Website of the Department of Health

Introduction

  27.01  In this chapter we outline complaints made in respect of five other foster homes in Clwyd during the period of our review, which illustrate a variety of problems that may arise when children are boarded out by a local authority.

Foster home A

  27.02  Two girls, A1 and A2, were placed by Clwyd with Mr and Mrs A on 19 August 1977, when A1 was almost 8 years old and A2 nine years old. Clwyd County Council assumed parental rights in respect of both girls on 25 January 1978. A2 remained with the As for two years, leaving on 6 August 1979. A1 left about a month later, on 11 September 1979.

  27.03  These two girls were members of a group of eight siblings, five of whom, including A1 and A2, had been received into voluntary care on 18 July 1970, after their parents had separated on their father's release from prison. A1 and A2 were placed at Little Acton Residential Nursery for about four years and then moved to Park House in September 1974, where they joined their three older sisters and where they remained until they were boarded out with the As. The three older sisters returned at that time to live with their father.

  27.04  On leaving the As both girls went back initially to Park House and then to live with their father. A1 remained at home for five years but then spent short periods in Chevet Hey (twice) and Bersham Hall (seven months) as well as a variety of foster placements. A2, however, remained with her father until she was discharged from care at the age of 16 years, apart from a period of four and a half months at Bersham Hall for assessment in the latter part of 1982.

  27.05  There is a considerable conflict of evidence between Mr and Mrs A on the one hand and the two girls on the other about what happened in the foster home between 1977 and 1979, which we are not in a position to resolve satisfactorily at this remote time. A1 gave oral evidence to the Tribunal and the statements of A2, who was under psychiatric care and felt unable to give oral evidence, were read to us; we heard oral evidence from both Mr and Mrs A, who provided a joint written statement. According to the girls they were treated harshly and made to work as virtual slaves throughout. They complain also of indecent behaviour towards them by the As' two sons. Mr and Mrs A, however, denied all these allegations, although they admitted slapping the girls from time to time when they misbehaved and encouraging them to help in the house. They produced photographs depicting happy events that had occurred and said that difficulties often arose following intervention by the girls' sisters or a telephone call from their father. In the end the As could not cope with the girls' misbehaviour and they did not seek to foster any further children after their experiences with A1 and A2.

  27.06  It is unnecessary for the purposes of this report to go into elaborate detail about the complaints of A1 and A2 and there were some divergences between them. The household chores that they referred to included scrubbing the floor with toothbrushes, cleaning paintwork all day with a rag, prolonged washing and ironing and picking leaves for the pet rabbit. The As' sons were not required to do similar work. If the girls did not do it, they were smacked with a belt, usually by Mr A but sometimes by Mrs A. There were complaints also by A1 of being locked in the attic bedroom for long periods without food or drink and made to stand before the mirror for hours: they were not allowed to go to the toilet but had a "potty" from which they had to drink their urine (and eat their own waste) because there was nothing else to eat or drink. This was a punishment for eating a piece of chocolate without permission. It was also a punishment for bed-wetting. A2, however, made no reference, for example, to the bedroom door being locked: they were allowed to go to the toilet and she made no mention of drinking urine.

  27.07  One of the more remarkable allegations by A1 was that, on one occasion early on, she and A2 threw the family cat out of their attic window to see if it had nine lives. The cat landed on its legs (feet) and was "alright". By way of punishment Mr A hung A1 out of the window by her legs. She said that she was hysterical and that it seemed to her that Mr A did so for ages before pulling her in. A2 said that Mr and Mrs A caught them before the cat was thrown because it was clawing them and making a noise. The As burst into the room and Mr A dangled A1 out of the window, holding her by her feet, saying that it was "to see how she would like it". A1 was screaming and crying and they were both punished.

  27.08  The sexual allegations were of varying gravity. Both girls alleged that they were fingered and touched indecently by the As' sons. A1 said that the boys used to take them into a cubby hole under the stairs for the purpose but A2 made no mention of that and said that the boys would come into the girls' bedroom and start touching and kissing them. A2 referred also to being touched indecently when the children were in the back seat of the car. The most serious allegation by A1 was that she had been buggered by one of the sons in a field when she was eight years old. A1 complained also of being watched in the bath by the As and their sons and of being required to watch the As together in the bath.

  27.09  In one of her written statements A1 alleged that a social worker had witnessed Mr A biting A1 on the bare buttock (apparently as a punishment for bed-wetting) and that the same social worker often used to watch things, including sexual acts between the two girls and the sons of the family. She referred also to seeing Mr A hand over cash to the social worker "quite a few times". Mrs A used to say that the cash was for donations but A1 believed it was bribery to keep the social worker quiet about what she had seen; and she heard arguments between Mr A and the social worker in which the latter would ask for money. A1 later retracted her allegation that the social worker had witnessed sexual acts by As' sons with the girls. She was also inconsistent about whether she had reported these sexual acts, withdrawing an allegation that she had told another social worker about them on leaving the foster home and saying later that she had only told him about "the beatings".

  27.10  It will be obvious from what we have said in summary that there are problems about the credibility of A1 and A2 and the evidence before us indicates that A1, in particular, was a severely disturbed girl, who prided herself on her ability to make difficulties for staff. A1 said or agreed (apparently incorrectly) that the main social worker involved with them made frequent visits to the foster home, weekly or fortnightly plus unscheduled visits, but the contemporary records rebut A1's suggestion that she was continuously unhappy whilst living with the As. Thus, on 6 September 1977 both girls were saying that they were very happy; a report in 1978 records that A1 had told the social worker that she loved being with the As; and in September 1978 both girls said that they considered their home to be with Mr and Mrs A, which they envisaged leaving only to marry or to work. Even as late as August 1979 A1 was again insisting that she wanted to stay.

  27.11  The two social workers that we have referred to both denied that either A1 or A2 complained of sexual or physical abuse whilst they were living with Mr and Mrs A. According to the main social worker, there had been discussion with the As about the appropriateness of making A1 wash her bed clothes as a response to bed-wetting; the girls had also complained on one occasion about doing ironing and other household tasks; and there was a record that Mrs A admitted hitting the girls but she could not recall the circumstances now.

  27.12  Mr and Mrs A had previously fostered six children, mainly on short term placements. They said that they had loved A1 and A2 and had tried to do their best for them. Mr A denied specifically that he had bitten A1 on the buttock or that he had dangled her from a bedroom window. He said that the bedroom windows had been screwed shut before the children were placed because the sills were low and a child could fall out. The police had confirmed this in 1995, when the only window that opened was a small fanlight, which opened about four inches. He denied also an allegation that the girls had been kept away from school to conceal bruising, saying that the police examined their attendance records, which showed that they had never missed a day.

  27.13  The foster parents admitted slapping the girls on quite a few occasions but Mrs A said that it was a rare occurrence, usually when they were hysterical and fighting or when, for example, one of them threw a chair. Thus, on 3 May 1979 there was a record of a home visit when Mrs A told the social worker that her husband was at his wits end and had smacked the girls hard, causing bruising. Mr A said of this incident that he had chased the girls from the lounge and up the stairs after A2 had smashed a number of ornaments, including a cut-glass cakestand, and a chair had been smashed against a wall. He had slapped both girls on the legs.

  27.14  Mr and Mrs A said also that they had encouraged A1 and A2 (and their own sons) to help with household chores in an attempt to teach them self-sufficiency and not by way of punishment. These chores never took more than ten minutes and A1 and A2 had exaggerated the facts to such an extent that they now bore no resemblance to reality (the report of an interview between A1 and a psychiatrist dated 18 May 1979 records A1 as having said that she was happier in the foster home than at Park House because she was given the opportunity to take part in chores).

  27.15  We do not consider that we would be justified in accepting the allegations by A1 and A2 that they were physically and sexually abused in this foster home because we do not regard their evidence as reliable. There were many inconsistencies in it and a great deal of exaggeration; and some of it was plainly untrue. Moreover, contemporary records do not support their general case that they were consistently unhappy from the beginning of the placement; and A1 had a long record of emotional disturbance before and after she was placed with the As. It is probable that the As' way of life was, in the end, unsuitable for such damaged children and that their recourse to slapping, which has become increasingly highly controversial in the family context, was an aggravating factor, but we accept that the As' intentions were good and that they did attempt to provide a suitable home for A1 and A2.

  27.16  As we have already said, Mr and Mrs A withdrew their services as foster parents after A1 and A2 had left them. On 31 January 1980 they wrote to the Social Services Department complaining about the lack of support that they had received. They were seen by one of the three social workers who had dealt with the placement, who reported that part of their complaint related to the non-payment of certain discretionary grants and of compensation for damage by A1 and A2 to their home. They complained also, however, of lack of communication between social workers and the family, that visits by social workers had been too infrequent and too brief in relation to the severe behavioural problems that they were experiencing, and that no action had been taken when the family routine had been upset by numerous threatening telephone calls from the father of A1 and A2.

  27.17  A report on the As' complaint was commissioned by the Area Officer for the Wrexham-Maelor area, whose office had been responsible for supervising the placement. Three social workers in succession based in that area, none of whom was professionally qualified, had carried out the supervision, although the fostering application had been dealt with by the Delyn area office. Our comments on the records and the report are that:

(a)  The records of preparatory discussion with the girls are very brief and suggest that there was little understanding of the problems likely to be faced in placing satisfactorily two children with little or no experience of normal family life.

(b)  There were only five home visits between 15 December 1977 and 13 March 1979 with one gap of six months in that 15 months period, showing inadequate supervision and support.

(c)  From the record of the visit on 24 August 1978 it appears that Mr A had been unemployed for 12 months, unbeknown to the Social Services Department, with the result that the family had been struggling financially. It was recorded also by the social worker that Mrs A had not been available for her to visit during "the past few months" because she and her mother had been seriously ill (Mrs A had been under investigation for cancer but it had proved to be a false alarm).

(d)  A fortnight later a Delyn area social worker alerted the Wrexham- Maelor area to the risk of the placement breaking down, mainly (it was said) due to the girls' stubbornness and defiance. This led to an arrangement whereby a Delyn social worker took on a supportive role for the foster parents whilst the existing social worker became more involved with the children.

  27.18  Our conclusion is that there is substance in Mrs A's complaint in her oral evidence that she felt the lack of support at times. The gaps in visiting were not justified by Mrs A's stated non-availability and there was insufficient social worker input into the placement, bearing in mind the girls' troubled upbringing, the As' financial difficulties and the potentially disrupting effect of the natural father's interventions from time to time. Clwyd Social Services Department, however, had real problems at the time in providing supervision; there was a shortage of social workers in the Wrexham-Maelor area and a lack of trained staff. Moreover, there was no pool of qualified social workers nationally from whom they could recruit.

  27.19  We do not criticise the prolongation of the placements for about a year after September 1978, having regard to the reported wishes of both girls to remain with the As. If it is correct, however, that there was a gap in visiting between 18 September 1978 and 13 March 1979, the failure of supervision at that juncture was most regrettable but also a serious breach of the Boarding Out Regulations; but for it, the ultimate outcome might have been different.

Foster home B

  27.20  Mr and Mrs B are the uncle and aunt of four children (a boy and three girls) who were boarded out with them on 4 December 1977. The background circumstances were that the children's mother had committed suicide in 1976, when the whereabouts of their father were unknown. The children had then gone to live with their paternal grandparents on 9 November 1976, the date when they were received into care, but the grandmother had died on 27 November 1977, whereupon they had been placed with Mr and Mrs B, who were formally approved as foster parents for the children on 10 January 1978. Clwyd County Council assumed parental rights in respect of all four children on 17 December 1980.

  27.21  The second daughter, B2, by then nearly 28 years old, made a written statement to the Tribunal on 6 August 1997 and gave oral evidence to us on 16 September 1997. She alleged that Mr B had sexually abused her from the age of four years and had had sexual intercourse with her from the age of seven years for about ten years. B2's statement to the Tribunal was made just over ten years after Mr B had pleaded guilty, on 13 March 1987 in the Crown Court at Mold, to an attempted rape of B2's younger sister, B3, born a year after B2, for which he had been sentenced to 18 months' imprisonment, suspended for two years. B2's explanations for not disclosing Mr B's offences against her, despite B3's first complaint in August 1986, was that she had been threatened with "going into homes" and "because of Mrs B".

  27.22  Mr B denied B2's allegations but he was ultimately charged with 14 offences including six rapes of B2, the first on 24 December 1978 and covering the period between then and 1 October 1985, and two indecent assaults upon her, the first between October 1975 and October 1976, before her mother died. There were also six charges (two rapes and four indecent assaults) in respect of B2's elder sister, B1, born on 19 October 1968, covering a period from October 1976 to October 1984. Eventually, Mr B pleaded guilty to three rapes and six indecent assaults in respect of B2 and four indecent assaults upon B1. He was sentenced on 9 September 1998, in the Crown Court at Chester, to concurrent terms of three years' imprisonment for the rapes and 12 months' imprisonment for the indecent assaults.

  27.23  It is unnecessary for the purposes of this report to give details of the offences to which Mr B pleaded guilty and he did not give evidence to the Tribunal because he could not be traced at the relevant time. It must be said, however, that B2 was supportive of him in 1986, when B3 made her allegations, and denied that she had been abused by him at that time. B2 herself became pregnant by another person in the latter part of 1986 with the result that she gave birth to a child in July 1987. She moved to a council house four months later and she was discharged from care on 14 December 1987.

  27.24  B2 complained also in 1997 that she had been neglected and physically abused whilst boarded out with Mr and Mrs B. Her main allegation was that Mr B would hit her with a strap and that she ran away on 14 June 1982 because of this. A social worker visited the foster home that day and his record shows that B2 did allege that she had been "frequently clouted, often with a belt (across backside)". She asserted then also that 18 months previously she had been marked quite badly on her buttocks and on the tops of her legs. B2 wanted at that time to move to live nearby with an 18 years old married woman, with whom she had made friends. According to the record, B2 accepted the social worker's advice that she could not do so and a temporary truce was called, but the social worker felt that B2's placement was "tenuous" and was not really sure whether Mrs B wanted B2 to stay.

  27.25  There was continuing concern thereafter about B2's attitudes at home and at school but the later reviews in her case do not indicate that she complained again of being hit. There was recurring tension between Mr and Mrs B and at least one short period of separation but there is no evidence of later physical abuse of B2 except her own general statement in her oral evidence that things got worse as the years went on and that the beatings carried on. She did add, however, that she told a social worker who assumed responsibility for her in or about August 1984 that "we were getting hit", to which the response was "If you're naughty, you're supposed to be hit".

  27.26  We do not think that Clwyd Social Services Department can be validly criticised for placing the four children with Mr and Mrs B or for failing to discover earlier the sexual abuse of which the three girls belatedly complained. The pattern of successive offences against sisters and of late disclosure is often found in closely similar cases of incest. Appropriate action was taken following the complaints of B3 and we do not have any evidence of further offences by Mr B after 1 October 1985. B3 was moved to Bersham Hall for a period following her disclosure and the family underwent therapy with two social workers, before Mr B himself returned home, which was part of the background to the imposition of a suspended sentence in 1987. There was limited contact between B2 and Mr B thereafter because she lived, at least partly, at the home of her boy friend's mother during her pregnancy and until she moved to her own council house.

  27.27  It is clear that B2 did complain on occasions, whilst still living in the foster home, of being physically struck by way of punishment for various misdemeanours and we have no reason to doubt the truth of these complaints or her oral evidence that Mr B would "belt her" with a strap from time to time. The social worker responsible for her in the mid 1980s said in a written statement to Clwyd's Child Practice Manager that she knew that the B family believed in slapping children whereas she (the social worker) did not agree with it. No signs of physical abuse were ever observed, however, by social workers. It may well be that more strenuous representations ought to have been made to Mr and Mrs B about this but we think that it is unlikely that the scale of any physical abuse was severe and, in contrast to the very grave sexual abuse, it does not appear to have had an important lasting impact on the girls.

  27.28  We did not receive sufficient evidence about the quality and frequency of visiting by social workers early on to make any assessment but the documents before us from 1984 onwards suggest that the quality of work done with the family then was quite high and that visiting was more frequent than the minimum required. There were no individual care plans for the children but the statutory reviews appear to have been carried out conscientiously and realistically. There is some evidence that the children were not often seen alone but we do not think that these particular children would have complained sooner of the sexual abuse if they had been seen alone more frequently.