Website of the Department of Health

1981 to 1990: the regime of Glyn Williams

  17.37  Other relevant matters in relation to South Meadow can be dealt with quite briefly. Following Joan Glover's departure it seems that David Evans took over from her in an acting capacity for about four months until Glyn Williams was appointed Officer-in-Charge with effect from 3 August 1981. The latter remained in post until September 1990, when South Meadow closed, and he then moved to New South Meadow as Officer-in-Charge until the end of February 1992. Before starting to work in child care with Liverpool Social Services in 1970 he had been employed in the prison service for six years. His later experience had been as a housefather for five years in a family group home run by his wife and then a further five years at an approved school, rising from housefather to housemaster; and from 1980 he had been Deputy Officer-in-Charge of a children's home adolescent unit run by Wirral Social Services. He had completed the In-Service Certificate of Attendance course from a college in Liverpool in 1976 and obtained the CRCCYP from Salford College of Technology in 1977.

  17.38  The role of South Meadow changed more than once during the 1980s. In the latter part of Joan Glover's period, and possibly earlier, it was being described as a family group home (a Group 3 community home), taking in young children (mainly eight to 14 years) from quite a wide area. In or about 1981, however, six wards of court from the same family were moved in and became the only residents. There followed a period of uncertainty when the future of the home was uncertain but in 1985 South Meadow's function was changed to that of an adolescent unit and it was re-categorised as a Group 1 community home. The three older children of the family of six stayed on and other boys and girls in the age range of 12 to 18 years were admitted, some for remand and assessment. Numbers rose to about 15; the staff were increased substantially also, providing effective 24 hour cover; and the residents tended to be more turbulent. However, the home appears to have generated some loyalty because it was the residents who insisted on retaining the name South Meadow when the move to Rhyl took place.

  17.39  We must stress that there has been no suggestion of any sexual abuse at South Meadow, as far as we are aware, throughout the period under review. As for other complainants of physical abuse, that is, other than those made against Joan Glover, we know of only four potential complainants against identified members of the staff and none of those complainants has provided statements to the Tribunal. All were at South Meadow in the last few years before the move to Rhyl and their complaints, apart from one admittedly false allegation that was withdrawn, were of comparatively minor "excessive restraint" on occasions when disorder had occurred.

Conclusions

  17.40  There was no Welsh Office inspection of South Meadow during the period under review and we have not received any independent appraisal of the success of this community home. It is difficult for us to comment confidently, therefore, on the positive aspects of the successive regimes there. It appears to have provided a home atmosphere, however, for the children there, subject only to the erratic and oppressive conduct of Joan Glover, which we have discussed fully and who, in our judgment, was an unsuitable Officer-in-Charge. Bearing in mind the early written warning that she had received, it is probable that she should have been removed from her post before 1979. Whether or not there is an element of hindsight in this view, she should have been dismissed in 1979 when the staff voiced their great concern about her conduct. Conditions in the home became more difficult in the late 1980s because older residents with varied behavioural problems were admitted but it is to be noted that there have been no allegations of substantial physical abuse by other members of the staff even in this later period and no allegations of sexual abuse throughout the period under review.

Park House Community Home

  17.41  Park House was a large old two storey building in Nant Hall Road. Like South Meadow, there was a cottage in its grounds that was used as staff accommodation initially and latterly for training for independence. It had been used formerly as an old people's home but was opened by Flintshire County Council in 1972 as a home for up to 12 boys and girls in the age range of ten to 17 years. Education was provided at local schools and the home remained open until 31 July 1991, when the remaining residents moved to Cefndy Hostel, Rhyl[253].

1974 to 1981: the regime of Mary Ellis

  17.42  The first Officer-in-Charge of Park House when Clwyd County Council took over responsibility for it in April 1974 was Mary Philomena Ellis, who had been appointed to that position by Flintshire County Council with effect from 1 September 1973. She was then nearly 46 years old with children of her own and had had other previous child care experience at St Clare's Convent, Pantasaph and Cartrefle. She had also obtained the CRCCYP at Salford in December 1972 and had then worked from January 1973 in a nursery for babies at Mold, whilst awaiting a more suitable opening. Mary Ellis remained at Park House until 31 March 1981, when she took early retirement. She had become non-resident from 1 January 1980, at her own request.

  17.43  It seems that all the residential care staff were women until the arrival of David Evans as Deputy Officer-in-Charge with effect from 6 February 1979. He was then 39 years old and he remained at Park House until 31 October 1980, when he moved to South Meadow as Deputy there[254]. He had been employed in child care from 1963 and had obtained the CRCC at Selly Oak College, Birmingham, in 1965 before being appointed housemaster at an approved school and then superintendent of a children's home; but he had then worked in commerce and for the Ministry of Defence for nine years, returning to child care as a senior housemaster at Red Bank Community Home in 1978.

  17.44  The role of Park House in the Ellis period was similar to that of South Meadow at that time but it was classified as a Group 2 community home. It was a family group home accommodating up to 15 children and very young children were admitted with older brothers and sisters.

  17.45  There was a campaign in 1974 and 1975 by a local Prestatyn resident, whose true motivation is not known to us, to secure the closure of Park House, ostensibly on the ground that children were being ill-treated there. He wrote to the Welsh Office in that vein and he instigated letters to the press. In particular, on 1 September 1975 he invited a girl resident (L) aged 14 years, to his house and drafted a letter in her name to the News of the World. This letter listed the 12 children and seven staff, including two domestic staff, then at the home and alleged that the following punishments were being imposed at the home:

"(a)Sent to bed immediately after ten with no supper.

(b)  No pocket money.

(c)  Cleaning 12 pairs of shoes for a week.

(d)  Cleaning the boot room for a week.

(e)  No Girl Guides.

(f)  No Youth Club.

(g)  No privileges.

(h)  Everyone, even the little ones, have to make their bed before breakfast in Hospital style daily. This is not a punishment but it is our duty."

  The letter claimed also that the children had to peel vegetables when ordered to do so, and do all the internal cleaning on Saturday and it alleged that mail was held up, giving rise to the suspicion that it was being steamed open and "censured".

  17.46   News of the World reporters met L, who ran away from Park House, the following day and an investigation was carried out by Gledwyn Jones (Deputy Director) and Geoffrey Wyatt (Principal Social Worker) following the ensuing publicity given to the matter. The investigation into the circumstances appears to have been quite thorough; L was interviewed by them in the presence of her mother and signed statements were obtained from all the staff except the cook. The findings of the two man panel were that there had been obvious collusion between the local resident and L, whose own motive was to secure a move. As for her complaints about punishments and chores, the panel made one or two criticisms and recommendations, saying, for example, that sending children to bed early was likely to create problems and that no child should be required to forfeit all his or her pocket money in any one week; but, otherwise, the complaints were, rightly in our view, dismissed. The panel did, however, state that there was a need for a less rigid regime.

  17.47  The panel's report contained also a number of criticisms of the administration of Park House. They drew attention to the fact that, apart from Ellis, no member of the staff had read or was familiar with the Community Homes Regulations 1972, despite the fact that the Assistant Director (Residential and Day Care Services) had circulated copies of the regulations and a note of the Social Services Committee's interpretation of them to all Officers-in-Charge of Community Homes on 29 June 1975, with a request that they should ensure that all members of their staff were familiar with the contents of the documents. The panel said also that the Residential and Day Care Officer must give guidance and advice on methods of control and discipline (supplementing the prohibition of corporal punishment) rather than leave staff to do what seemed right to them in their own eyes. Finally, the panel expressed surprise that, with the exception of Ellis, none of the staff at Park House had access to the case histories of the children because she believed they constituted confidential information between the social workers and the Officer-in-Charge.

  17.48  The report made reference to an allegation that on one occasion two women members of the staff had hit three girl residents, who were sisters, because they had not made their beds tidy in hospital style. They were not able to reach a conclusion about this but they commented that both the members of staff had left the Council's employ and had been generally regarded as "staff who were very young, untrained and very lax in their attitude and not very control minded". We received evidence from two of the sisters alleged to have been hit and neither made reference to this alleged incident.

17.49  A further investigation was carried out into the administration of Park House early in 1980 as a result of complaints made by staff at the home and pursued through NALGO. This investigation was carried out by a Clwyd inspector of Principal Social Worker rank, Ivor Hughes, who presented an interim report dated 9 April 1980, following meetings between personnel officers, union officials and staff from Park House and headquarters in February and March that year. It is unnecessary to go into great detail about these reports, which drew attention to many administrative failings at Park House, but they did show also that considerable indiscipline was occurring and that the attitudes of the staff to the resident children were unsatisfactory.

  17.50  The inspector drew attention to the fact that the records indicated that children were:

(a)  disruptive at night;

(b)  making nuisances of themselves at local stores (two girls were currently in trouble for shoplifting);

(c)  smoking in the bedrooms;

(d)  piercing each other's ears;

(e)  playing on fire escapes;

(f)  absconding;

(g)  annoying neighbours by climbing walls, throwing things into their gardens and shouting abuse. There were also accusations by children that boys and girls were going to bed together.

  17.51  Although these matters were apparent from the records, the inspector was critical also of aspects of the record keeping, including frequent gaps in the internal day book; and he made adverse comment on the administration of punishments. There was some evidence of staff not taking responsibility for the children and of chaos prevailing on occasions. The follow up report in August 1980 dealt with a wide range of staffing and disciplinary issues and the inspector concluded:

"In general Park House was seen to be an establishment where there was considerable turmoil and unrest. In connection with aspects relating in this Report to staff ratios, sleeping-in and Food and Clothing, in particular, it is considered that the needs of the children in care are taken account of only after the demands and inclinations of staff have been met.

Some of this originates from factors which have assumed a degree of permanency by 'custom and practice', but also valid is considered to be the lack of unified direction and guidance from the Officer-in-Charge and her Deputy."

  17.52  As we have said earlier in this chapter, until the arrival of David Evans in February 1979 all the staff at Park House had been women. This had not prevented some discord arising between Ellis and her Deputy about access to records etc by the Deputy when Ellis was off duty but differences between the two senior officers became much more acute as soon as Evans took over as Deputy. Ellis was very critical of Evans in her reports on his probationary period, beginning within two months of his arrival; and by August 1980 the inspector's view was that the relationship between the two officers was beyond recall.

  17.53  The inspector made a number of criticisms of Ellis' running of Park House that are not directly relevant to this report. In short, he said that she "presented as a somewhat over-conscientious, anxious person who was convinced that her approach to her work was appropriate and considered to be 'good child practice'". In her relationships with children, it was said that she was seen to issue punishments but not to carry them through and it was alleged that she had shown favouritism to some older children; but probably her major failings were that she spent a disproportionate part of her time in her office and would not share responsibility appropriately with her Deputy. Evans, on the other hand, was said to have a genuine concern for children that was, in part, misdirected. He performed his duties more at the level of a senior houseparent at a larger assessment centre rather than Deputy Officer-in-Charge of a community home for 15 children. It was thought that he had a good deal to offer elsewhere but was suffering frustration at Park House under Ellis.

  17.54  Whilst this investigation was taking place the number of children at Park House diminished from 15 to ten and this led the inspector to question whether the community home was needed for the future in terms of residential child care provision. However, it survived for another ten years under changed regimes. Evans duly left to take up the post of Deputy at South Meadow on1 November 1980 and Ellis, who had told the inspector that she was contemplating taking early retirement because of the stress and strain, did so on 31 March 1981.

  17.55  One of the three sisters referred to in paragraph 17.48 (A) gave oral evidence before us of her experiences at Park House between August 1974 and August 1977 and again between September 1979 and May 1980 (she was born in September 1969). A said that she complained about the way that she was treated by staff and workmen whilst she was there. She said that one woman staff member had put her in a cupboard with cockroaches "hundreds of times" and that the woman had done the same to quite a few others. She alleged also that, after she returned to Park House, she was made to eat a sparrow by the same member of staff because she had tried to kill it with a catapult and it was limping. A's other complaint was that David Evans had pushed her on to a headboard with the result that the headboard injured her groin and she was detained in hospital for two nights.

  17.56  None of these complaints, however, were made in A's earlier written statements to the police and the Tribunal, which contained many serious allegations against the couple who had fostered her between August 1977 and September 1979. Moreover, the second sister whose evidence was received by the Tribunal (B) made no complaint against the care staff at Park House. B said in her written statement that Ellis was strict and was not liked but that she had no complaint about Ellis and was treated well by the other care staff. Her one complaint was that she had been indecently interfered with there by a gardener, who had also exposed himself to her, when she was nine years old (that is, shortly before she was fostered). She had told Ellis about it later and the gardener had been dismissed.

  17.57  David Evans was not asked about the alleged incident referred to in paragraph 17.55 because the allegation had not been made when he gave oral evidence to us. It was made so belatedly and A has such a disturbed recent history that we are unable to attach credence to it.

1981 to 1988: the interrupted regime of Jeffrey Douglas

  17.58  David Evans' successor as Deputy Officer-in-Charge of Park House was Jeffrey Douglas, whose appointment was from 1 March 1981, his 39th birthday. On the departure of Ellis a month later, however, he became Acting Officer-in-Charge for three months before being confirmed as her successor with effect from 1 July 1981. He remained in that post until 31 October 1988, at which point he became a social worker for children and family services in the Alyn and Deeside area. His period at Park House was interrupted in 1986 by two years' training for the CQSW from September 1986 to July 1988 and he was only back at Park House effectively for about two months in 1988 before his new appointment.

  17.59  During the period of Douglas' further training, David Evans[255] was appointed as Acting Officer-in-Charge. He then returned to South Meadow for a short period until he was appointed to succeed Douglas at Park House from1 August 1989. He remained in that position until 31 July 1991, when the community home closed, and he then became Deputy Officer-in-Charge of New South Meadow at Rhyl until he retired on 31 December 1992. These moves by Evans between Park House and South Meadow complicate the history from 1979 onwards and it is further complicated by the fact that Evans was suspended from duty on 4 November 1989 pending the investigation of complaints by two female residents, which had been referred to the police the previous day. He was informed by the North Wales Police by letter dated 18 December 1989 that the Crown Prosecution Service was of the opinion that no proceedings should be instituted against him due to insufficient evidence and on 21 December 1989 he was told by Geoffrey Wyatt that he was to return to Park House. The complaints of the two residents are dealt with later in this chapter.

  17.60  The background of Jeffrey Douglas was that he began work in child care at the age of 36 years in July 1978 after 21 years as a textile worker with Courtaulds. His first appointment in his new role was as a houseparent (supervisor) at Bersham Hall and whilst there he underwent in-service training for 12 months at Cartrefle College. He then served for nearly a year from April 1980 as a houseparent at Ysgol Talfryn, a residential school[256], with responsibility, shared by a housemother, for a group of ten children in a residential unit. After his period of seven (effectively five) years at Park House, he served as a field social worker for Clwyd County Council, at a substantially lower salary, for six years and was then seconded for two years to the NSPCC to work with children who had suffered abuse. He retired at the end of March 1997 after a short further period as a field social worker. He and his wife have fostered four children, including a brain damaged child.

  17.61  The only complaint against Douglas of which we are aware was made by a former girl resident, who was at Park House for about a year from September 1981 and who was not prepared to give oral evidence to the Tribunal. She was a very disturbed girl who had been admitted to Gwynfa Clinic for 12 months and then three community homes before she arrived at Park House at the age of 12 years. Her allegation was that she had returned to the home late one evening from a disco whereupon Douglas had got hold of her and shouted at her, saying that it was no use her explaining because he would not believe her. Douglas had pushed her against a door and she had grabbed his tie. The result of the exchange was that she had banged her head and back on the door and had a small bruise on her back. She alleged also that Douglas kicked her several times on the bottom as she went upstairs, having been ordered by him to go to bed. She had reported the incident to her mother two weeks later.

  17.62  This allegation was put to Douglas by the police and he denied that he had ever kicked any youngster. He had no recollection of the specific incident but he accepted, in his oral evidence, that he would have shouted at the girl in the circumstances described. He said also that he had never kicked or pushed her so that she banged her head. He told the police that the girl was probably one of the most difficult that he and the staff had had to deal with; his recollection was that the doctor had had to put her on medication because of her violent outbursts.

  17.63  The girl herself does not allege that Douglas pushed her in such a way that he intended to injure her and we are not at all satisfied that he did kick her as she alleges. There is no other suggestion that Douglas was a man who acted violently towards children or otherwise lost control of himself and we do not think that this allegation should reflect adversely on his generally good record.

  17.64  There were comparatively few allegations of violence or other abuse against other members of the staff, during Douglas' effective period in charge between 1981 and 1986. He did have to deal with complaints against two members of the staff that were the subject of evidence before us. During this periodthere were no less than three Deputy Officers-in-Charge and the first was David Bibby, who held the post from 1 April 1981 to 31 August 1982 in a temporary capacity, following ten years service with the Bryn Alyn Community on leaving school at the age of 17 years. The allegation against him was that he "slippered" each of three girls who had run away and had been brought back by the police. One of these girls gave oral evidence before us and said that she was at Park House from the ages of six to 16 years. She said that "they" used to run away quite a lot to the houses of friends; the police would bring them back and it was a game. On one such occasion (when she was 14 or 15 years old) Bibby disciplined three of them by requiring them to bend over and slippering each once or twice. They were wearing jeans and it stung a bit; she thinks that she cried at the time but she says that she did not make any complaint. She said also that, apart from this, she "got on" with Bibby and that she had no serious complaints about Park House.

  17.65  Douglas recalled that Bibby did report this incident to him and that he treated the matter as serious. His recollection is that the girls had been missing for 24 hours or more and they had returned when Douglas was off duty so that Bibby was in charge. Douglas said that he had a heated argument with Bibby, telling him that he could not condone physical punishment and that he would be reporting the incident to the Residential and Day Care Officer, which he did. Bibby's response was that he believed strongly in physically chastising children if they were naughty and that Douglas was a weak manager for not doing so, but he agreed reluctantly not to do so again. Bibby himself, however, in his written statement to the Tribunal denied that he had slippered any of the girls and said that two of the three did not support the allegation. There is no evidence that any disciplinary action was taken against Bibby.

  17.66  It is unlikely, in our view, that Douglas has made up his account of the matter but the complainant's account of the actual slippering is not supported by any other evidence. The evidence about it is, therefore, unsatisfactory. In any event, if there was a lapse on Bibby's part, it was an isolated one towards the lower end of the scale of possible physical abuse.

  17.67   Frederick Rutter[257] joined the staff of Park House in or about October 1984 after serving as a temporary RCCO at Bryn Estyn for 16 months and then as a care assistant at a hostel in Aston, Queensferry, for about ten months. His transfer to Park House was made initially on a temporary basis because of the staff shortages but he was appointed to fill a permanent vacancy as an RCCO from 1 November 1986. He remained at Park House until 28 August 1988, when he left to become Warden of Pen-y-Llan Hostel, which was operated by Clwyd Alyn Housing Association. The four offences of rape and the two indecent assaults of which Rutter was convicted on 30 July 1991 were all committed after 1 February 1988 at his home or the latter hostel against girls and young women in the age range of 15 to 21 years.

  17.68  Rutter's activities as a foster-parent and owner of approved lodgings are dealt with separately in Chapter 26 but it should be mentioned here that he and his wife, who had two daughters of their own then aged 14 and 11 years, made their first application to foster, in respect of a 13 years old boy resident at Park House, on 28 December 1984. This was later withdrawn but the Rutters' home at Flint was approved as lodgings on 21 March 1986 for teenage children, although the particular lodging arrangement then in being broke down quite quickly. The Rutters then moved to Connah's Quay in 1987 and re-applied on 26 January 1988 to become foster-parents. This application was made in respect of a 15 years old girl resident at Park House (C) who had become a friend of the Rutter's younger daughter; and the boy referred to earlier in this paragraph was by then, at the age of 17 years, lodging with the Rutters together with another teenage boy lodger. The application was approved specifically for C in May 1988 and C was raped by Rutter when she was 16 years old, that is, fairly shortly after she left Park House.

  17.69  One other former resident of Park House (D) alleged that she had been raped twice by Rutter but he was not charged with this in the indictment against him because, as far as we are aware, she made no complaint about the matter until she was interviewed on behalf of the Tribunal on 4 August 1997. D had previously made a statement to the police, in the presence of a psychiatric social worker, on 28 September 1992, when she had said that she had never been physically or sexually assaulted in the children's homes that she named, including Park House, and had never seen any other person being assaulted in such a way. We received in evidence her typed statements, including a three page document headed "My Life Story", because she was not willing to give oral evidence. The essence of D's evidence was that she had been admitted into residential care and went to Park House at the suggestion of Rutter, who was a friend of her step-father. D said that Rutter and a friend had thought it a big joke to make girls bend down in their short skirts and pick up a dish cloth from the floor. They all had an idea why this was being done and, when she eventually refused, Rutter sent her to her bedroom. He then followed her up and raped her. She struggled and tried to shout but he put something over her mouth and threatened that, if she told anyone, he would kill her.

  17.70  D alleged that the second rape occurred in Rutter's car. Her mother had sent her to Rutter's house in Flint to get something and he had insisted on giving her a lift home. He had then driven her to a place near the British Legion Club and had raped her. On that occasion he had said that he would get her, if she told anyone, and she would be transferred to a secure unit. However, these allegations set out in her "Life Story" are different in material respects from what was said in her statement to the Tribunal. In that statement she said that she had run away from her own home whilst on week-end leave and had gone to Rutter's house. He was to take her home but he stopped in a car park and started touching her up, whereupon she got out and ran home. She said also that this incident occurred before Rutter raped her in her bedroom at Park House.

  17.71  Rather surprisingly, Rutter said in his oral evidence that he had no recollection of D at Park House. Nevertheless, the inconsistencies between her statements and her generally disturbed background are such that, in the absence of any corroboration, it is unlikely that a jury would feel able to convict him on her evidence, despite his subsequent record of sexual offences against young women well known to him.

  17.72  The other sexual allegations against Rutter have been comparatively minor. One was that he had regularly kissed goodnight the sister of his prospective boy foster child[258], who was also resident at Park House. This witness had, however, made very serious allegations against a non-member of the staff, which had been carefully investigated by the Deputy Area Officer early in 1985 and not believed, and her mention of kissing by Rutter was in the nature of a boast rather than a complaint. There was also a complaint by another girl about Rutter's activities during a camping holiday in a holiday park at Caernarvon between 27 May and 2 June 1985, which was the subject of a detailed report by Jeffrey Douglas on 20 June 1985 to Norman Green, the Residential Day and Care Officer. The girl in question, who was 16 years old, alleged that during the week she had slept in the same half of a tent as Rutter without female supervision and that, on one occasion, Rutter had moved her night-gown to look at her legs and had made some remarks about her bikini or bathing costume.

  17.73  Douglas took up this matter as soon as he heard about it on 5 June 1985 from the girl's social worker, although the girl had said that she did not want to make a fuss about it. When taxed about it Rutter was quite upset and said that he could not recall making any remarks about swimwear other than to suggest to the girl that she should wear one of the other girls' bikinis if she wanted to get her back brown. He denied moving the night-gown and added that he had told the girl many times at Park House to sit properly and not to show her legs. He accepted that he had been very foolish to share the same part of a tent with a girl but attributed it to the need to avoid repetition of an incident that had occurred on the first night of the camp.

  17.74  Green responded to the report with a number of further questions to be put to Rutter. There followed a meeting between John Llewellyn Thomas (Principal Officer Children), Green, Douglas and Rutter on 9 July 1985 at which it was pointed out that the preparations for and supervision of the camp had been far from satisfactory and it was stated that a circular regarding the planning of camps and holidays had been sent to Officers-in-Charge for future guidance. This circular dated 27 June 1985 required certain specified information, including details of staffing, to be given to Officers-in-Charge (with a copy to the Principal Officer Children) before holidays away from residential homes.

  17.75  There was one more complaint about Rutter shortly before he left Park House, which was investigated by Douglas as soon as he returned from his CQSW course. This girl (E) complained to Douglas on 17 July 1988 that Rutter had hit her on the side of the face two days earlier as she left in the morning for the last day of the school term. She thought that she had been struck because (a) she had been smoking at the rear of the house and (b) she had had an argument with another member of the staff about taking her cassette/radio to school that day. E wished to keep her complaint confidential because she feared repercussions from Rutter and other members of the staff.

  17.76  Douglas sent a report of this complaint to E's social worker after discussing it with Michael Barnes on 20 July 1988, when the latter paid a pre-arranged visit to Park House. He compiled also a rather fuller incident report, dated 22 July 1988. This report contained the following rather revealing passage:

"I told E that no member of staff was allowed to hit any child, and that if this happened I would want to make sure it did not happen again. She then told me it could have been an accident, and that Mr Rutter may have just raised his hand, not really meaning to hit her. Again she told me she did not want me to talk to Mr Rutter about the incident, expressing concern that staff 'would have it in for me for telling tales' and claiming this happened to another girl in Park House who complained about the way she had been treated by a member of staff."

  17.77  E's social worker complained of the delay in reporting this incident but the matter was investigated quite thoroughly. The social worker helped E to compile a statement in which she said "I don't think Fred meant to hit me. I think that he was trying to push me away. I walked into him. He was trying to stop me leaving. I was angry and swearing at the time". In the end a memorandum in the name of the Director (but drafted by Barnes) was sent to the Area Officer to whose area the social worker was attached on 24 August 1988 stating that there was clear evidence from E's statement that the incident might have been an accident and that, bearing in mind Rutter's resignation from his post at Park House, he did not propose to take any further action.

  17.78  In his oral evidence to us Rutter did not dispute that it was his practice to kiss goodnight the girl mentioned in paragraph 17.72 but said that it was a practice of staff to do so to girl residents and that there was nothing improper about it. He was not asked about E's complaint at the time because he had gone on leave and the decision to take no further action had been made before he returned. He had decided to move to other employment when he learnt that Douglas was returning to Park House and E's complaint had nothing to do with his resignation. Douglas had provided him with a letter of reference on 6 August 1988 in connection with his application for a post at a hostel in Hurst Newton, with which Rutter presumably did not proceed. He received also a letter of reference from his "immediate supervisor" (un-named) in connection with his application for the post of Warden at Connah's Quay.

The 1988 Inquiry

  17.79  Before Douglas returned to Park House from his training course, arrangements had been made to take a group of five resident boys and four resident girls, under the supervision of five members of staff to Butlins Holiday Camp at Pwllheli from 27 August to 3 September 1988. One of the group of children was E[259], who was 13 years old at that time. According to her written evidence, she fell in love during the holiday with a 19 years old Irishman staying at the camp. The result was that, on the last night of her holiday, she had sexual intercourse with this man, with her consent, near the car park in the camp, She told a friend what had happened and, on the group's return to Park House, that friend informed a member of staff.

  17.80  Douglas had returned to Park House before this holiday took place. On learning of the arrangements that had been made for it, he expressed disapproval (according to his own evidence) but it was not thought practicable or appropriate to cancel the holiday. After it had taken place he saw E, who told him about the events of the last night. Her complaint is and was that there was a lack of supervision by the care staff during the holiday: nobody ever checked where she was and the children had too much freedom.

  17.81  The police were informed about the matter and carried out an investigation but it seems that the Irishman could not be traced. Clwyd County Council, on its part, appointed a panel of inquiry "to enquire into and consider all aspects of the planning and execution" of the holiday "in the light of existing departmental policy, practice and guidance for the well-being of young people in Council care and to report the findings to the Director of Social Services". The panel of three comprised a senior officer of the National Children's Homes in the chair, the Assistant County Secretary of Clwyd (J A Loveridge) and the Area Social Services Officer for the Rhuddlan District (Margaret Clarke). It heard evidence over the course of three days at the end of November 1988 but the report itself is undated.

  17.82  By the time that this inquiry had been set in train E's mother had expressed her grave concern about the incident and had instructed solicitors to advise her about possible legal proceedings against the Council. The report referred to this and said rather surprisingly:

"The immediate purpose of the Inquiry was therefore to enable the Council to meet those proceedings in full possession of all relevant information and to draw the appropriate conclusions from that information."

  In the event, however, the report did not contain such information: it did not even contain any account of what had actually occurred during the Butlins holiday. Instead the "Statement from the Review" included the following two paragraphs:

"In receiving the evidence both oral and documentary, the Panel viewed with grave concern the consistent indications of unsatisfactory standards of care, low staff morale, distant and ineffective management.

That grave concern is reflected in the recommendations which follow. Given the guarantees of confidentiality made to each witness, it is neither the Panel's wish nor indeed open to them to reproduce in any but the most general terms the matters which give rise to each of the individual recommendations. This in the Panel's view may most conveniently be done by setting out each of the recommendations and then briefly canvassing the reasons for them."

  17.83  In the introduction section of the report, the panel pointed out that, on the figures available to 31 March 1987, Clwyd County Council relied more heavily than other counties in Wales upon "residential services" for children and young persons in its care (24% of all such in care in Clwyd as against 17% for the whole of Wales). It was the panel's view that, although their inquiry had been limited to the incident involving Park House, many of the concerns that they had identified would "in all probability, apply equally to other residential Child Care establishments within the County".

  17.84  The panel's recommendations and the findings on which they were based together constituted scathing criticism of the state of residential child care in Clwyd at that time. A summary will inevitably dilute the impact of the document but the recommendations and some of the findings were as follows:

"1.  To immediately ensure that all staff involved in the Social Work task are familiar with and trained to operate the existing Clwyd County Council Child Protection procedures."

  Witnesses displayed no knowledge of the procedures and relevant manuals were not available at Park House.

"2.To develop a County wide policy statement for residential care with appropriate guidelines and to ensure that these are made available and known and understood by all staff involved in the Social Work task."

 There was lack of clarity and some conflict of views as to the purpose of residential care, which was a fundamental defect. This recommendation had wide management and training implications. Clear steps were needed to correct the impression that the managerial style within the residential service was "distant, impassive and inspectorial and re-active after the event rather than providing pro-active leadership".

"3.  To agree and implement specific aims and objectives for each individual residential care establishment in accordance with the Countywide policy statement for residential care and guidelines made thereunder and to ensure all staff are familiar with those aims and objectives, understand them and are trained to implement them."

  This was a corollary of recommendation 2. It was a matter of particular regret to the panel, but perhaps understandable in view of what they had said earlier, that "the aims and objectives of Park House, so far as they existed, appeared to be simply to feed, water and contain the clients".

"4.  To establish, in conjunction with the field Social Worker, and all other interested parties/agencies implement, monitor and update when necessary a care plan for each child in every residential establishment."

  There was no evidence of a care plan for E. Park House was perceived as a dumping ground for difficult children who could not be fostered and "for whom no light could be seen at the end of the tunnel". Too much reliance was placed on the key worker system within Park House and there was no evidence of regular staff meetings. Field workers were not involved in day to day planning and residential staff wrongly discouraged parental involvement.

"5.  To ensure that all aspects of work involving holidays undertaken by Residential Care Homes conforms in all respects with the Countywide policy statement, the agreed aims and objectives of the Residential Care Home and facilitates the relevant individual child care plans."

  No attempt had been made to address the problems of the individual children or to consider their suitability for any particular kind of holiday. There was also a clear need for a strong managerial line to be taken that each of the "constituent elements" of the holiday was fully discussed and agreed as suitable.

"6.  To make and monitor a commitment to provide training, support, guidance and regular supervision so as to ensure that all staff involved in the social work task are equipped to implement:

(i) individual care plans;

(ii) the agreed aims and objectives of each Residential Care Home;

(iii) the County Residential Care policies.

To achieve this consideration needs to be given to the development of professional social work and managerial skills at all levels within the agency."

  It was apparent that each residential care worker operated as a self-contained unit with little opportunity for support, guidance or regular supervision. There was no evidence of any attempt to monitor the actions of staff or to advise them of any new practices or desirable practices or even existing practices, far less to ensure that these were carried out.

"7.  To develop a corporate management approach to support and enable all staff undertaking the residential social work task to help identify, develop and implement new thinking and initiatives . . ."

  17.85  The panel's report was eventually sent to the Director of Social Services (Gledwyn Jones) on 11 September 1989 but it was seen by very few other eyes. Jones agreed in cross-examination that the report was a great shock but he was unclear about what was done in relation to its recommendations save to say, in effect, that its recommendations were intended to be incorporated in the Council's developing strategy for implementing the forthcoming Children Act 1989. His recollection was that copies were given to Geoffrey Wyatt, John Llewellyn Thomas and Michael Barnes as the relevant officers in the field but it was not shown to the Chief Executive (Mervyn Phillips) and he did not recall discussing it with his own Deputy (John Jevons). Gledwyn Jones was sure that he outlined to the Chairman of the Social Services Committee that there was concern and what was being done about the recommendations but he did not know whether the Chairman received a copy of the report. From the documents before us it appears that Barnes drafted a response to the criticisms in October 1989 but, as far as we are aware, it remained simply a draft. The matter was allowed to drift for some months and no countywide policy statement on residential child care was produced.

  17.86  The report was never debated in either the Social Services Committee or the Council. Jones' explanation for this was that he regarded the inquiry as an internal one and that he wanted to "move quickly on doing something about the recommendations". What happened in fact was that approximately two years later, on 18 December 1990, he presented his own report on Group Care Holidays for Children in Community Homes, which had been previously circulated, to the Social Services (Children and Family Services) Sub-Committee. According to the minute, and to our surprise, he told the Sub-Committee that it was his Department's response to "national concerns that group holidays arranged by local authorities needed to be properly planned". At the same time a revised code of practice relating to such holidays, probably drafted by Barnes, was approved. The members expressed anxiety that personal accident cover was only provided on a limited basis and the County Secretary was asked to prepare a report on the subject.

  17.87  Before the meeting referred to in the preceding paragraph Michael Barnes met the Park House staff with John Cooke of NALGO and Jean Brady of NUPE, probably on 12 September 1990, to give them "feedback" on the panel's report. They were told that the principal findings were that no one person or group was to blame, that there had been a system failure and that there were lessons to be learned at every operational level. The recommendations (but not the findings accompanying them) were listed in very summary form with the comment in respect of each that the matter was being attended to or that the necessary action had been taken. On the question of a countywide policy statement it was said that various reports eg control and discipline, had been put to committee and that further policy was being shaped by implementation of the Children Act 1989. The trades union representatives commented on the need to see the whole report but we have not seen any subsequent formal request for this.

1989 to 1991: the David Evans regime

  17.88  It seems likely that Tim Hawes, who had been Deputy Officer-in-Charge of Park House from 1 November 1986, acted as Officer-in-Charge during the inter-regnum between Douglas' departure on 31 October 1988 and the return of David Evans on 1 August 1989[260]. The latter's period as Officer-in-Charge began inauspiciously because he was suspended from duty on 4 November 1989 but he was reinstated just before Christmas and he then remained in charge, with Tim Hawes as his Deputy until Park House closed on or about 31 July 1991.

  17.89  The reason for Evans' suspension was that two girl residents (F and G) complained that Evans had "touched their bottoms". To be more precise it was probably F who made the complaint to one of the residential care staff on her own behalf and recounted also what G had told her. Both F and G gave oral evidence to the Tribunal and their complaints were of a relatively minor kind. F, who was 14 years old at the relevant time, said that when Evans returned to Park House he was stricter than he had been previously because there had been some unruliness. Her allegations were that Evans would touch her bottom when he was walking past her, a light slap or touch, which she regarded as perverted; and on one occasion he put his arm around her shoulder and licked the side of her face several times. Of this last occasion she said that Evans thought it funny but she told him that he stank. She said also that Evans would say stupid things when he passed her: she could not remember now what he said but "he was being like perverted". Her complaints were extracted from F reluctantly when a member of staff asked why she had groaned on being told that Evans would be on duty and had persisted in questioning her. Evans did not repeat his alleged conduct after his suspension.

  17.90  G, who was also 14 years old in 1989, was more positive about Park House (and South Meadow). She had been happy at both places. She felt safe and cared for at Park House and she was helped a lot. As for Evans, she did not have much to do with him and she did not really have any nastiness from him. Her complaint was that on one occasion he had "touched her bottom": she was alone with him, which did not usually happen, and he put his arm around her shoulder, after which his hand went down her back. She did not make an official complaint but she did tell F and she does not think that F told her of F's own experiences with Evans.

  17.91  It seems that F was seen on 3 November 1989, very soon after her complaint, by two field social workers on the initiative of John Llewellyn Thomas and we have read the social workers' report on the matter dated 9 November 1989. Evans was seen on 4 November 1989 and vehemently denied any sexual misconduct: his explanation for F's allegation was that she had become very friendly with the leading Park House male resident bully, who was being disciplined by Evans, and that the allegation was a reprisal for this. A Child Protection conference was held in respect of F (but not G) on 21 November 1989 and reached the conclusion that abuse had not occurred. Meanwhile, a police investigation proceeded, in the course of which F, G, Evans and many others were interviewed and we have read the investigating officer's report dated 21 November 1989. The predictable outcome was that the Crown Prosecution Service advised that no proceedings should be taken against Evans because there was insufficient evidence to support a charge of indecent assault in respect of either F or G.

  17.92  We are not aware of any other allegations of physical or sexual abuse during this last period of Park House's history as a community home.

  17.93  David Evans was asked about the existence of any formal complaints procedure. He agreed that there had not been any such procedure in the early years but said that Michael Barnes had initiated one, which operated during Evans' last period at Park House. He did not remember it being in writing but all the resident children were told about it "a few times". The procedure was for them to make a complaint to the Officer-in-Charge or to his Deputy and it would then be taken up with Barnes.

Conclusions

  17.94  Although Park House had quite a difficult role to play, particularly in the later part of its history because older and more troublesome adolescents were living there, comparatively few allegations of abuse have been made to this Tribunal. The presence of Rutter on the staff from 1984 to 1986 is troubling and gives rise to obvious questions but there is no compelling evidence that he was guilty of any sexual abuse at the community home or in that period. The other notable aspect of the account that we have given is that residents were prepared to complain to members of the staff even before a formal complaints procedure was initiated by Barnes. This was no doubt attributable, at least in part, to the fact that the children were, in general, long term residents, who were on closer terms with the staff than, for example, children in observation and assessment centres could be; but it is to the credit of the staff that complaints do not appear to have been actively discouraged and that, when they were made, they were passed on appropriately so that they could be investigated.

  17.95  Nevertheless, wider shortcomings of Park House were disclosed by successive reports in 1975, 1980 and 1988 and little action appears to have been taken to address them. The criticisms in those reports reflected adversely upon the higher management and supervision of Park House and we discuss this aspect of them in a later section of this report. It must be said here, however, that they indicated grave deficiencies in the quality of care provided by Park House. The chairman of the 1988 panel of inquiry did say in his preface to its report that the panel recognised the energy and effort put into the residential care service by individual members of staff but that they (the panel) considered such energy and effort to be largely wasted without a clear central direction and purpose. It is probable that residents at Park House like G, who could withstand peer pressure and accommodate a degree of turbulence, did "feel safe" there but we have grave reservations about the extent to which the needs of individual children were met and the adequacy of the guidance and training for future independent living that was provided.

Footnotes:

249   It was mentioned by Thomas Pennant of Downing Hall, a noted historian, in his History of the Parishes of Whitford and Holywell (1796) as the home in 1749, at the time of her marriage, of Mary Lloyd, an heiress and descendant of Edwyn, prince or lord of Tegengl. Back

250   For Lynn's subsequent career at Cartrefle, see paras 15.21 to 15.25.

251   See para 4.20.

252   See para 17.33.

253   See para 17.18.

254   See paras 17.36 and 17.37.

255   See para 17.43.

256   See para 4.07.

257   See paras 2.07(8), 8.41, 8.42 and 10.151 to 10.156.

258   See para 17.68.

259   See para 17.75 et seq.

260   See paras 17.43 and 17.59.