Delay anger of social work critics

from the local government Ombudsman.

The report by Mr Frederick Marks highlights the tragic case of a child

on the At Risk Register who lost both her hands in a domestic fire.

Her father's complaint against the department's handling of her case

has still not been dealt with 32 months after the accident.

In three other cases, which Mr Marks investigated, there were delays

of between 88 and 150 days -- a sad record, given the council's

statutory requirement to respond to a complaint within 28 days.

The Rev David Laing, chairman of social work, said yesterday: ''There

will be no argument from us. We accept all the Ombudsman's findings. The

director of social work, Mary Hartnoll, will be coming back to committee

in February with a report to councillors on the complaints procedure.''

Meanwhile, the Ombudsman has recommended a payment of #1000 to the

father of the badly burned child, in respect of the maladministration he

has suffered, and #200 each to three other complainants where delays

have been experienced.

Mr Marks's fiercest criticism relates to the case of the burned child.

He states: ''While I do not underestimate the complexities of the issues

which have arisen, the council has prevaricated to such an extent that I

have no hesitation in regarding its performance as constituting

maladministration.''

The distressing complaint relating to the child came from an unnamed

father, described in the report as Mr A.

Mr A's four children were in the care of their mother from whom Mr A

was separated. In November 1990 they were placed on the At Risk

Register, because of concern about the use of drugs by their mother.

The father had previously written to the Social Work Department, and

had approached social workers about concerns he had regarding the

mother's possible use of drugs and the care which the children were

receiving.

The report states that in February 1991, as a result of a fire in

their mother's house, one of his daughters was severly burned and lost

both her hands. After the fire the children were taken into care by the

authority.

Subsequently Mr A asked that the children be placed in his care and,

at a child care review meeting on November 8, 1991, a formal decision

was taken to pursue a plan for their rehabilitation with their father.

In February 1992, Mr A wrote a letter to a social work district

manager, complaining about lack of co-operation from the department.

He was concerned about three issues:

* Failure of the Social Work Department to monitor effectively the

children's circumstances prior to the fire.

* Lack of support in his efforts to establish a home for the children.

* Refusal of back-dated expenses for visiting the children while they

were in care.

Following a social work reply to his concerns, Mr A submitted a formal

appeal on April 21, 1992. A year later he submitted a further letter,

protesting about the delay, and indicated his wish to raise an action

against the Social Work Department.

After further correspondence on the release of personal files to Mr A,

the council maintained its view that, where a legal action was pending,

it need not require to consider a complaint. The council also advised

that the children's mother did not wish personal files to be released to

Mr A.

So far the case has not come into the appeal system despite dragging

on for 32 months.

Mr Marks notes that new procedures have been put in place, whereby the

12 district managers, who are accountable to a senior depute director,

have clearer responsibility and accountability for dealing with

complaints within their own areas.

The emphasis will now be on resolving a complaint, rather than

formalising a complaint through the process.

Councillor Keith Moody, the Liberal Democrat spokesman on social work

said: ''Here we have a bureaucratic system, designed to help the

individual to complain, being used as a mechanism to kill or delay

complaints.''