lisa arthurworrey

The Case FOR Lisa Arthurworrey

Liz Davies

Lisa Arthurworrey was Victoria Climbié's social worker from 02.08.99 until Victoria died on 25.02.00.

In April this year, I was teaching some social workers from Haringey Social Services (London, UK) who informed me that on the recommendation of the London Borough of Haringey, Lisa Arthurworrey's name had been placed on the Protection of Children Act List by the Secretary of State. I was aware of the serious implications of this decision, not only for Lisa but for all social workers: it set a dangerous precedent of an entry on the list being regarded as equivalent to a finding of 'poor' professional practice.

The Protection of Children Act 19991 (POCA) requires the Secretary of State for Health to keep a list of persons considered unsuitable to work with children. POCA specifies certain conditions, at least one of which must be satisfied in order for an organisation to be able to refer someone employed in a child care position to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the POCA List.

An example of one of the conditions which must be satisfied in order for an organisation to be able to refer someone for inclusion on the POCA List is:

'That the organisation has dismissed the individual on the grounds of misconduct (whether or not in the course of employment) which harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm.' Section 1(2)(a).

POCA was a response to the report 'People like us - a review of the safeguards for children living away from home'2 which highlighted abuse of children within the care system. The spirit of the law was to prevent and deter child abusers from gaining access to children through employment within social care. Currently, the law allows inclusion on the POCA List on the broad grounds of gross misconduct as defined above. It is important to attempt to change this law in order to clarify that these grounds should not include poor professional practice that does not involve actual or suspected child abuse. The decision to refer to the list should be made on the 'balance of probabilities' level of proof following multi agency 'Section 47' investigation3 or after criminal proceedings and conviction for offences against children.

The appropriate route for consideration of a social worker's suitability for practice is the register of social workers which the General Social Care Council now maintains.

The POCA List should not be used for registration of professionals who are not suspected or actual child abusers, but the question might well be asked: why, given that Lisa's name (and that of one other former Haringey employee) are on the list, were the names of the social work managers, police, health professionals, councillors and others criticised by Lord Laming's inquiry not also included?

The relevant extracts from the Inquiry's findings are as follows:

'It is not enough to consider the omissions and failings of individual practitioners in Haringey without considering the context in which they were working at the time. It is also necessary to understand the extent to which the organisation in which they served and the working practices of the organisations can and must shoulder the blame for serious lapses in individual professional practice. The evidence on this in Haringey is in my judgement overwhelming. (Paragraph 6.2)

Although failings in Lisa Arthurworrrey's practice were many and serious, she was badly let down by her managers and the organisation that employed her. In particular, council members and the senior management of Haringey must be held to account for the yawning gap between safe policies and procedures and poor practice in the children and families service… '(Paragraph 6.3).4

Lisa now has legal representation for both the Industrial Tribunal (she won the right to a hearing after Haringey applied to strike the case out) and the POCA Tribunal. When I first met Lisa, she kept saying:

'Everyone said I should have known what was happening to Victoria.'

She had been through so much: the criminal trial of Manning and Koaou, the two Area Child Protection Committee 'Chapter 8 Reviews', the Victoria Climbié Inquiry and the disciplinary hearing, but most serious was the media

…………………….continued from page 7

vilification of her - treating her as if she herself had murdered Victoria.

Because her home address was mistakenly disclosed at the criminal trial, she was hounded by the media and had to go into hiding. She was sick for a while and unable to attend either her disciplinary hearing or her appeal against Haringey's verdict of 'gross misconduct.' Unable to obtain legal representation, her father represented her at the appeal hearing. It is to her credit that she is now seeking justice. My overwhelming impression of Lisa is of a highly professional woman, conscientious and committed.

Much of the detail of Lisa's case has already been placed in the public arena through the Victoria Climbié Inquiry. As we now plough through the evidence against her, it is clear she was working within flawed procedures devised internally and not from the Area Child Protection Committee procedures and 'Working Together' Guidance.5

Advice from her managers was absent or wrong, she had little supervision (four sessions with three different managers during the time of this case) and a huge caseload - ten child protection cases and nine other serious child care cases. She had never conducted a 'Section 47' child protection investigation before and had no training in how to do so. After qualifying, she worked for another London Borough for only ten months before going to Haringey early in November 1998.

A social work diploma or degree does not train a social worker to conduct child protection investigations: practitioners require specialist multi-agency post-qualifying training - sadly often lacking now in many authorities. They should also initially joint-work cases with more experienced colleagues.

The case has been debated in every forum. But Lisa's own voice needs to be heard. Although Lisa is not a whistleblower herself, the use of the POCA List for poor professional practice has serious implications for all social workers and could easily be used against whistleblowers. Readers may remember the case of Neville Mighty, the Islington whistleblower whose name was placed on the POCA List: it took ten years to appeal successfully against that decision

Messages of support may be sent via my e-mail: e.davies@londonmet.ac.uk or by post to:

Liz Davies,

Senior Lecturer Children and Families Social Work, London Metropolitan University,

Ladbroke House, 62-6 Highbury Grove,

London. N5 2AD.

Notes

1. The full text of The Protection of Children Act 1999 is available at www.hmso.gov.uk.

2. Department of Health, 1997, 'People like us - the report of the review of the safeguards for children living away from home', London: DoH. No electronic copy available. Contact details for obtaining hard-copy: DoH publications, Department of Health, PO Box 777, London SE1 6XH.Telephone: 08701 555455.

3. Under Section 47 of the Children's Act 1989, local authorities have a duty to investigate where, for example, they '…have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm.' S.47(1)(b) http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890041_en_1.htm

4. The full text of the Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report, January 2003, is available at http://www.victoria-Climbié-inquiry.org.uk/finreport/finreport.htm

5. Department of Health, 1999, 'Working together to safeguard children', London: DoH.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/07/58/24/04075824.pdf.

Chris Clode comments:

Whilst I believe FtC should support a change in the law to prevent what Liz Davies has rightly identified in her article: the merging of treatment for those who have actually abused or sought to abuse children and those who have been deemed to have failed to act adequately to protect children within their professional responsibilities, I am doubtful whether the Arthurworrey case (which does not involve whistleblowing) is the right vehicle via which FtC should be fighting for this change.

FtC Oct 2004