should have – in our view – re-opened the case and arranged for a second interview. That investigation was carried out in August ---- and it is now March ----. The time that has been allowed to elapse is entirely Social Services’ fault. The first Ofsted knew about the outcome of the Stage 2 investigation was when you, Mr Links, sent them the report by Emily Carter. Mrs Moore has asked me to provide her with further information regarding the childminder’s treatment of my son, including in the months prior to his disclosure, so that she can pass this, and Emily Carter and Vera Morgan’s reports, on to the local authority link HMI for ----. Finally, Mr Palmer completely missed the point of the questions I had asked in my letter to you. I wrote: “It’s shocking that an assault on a child is treated so differently to that on an adult.” I did not, as he wrote, ask whether it was “appropriate to treat a young child in the same way as an adult who had made an allegation of assault.” Of course this would not be appropriate, and that wasn’t what I said. Mr Palmer wrote that I have “exhausted” their internal complaints procedure. Actually, far from it: I have exposed the inadequacy of it. The LGO investigator told me by telephone on 20 February that that the Council was over a week late in the timeframe set by the LGO. She said that if they don’t reply soon she can demand to look at the file and interview people; that she would have the right to subpoena them. It seems to me that the only thing that has been exhausted is Mr Palmer’s patience with my complaint. Well, I have all the determination I need to follow this process until the right resolution is reached and our son receives the justice he deserves. To fail to address an allegation of child abuse properly is unfortunate. To repeatedly demonstrate, or to overlook, incompetence is shameful. Although this is a deeply personal matter, it is of public interest to know when the child protection authorities fail in their investigation of a case of abuse and then – worse -- neglect to rectify it. Sincere regards, Sasha Aster