Lib Dem ex-MP says judge Heather Anderson wrong not to name council that failed to consult man over daughter’s placement in foster care

A family court judge has come under fire after refusing to name a council that violated a man’s parental rights by taking his four-year-old daughter into care without a proper investigation.

Judge Heather Anderson said the council had admitted breaching the human rights of the man, who has a learning disability and is separated from the girl’s mother.

Staff had not consulted him when temporarily placing the girl, who had lived with her mother, with foster carers after concerns emerged about her being neglected. He had not been asked if he could care for his daughter or suggest other possible carers, pending decisions about her long-term future.

Social services had accepted that their conduct had been incompatible with the man’s right to a fair trial and his right to respect for family life. They had admitted failing to consult the man when his daughter was placed in foster care, failing to identify him as a father with parental responsibility and failing to recognise and correct errors.

But Anderson said she would not name the council or social workers involved because it would not serve any purpose to attribute failings to individuals. Defending her decision, she added that social workers and their legal advisers worked under huge pressure.

A former MP who campaigns for improvements in the family justice system has said the judge was wrong not to name the council. Liberal Democrat John Hemming, who chairs the campaign group Justice for Families, said the public had a right to know.

Detail of the case has emerged in a written ruling by the judge following a private family court hearing in Leeds. Anderson said the girl had temporarily been placed with foster carers in late 2014. Decisions on the girl’s long-term future had been made following a hearing in August 2015.

The judge said she had decided the child should be placed for adoption, adding that her father had attended a special school, could not read and had never worked. According to court documents, the girl had regular contact with him when living with her mother.

Social workers had intervened after concerns had been raised about injuries she had suffered and about alleged ongoing neglect. Anderson said it was clear the council had acted in a way that was incompatible with the man’s right to a fair hearing and to respect for family life.

But she said at the start of her ruling: “I have not named the local authority and will not name any of the social workers or the other professionals involved in the case.

“Social workers and their legal advisers work under huge pressure, much of it imposed by the requirements of the court. There is no suggestion of any bad faith on the part of any of the professionals in this case. An early error was not noticed by a variety of professionals who are all working under a great deal of pressure.”

She added: “I anticipate that the local authority will wish to share this judgment with the other local authorities ... as part of the work they do to share good practice and to learn from errors. They have my permission to share the judgment for this purpose.

“I also wish to make it clear that, fortunately, although there has been delay, the ultimate outcome for (the girl) has not been compromised because of the errors in the case.”

Hemming said the judge was wrong to bar details of the council being released. “The taxpayer funds this local authority, voters have elected the councillors responsible for it and the public has a right to know who it is,” he said. “Many families will no doubt be involved with this council’s social services department. They have a right to know if something has gone wrong.

“They may have similar concerns about the way they have been treated. Voters may want to elect new councillors as a result of what’s gone wrong. This council may have been criticised before. Unless we know where things have gone wrong they cannot be put right.”

He added: “It is simply not good enough to keep the name of the council secret because social workers and their legal advisers work under ‘huge pressure’. This council is a public authority, its staff are public employees and members of the public have a right to know what is done in their name.”