Children's social services staff 'altered report'

Social services staff involved in deciding whether five children should remain in care altered a report about their parents, a judge has said.

The family court in Portsmouth was told a social worker and manager altered an assessment to create a "wholly negative" picture of a couple who were trying to get their children back.

Judge Mark Horton said a worker had also lied under oath.

The council said it was "considering its position".

The judge ruled the children, aged three to 16, should stay in foster care.

Judge Horton said there had been an attempted "cover-up" by Hampshire County Council social worker Sarah Walker Smart and her manager, Kim Goode.

He said an assessment of the parents containing "positives and negatives" was changed, with the effect of improving the case for removing the children.

'Hollow apology'

He told the court: "It is exceptional to find a case in which there has been deliberate and calculated alteration of a report prepared by one social worker in order to make that assessment seem less favourable, by another social worker and the team manager."

He said the original report had been withheld and the "parties to the alterations" tried to cover up its existence.

Ms Walker Smart, who was subsequently promoted to team manager, "lied twice to me on oath", he said.

Ms Goode, now district manager for the Isle of Wight, "initiated the wholesale alteration of the original report and who attempted to keep the truth from the parties and me".

Judge Horton said Ms Goode's manager, Lisa Humphreys, made a "hollow apology" during evidence and "failed to accept any personal responsibility" for what had happened.

She had since become assistant director of children's social care at Lambeth Borough Council.

Despite his criticisms, the judge approved the long-term fostering plans put forward by the council.

Hampshire County Council said it was considering its position and it believed some aspects of the court's criticism were "not quite correct".

A spokeswoman said: "We do accept that there were deficiencies in some of the social worker practice in this case and subsequent action was taken, including the termination of one social worker's employment with the county council. We are satisfied that at no stage did any of the named officers deliberately mislead the courts."

"We are very pleased that the outcome of the court case was consistent with the local authority's original application to the court - to safeguard very vulnerable children who were at risk of suffering significant harm as a result of neglect."