East Sussex County Council Branded "Disgraceful" By The Court Of Appeal

East Sussex County Council is within my geographic area. Until the government rendered it uneconomic to maintain a legal aid franchise I used to handle child care cases involving them. I rarely came across a lawyer who did not regard their social services department as badly managed and arrogant. The Court of Appeal has now confirmed this opinion and condemned them. See the title link.

In argument, a number of adjectives were used to describe the conduct of the local authority / adoption agency [East Sussex County Council's SS] (henceforth "the agency") in this case. Over the period during which this judgment has been reserved, I have re-read the papers and reflected on the agency's conduct. In the event, I have come to the conclusion that the only word I can use to describe it is "disgraceful". That is not a word I use lightly.

Lord Justice Wall went on to criticise the barrister in the case (Ms Briggs of Crown Office Row in Brighton):

"During the course of argument, we gave counsel for the agency every opportunity to defend and justify its conduct. In my judgment, she not only failed to do so: worse, she did not appear to think the exercise necessary. On her argument, the agency was acting within the letter of the 2002 Act, and in the best interests of the child. Although she acknowledged that aspects of the agency's conduct were likely to be criticised, her attitude came across, to me at least, as – in effect – so what? If the 2002 Act permitted the agency to do what it did, why was the manner in which it did it relevant?

In my judgment, the conduct of the agency in this case demonstrates a profound if not total misunderstanding of its functions under the 2002 Act. Moreover – and this I find particularly dispiriting - it provides useful ammunition for those who criticise the Family Justice System for administering "secret" justice, and who attack social workers as a group for their arrogance and the manner in which they abuse their functions by both removing children from their parents unlawfully, and by stifling legitimate parental responses."

This was an adoption case. East Sussex Social Services forced through the adoption before the father of the child's application to set it aside could be heard. They were fully aware of the application because the father's solicitors had written to them.

"There was no reply of any kind to that letter. Counsel for the agency was either unable or unwilling to offer any explanation for the total failure to reply, but in my judgment, given the agency's subsequent behaviour, only two inferences, both adverse to the agency, can properly be drawn from that failure. They are; (1) that the agency did not wish to give the father or his solicitors any information; and (2) it wished, as the judge found, to "scupper" or "stymie" any application which the father made to the court. These two inferences are, in my judgment, irresistible. Indeed, there is no alternative explanation. Certainly counsel for the agency did not proffer any alternative."

And further:

"Both the agency and the recipient of the letter of 17 January must understand that the failure to answer the letter was not merely discourteous and thoroughly bad practice, but that it can only be seen as a deliberate attempt to keep the father in the dark, so that the agency could proceed to place the child and thus prevent the father from making an application to the court under section 24(2) of the 2002 Act. It is this conduct in particular on the part of the agency which leads me to categorise its conduct overall as disgraceful."

I need not go on but you should read this case if only to discover the full extent of the "abuse of power" and "sharp practice" in which East Sussex County Council's social services are prepared to indulge where the welfare of children is involved.