This evidence, also supports, ‘abuse’/ neglect, which will exclude parents, from representing their child in court, although there is no legal aid for this and almost invariably an Official Solicitor will be appointed by the Court,and, from their life for ever.
Legally, the definitions of such issues are vague, and expansive.
As left, to the paternalism, of the Local Authority.
It includes inter alia, not providing a safe, healthy, clean living environment, medical care, sufficient/ appropriate food, and clothing, and emotional abuse eg isolation, derogatory comments, preventing a person reaching their full potential.
The agency workers, kept a log of each shift, written without reference to me; the log book, the agency’s property.
The log pages of the meltdown in the city centre, preceding Issy’s, now 6 months indoors, had been ripped out.
Once full, the log book was removed.
But, our, now ex agency, had left, in such a hurry, an almost full book, remained on the kitchen table.
Yesterday, for the first time, I read it.
One entry, was made on the 15/8, 9.30-18.00.
A once weekly shift, recently extended, to allow us a day out.
Written by the newly qualified social worker, in my previous posts;
Her agency was paid at least £60 an hour just to provide her and she £25.
It was never explained why in these last two weeks of support a qualified social worker had been sent, this had not happened before excepting for the secret social worker sent overnight when I was supposed to have gone with all other family members to Wimbledon.
‘Isabel awake on arrival in bath. Bedding stripped and remade. Brushed Issy’s room. Issy had a bowel movement in the bath’.
The same worker, on shift the next day records,
‘ Bathroom cleaned after as Issy had a bowel movement whilst in the bath’.
The next day the trainee social worker, records, a more accurate, unspun version of the same event.
‘After about 2 hours we noticed she was incontinent of faeces, we prepare the bath’
Isabel had a tummy bug and the runs.
If, she defecates in the bath, this suggests she is not toilet trained, (parental capacity), and is a safeguarding issue ( hygiene).
6 months earlier, our ‘education’ worker, had seen poo in Issy’s bath, from nighttime soiling.
The worker , hadn’t mentioned it..
But, afterwards had mentioned it to her ‘education’ boss.
In one of his weekly briefing, to obtain evidence of safeguarding/ parental incapacity etc.
I was only made aware of the purpose of these meetings when a worker told me these workers were meeting up in Costa Coffee and discussing the house and mother and phone calls from the education boss clearly asking what I was doing were overheard.
And, the fact the boss had asked me in the next children in need meeting.
‘Is Issy still pooing and peeing in the bath?’
In 2007,Issy had slithered poo on the sofa, whilst sitting next to her GP.
Instead, of him, recognising, this as a sign of an impaction.
He had exclaimed in disgust,
‘Oh, she is still doing that, is she’.
At the time, I hadn’t a clue what he had meant.
It was not until, I read the social services care application, where he stated he thought Issy, had not been toilet trained, his comment made sense.
Yet, he had not asked, or checked, if she was, and all services knew Issy had by then, been using the toilet for over 6 years.
In fact, the GP was there, at our request, to find out what might be wrong with Issy, as she was distressed, behaving badly and slithering poo.
And, was there to refer her to an endochronogist for a bowel scan.
This made me think, workers, appeared to be looking for issues, mentioned in the 2007 social services application.
And the truth on an issue was irrelevant. All were briefed to look for and create safeguarding parental capacity issues only.
Issy’s undetected impaction, had resulted in bad behaviour, that had justified Risperidol medication, and, an unassessed, 52 week, £177,000 per year NAS placement.
On seeing my mixing Issy’s Movicol, her social worker laughed, on my commenting Issy had the runs, and, remarked,
‘Well, that’s not going to help, is it ?’.
Indicating I must be an idiot. ( parental incapacity)
But it was her who was ignorant, that incontinence, was a symptom of an impaction.
And, if I did not administer Movicol, evidence of neglect.
Anyway, back to the log of the 15/8,
‘Removed last night’s tea from Isobel’s room into the kitchen. Isabel was trying to eat it . So we offered her other options. She asked for bread and butter and has eaten 1 and a quarter slices, packet of chocolate buttons’
Isabel had not been eating properly for weeks, so we left supper in her bedroom, to encourage her to eat.
She had returned home in February 2013, 7 and a half stone, at 5ft 6 inches, and grown to 12 stone, within 3 months.
At the time of the log, she was nearly 11 stone.
It then occurred to me, another reason for Issy’s severe weight loss.
NAS’s policy, to remove food immediately from her room.
Staff had been reluctant to even go into her room.
And her food was sometimes put through the window.
One of our workers, had looked after Issy in her NAS home, and, recounted a shift, when she had been sent into Issy’s bedroom, to remove her food.
But unlike other staff, had taken the filling out of the nachos, to encourage her to eat .
Malnutrition, is evidence of neglect, but, only if you are a parent, not the state.
Back to the log, it continues,
‘ There was blood and faeces up the door and units in Izzy’s bedroom supported to clean. It was also on the floor but we couldn’t find a mop and bucket to clean properly . So used a cloth and spray.’‘Kate has cleaned the kitchen due to issy trying to eat left over food, and moving staff around leading to blood being spread around .’
Unhygienic living environment is a safeguarding issue.
We then later see the reason for this,
‘Isabel still refusing to put her pad on so I have to put a towel underneath her ( on her bed) because of her period’
They couldn’t get her to put her sanitary pad on.
‘Finola showed me the mop and bucket was kept outside’
Where the mops, had been kept, throughout this worker’ year’s support.
She walked past them on entering the house.
This was the same social worker, who had asked a month earlier for a second mop.
The log gets better,
‘ Due to Issy’s weight loss her trousers were falling down I asked finola and seamus if they still had any clothes from the last time issy lost weight for her to use but they had been removed’.
These clothes, would in any event be too small, as side 8/10, Issys was now a 14/16.
There were clothes available in the draws, but the stack of clothes, I left out, had been used up.
Insufficient, or, inappropriate clothing, is evidence of neglect.
And better still.
‘Stripped bedding once again unable to wash due to no washing powder’
The ‘ once again’,referring to the missing mop.
On returning, I had got washing tablets left in the car.
What a pretty picture this paints for the court,
– inadequate clothing, washing facilities, filthy unhygienic bedroom , insufficient food , child eating left overs, old food left in bedroom.
If I were the judge, I’d think this an inadequate home environment.
But reading between the lines, all it shows, is that the carers, could not cope with Issy, with the runs, and, a period, whilst I could, and had to.
And had, unlike the state,been encouraging her to eat.
Who would want ‘respite’, that removed your child to state ‘care’.
Where Issy, would be an unseen pin cushion, medicated, and, in nappies,
Where neglect, and abuse, is hidden, and, not deliberately fabricated.
Strangely, the log for October remained anodyne, with no mention of bed, and mop- gate, mentioned in later blogs.
One can only assume, workers had been told,
not to put me on notice, of their evidence gathering.