Taken at birth: Rising number of newborn babies removed from their homes in Worcestershire
CARE: Rising number of newborn babies in the county have been taken into care because of the risk of leaving them in 'chaotic' homes
MORE than 200 newborn babies have been taken into care across Worcestershire in less than a decade - with safeguarding experts calling it "very serious".
Your
Worcester News can reveal the number of babies taken away from their parents per year by
Worcestershire County Council has rocketed more than 50 per cent.
Since 2007 a total of 231 babies have gone into care within their first 28 days of life, including many less than a week old.
All of whom were judged to be "at serious risk of harm", with the council starting rapid legal proceedings.
The yearly figures have drastically increased over that period, with it standing at 13 in 2007 before a succession of rises took it as high as 43 in 2013.
Bosses at County Hall say for too many newborns the action becomes "essential" because of chaotic home lives which makes intervention crucial to their wellbeing.
Independent safeguarding experts say they are conducting their own probe into the data, admitting it has not surprised them due to the number of serious case reviews they see.
The findings, obtained by this newspaper, come after we revealed how the number of children in care across Worcestershire has rocketed by a third since 2009, to a record high of 716 young people.
In recent years the authority has tightened up its pre-birth work with expecting parents on the social services radar so they can intervene if need be.
Diana Fulbrook, the independent chair of Worcestershire's Safeguarding Children Board, said: "There is an argument that early intervention is better than 'waiting to see' and hoping for the best.
"But clearly it is a matter for concern, we all want children to be settled in a safe environment.
"It's absolutely right that (the council's) pre-birth planning has been tightened up and that's part of the picture, but it is very serious and not surprising, when you see the serious case reviews."
She added: "Large numbers of children going into care is obviously a real problem in terms of the resource implications - but in some ways it's a good new story that these interventions are happening.
"We are doing our own work to look at the trends across the ages."
The council says all the decisions are taken by courts, with parents able to argue the case if they wish.
A spokesman said: "Like many councils, Worcestershire has improved its pre-birth planning for the very small group of children who we judge may be at serious risk of harm when they are born.
"All these decisions about care are taken by the courts, where parents have legal representation and balanced professional assessments can be made in the light of all the facts.
"For very small children it's essential they return to normal family life as quickly as possible, whether this is to their birth family when changes have been made or into another family.
"Our early action makes this much more likely to be successfully achieved."
Two months ago research by the
Nuffield Foundation found 25 per cent of newborns taken away are from mothers stuck in a pattern of care interventions, with brothers or sisters already in the system.
The data for Worcestershire is from January 2007 to the end of 2015 – with 31 newborns in the county going into care last year.
http://www.redditchadvertiser.co.uk/news/14307817.Taken_at_birth__Rising_number_of_newborn_babies_removed_from_their_homes/?ref=mr&lp=16http://m.bromsgroveadvertiser.co.uk/news/13587913.Exposed___the_council_lapses_in_care_of_YOUR_details/?ref=rss
I want to call on Government for information leaflets to be sent to every household in the UK to show natural parents their rights as described here-
https://www.gov.uk/child-adoption/birth-parents-your-rights I do-not have a live Case which pertains to child custody decisions being made in Court
Through lack of information rights, i almost died as a consequence. I'm recovering alcoholic of 8 years. I call on Government to add information to include parental rights, data protection rights, children's rights, compliments and complaints links to Children's Services, Cafcass, medical court expert witnesses, Judges, Solicitors, Barnardo's, Surestart and links to human rights. I would request that this information be added where Local Councils provide the printed information already.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/more-children-must-allowed-give-8152129 Sir James Munby is already helping the children to have a voice, which is a really positive step forward in the right direction. Now we need to see the parents having a more fair opportunity to knowing their rights too.
Lack of information rights can kill. This is exactly what almost happened to me shortly after my 38th birthday. I was in a child custody dispute Case. My youngest child of my 4 children was subsequently adopted against my will in 2004. I'd had the Judge discover the Social Worker and Guardian Ad Litem 'fraud' on my Case. I did not know where to turn for help. I had no computer or did not know how to use one, i saw no leaflets pushed through my door to help me know my rights. I'd also (with evidence) which came to late for me, learnt i had been set up by my 1st Long Term Social Worker. It would be years later before i learnt my Solicitor had eventually put my evidence into Court, but had done so in a misleading way. This meant the evidence was as much use as a 'chocolate teapot.'
The 1st Long Term Social got described by the Judge as inexperienced, yet she had paved the way already in making the Judge come to his decision. She planned to use 'mental health' against me no matter what i did to prove myself a fit parent. Nothing was going to work. Correct policies and procedures were not followed. Like many other parents i've often heard it said 'Evidence at Court was fairly challenged' and 'It's the Judge who makes the decision.' It has taken me many years to get my evidence. I had not even known how to get my copies of files and the only Professional i had known who to complain about was the Social Worker. In fact, the Social Worker encouraged me to make a complaint about her. It comes of no surprise that no resolution came from my complaint.
To this day i have not managed to retrieve copies of all my evidence even where Cafcass admitted to having my files, and after paying for my SARS request i was sent about 6 items only. They've been pulled out of archives several times, only for me to since be told they got destroyed back then. Or that no manager had to sign to witnessing our files being destroyed back then upon requesting to be sent a signature. I was stopped from writing to my Council in early days in comparison to when i retrieved copies of my children's services files, and my letters will only go to Consumer Relations with a receipt given to me. I'm stopped from making any more FOI's to my Council on not only adoption matters but also Children's Services ones aswell as any other which relate to potential miscarriages of justice.
I turned to alcoholic drink the day i learnt at Court i was going to be losing my youngest child to adoption. 3 weeks later, my Social Worker stopped my face to face contact against the Judge's decision. A further Judge around 2 years later (because my Solicitor's firm stopped helping me straight after i got the news) and she did this in front of my mental health Social Worker who was there for me, just because my Case had ran live for so long. My Case was the longest running Case for Redditch, Worcestershire. I'd had my copies of medical files relinquished over to Children's Services by my GP surgery. (Something to which i was informed one of their secretaries would contact children's services to find out how this had happened) but never did. I had not given my written consent and an unlawful Threshold had got entered into Court about me, where a false diagnosis was given on me which proved to be so after. No one told me the Social Worker was in contempt of court. I heard no more from my Solicitor firm how the Adoption Order i was led to believe was rubber stamped (because i got told that day at Court that once a parent loses their parental rights that's it) and what's worse was it was done at an 'Interim Care Hearing' and 'NOT' a Final one. I carried on drinking to cope with the emotional pain. I was not prepared. I would not wish it on anybody, yet this is similar to what other parents and families are going through every day. I am lucky, i managed to stop drinking, not all parents are so lucky and some die through turning to drink, drugs or suicide.
I am aiming to bring about 'Kieron's Law' to try and make an effort to help stop potential 'Miscarriages Of Justice' happening in the future. I am still here. I want to help make a difference, because had i known my rights properly then, maybe things could have turned out different. I call on Sir James Munby to hear the voices of all the ones who sign my petition because it's to late for me now. I am asking for change with parents now and their children and grandparents. I am requesting that every door in the UK, Scotland, Ireland and Wales have their information rights published on a leaflet pushed through every door available. Every human being deserves this support because for me, i've felt like a whale held captive for many years with no escape, a goldfish in a goldfish bowl and we can move house, but there is still a lack of information out there in the public domain and parents need genuine support with genuine resources to help them. Many thanks for reading and signing my petition. Please be sure to share it and pass it on.
For more details on this petition and Kieron's Law search
'Kieron's Law' on
Facebook.
Boy awarded £5,000 damages after council breached his human rights while in carewww.communitycare.co.uk/2016/03/14/boy-awarded-5000-damages-council-breached-human-rights-care/
Council fined £17,500 for breaching child’s human rights in section 20 arrangementhttp://www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/05/18/council-fined-17500-breaching-childs-human-rights-section-20-arrangement/Exclusive: Thousands of children go missing in Worcestershirehttp://www.worcesternews.co.uk/news/11843200.Exclusive__Thousands_of_children_go_missing_in_Worcestershire/
More children 'must be allowed to give evidence in family court hearings' says top judge
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/more-children-must-allowed-give-8152129
Leave to Apply to Revoke Placement or Oppose Adoption Orders – A Meaningful RemedyIn response to the application for leave the local authority produced a short statement that purported to address the salient issues. I was very unhappy about the quality of that statement. It seemed to me to be based on a misconceived reading of the present state of the legal test. More fundamentally it was plain that the local authority had utterly failed in any meaningful way to investigate the father’s proposals for the child. The social worker’s report was superficial, unresearched and uninformed by any meeting whatsoever with father, the children for whom he was caring, the children’s very supportive grandmother or any member of the wider maternal family. Nor had any enquiries been made with the boys’ school. Further, the statement contained quotations and references unsupported by source material. At the first hearing, following submissions about the quality of this report, the judge remarked that she was obviously not in a position to adjudicate upon the application that day; that the local authority had not appeared to appreciate that this was not simply to be “a rubber-stamping exercise”; and that the local authority must return to court with a new statement of evidence “well-founded on proper investigation”.
Further, the social workers didn’t appear to appreciate fully the nature of the central questions clarified in Re B-S. They repeatedly harked back to the original threshold criteria established in the care proceedings, without very much focus on events since then. By contrast the approach that must be taken by the court is absolutely clear. Paragraph 73 of the report:
“There is a two stage process. The court has to ask itself two questions: Has there been a change in circumstances? If so, should leave to oppose be given
Then at paragraph 74 there is a detailed 10-point guide as to how the court should approach the task of evaluating all the circumstances that come to be considered at the second stage. For ease of reference it is set out below:
(i) As a general proposition, the greater the change in circumstances (assuming, of course, that the change is positive) and the more solid the parent’s grounds for seeking leave to oppose, the more cogent and compelling the arguments based on the child’s welfare must be if leave to oppose is to be refused.
(ii) This close focus on the circumstances requires that the court has proper evidence. But this does not mean that judges will always need to hear oral evidence and cross-examination before coming to a conclusion. Sometimes, though we suspect not very often, the judge will be assisted by oral evidence. Typically, however, an application for leave under section 47(5) can fairly and should appropriately be dealt with on the basis of written evidence and submissions: see Re P paras 53-54.
(iii) At this, as at all other stages in the adoption process, the judicial evaluation of the child’s welfare must take into account all the negatives and the positives, all the pros and cons, of each of the two options, that is, either giving or refusing the parent leave to oppose. Here again, as elsewhere, the use of Thorpe LJ’s ‘balance sheet’ is to be encouraged.
(iv) Once he or she has got to the point of concluding that there has been a change of circumstances and that the parent has solid grounds for seeking leave, the judge must consider very carefully indeed whether the child’s welfare really does necessitate the refusal of leave. The judge must keep at the forefront of his mind the teaching of Re B, in particular that adoption is the “last resort” and only permissible if “nothing else will do” and that, as Lord Neuberger emphasised, the child’s interests include being brought up by the parents or wider family unless the overriding requirements of the child’s welfare make that not possible. That said, the child’s welfare is paramount.
(v) Prospect of success here relates to the prospect of resisting the making of an adoption order, not, we emphasise, the prospect of ultimately having the child restored to the parent’s care.
(vi) For purposes of exposition and analysis we treat as two separate issues the questions of whether there has been a change in circumstances and whether the parent has solid grounds for seeking leave. Almost invariably, however, they will be intertwined; in many cases the one may very well follow from the other.
(vii) The mere fact that the child has been placed with prospective adopters cannot be determinative, nor can the mere passage of time. On the other hand, the older the child and the longer the child has been placed the greater the adverse impacts of disturbing the arrangements are likely to be.
(viii) The judge must always bear in mind that what is paramount in every adoption case is the welfare of the child “throughout his life”. Given modern expectation of life, this means that, with a young child, one is looking far ahead into a very distant future – upwards of eighty or even ninety years. Against this perspective, judges must be careful not to attach undue weight to the short term consequences for the child if leave to oppose is given. In this as in other contexts, judges should be guided by what Sir Thomas Bingham MR said in Re O (Contact: Imposition of Conditions) [1995] 2 FLR 124, 129, that “the court should take a medium-term and long-term view of the child’s development and not accord excessive weight to what appear likely to be short-term or transient problems.” That was said in the context of contact but it has a much wider resonance: Re G (Education: Religious Upbringing) [2012] EWCA Civ 1233, [2013] 1 FLR 677, para 26.
(ix) Almost invariably the judge will be pressed with the argument that leave to oppose should be refused, amongst other reasons, because of the adverse impact on the prospective adopters, and thus on the child, of their having to pursue a contested adoption application. We do not seek to trivialise an argument which may in some cases have considerable force, particularly perhaps in a case where the child is old enough to have some awareness of what is going on. But judges must be careful not to attach undue weight to the argument. After all, what from the perspective of the proposed adopters was the smoothness of the process which they no doubt anticipated when issuing their application with the assurance of a placement order, will already have been disturbed by the unwelcome making of the application for leave to oppose. And the disruptive effects of an order giving a parent leave to oppose can be minimised by firm judicial case management before the hearing of the application for leave. If appropriate directions are given, in particular in relation to the expert and other evidence to be adduced on behalf of the parent, as soon as the application for leave is issued and before the question of leave has been determined, it ought to be possible to direct either that the application for leave is to be listed with the substantive adoption application to follow immediately, whether or not leave is given, or, if that is not feasible, to direct that the substantive application is to be listed, whether or not leave has been given, very shortly after the leave hearing.
(x) We urge judges always to bear in mind the wise and humane words of Wall LJ in Re P, para 32. We have already quoted them but they bear repetition: “the test should not be set too high, because … parents … should not be discouraged either from bettering themselves or from seeking to prevent the adoption of their child by the imposition of a test which is unachievable.”
Plainly every one of those factors might be relevant and important in any given case. Taken together these ten points represent a scrupulously careful and deliberately nuanced set of considerations, a million miles away from the rigid kind of thinking put forward by some local authorities.
Point (v) above provides an opening (in the right case) to something very much more substantial than a short hearing on submissions. Indeed I managed to persuade the judge in this particular case, where the evidence from the local authority was so deficient, that a full hearing with oral evidence and cross-examination was necessary in order to do justice to the application. In the end we had a three-day fully contested case, with substantial evidence from the father, a grandparent and two different social workers.
It was fully recognised that this application must have been truly distressing for the prospective adopters, but if these applications are to represent a true and meaningful remedy then, in that spirit, they ought to be decided based on evidence that is properly collated and seen to be fully and fairly tested. Or to put it another way, parents are entitled to a fair trial.
In the end, and sadly, the father was not successful in his bid to prevent this particular adoption. However, as he remarked to me himself, the ultimate process and the judge’s approach to his full hearing could not be criticised. Indeed he was so grateful for the way things were handled that after judgment he insisted upon thanking the judge personally for the care she had taken with the case.
So, on the face of it, here is a beautifully clarified piece of law. An erudite authority steers us down clear guidelines, with intellectually rigorous yet subtle thought processes. Lazy or over-defensive local authorities can be obliged to address the issues properly. Full hearings can be justified. Theoretically this all sounds like progressive stuff. However, until legal aid entitlement for hearings of this type is sorted out, it’s difficult to see how this translates into the real world.
Again Munby J has had a lot to say about this recently – see D (A Child) (No 2) EWFC 2. Again it’s all encouraging stuff. Let’s hope that it will contribute to a sea change in legal aid, whereby parents can have proper representation at all stages of the process. Otherwise they are bound to think, rightly, that they have been sold short. Last word to the President:
‘Whatever view may be taken as to their prospects of success at the final hearing, a matter on which I express no views whatever, though recognising, as I have earlier noted (Re D, para 9), that the report of the independent social worker is unfavourable to the parents, I would view with the very gravest concern any suggestion that they should be denied legal aid on ‘merits’ grounds. Given the extreme gravity of the issues at stake and their various problems and difficulties, it is, as I said before (Re D, paras 3, 31), unthinkable that the parents should have to face the local authority’s application without proper representation. I repeat what I said in my earlier judgment:
“To require them to do so would be unconscionable; it would be unjust; it would involve a breach of their rights under Articles 6 and 8 of the Convention; it would be a denial of justice.”
A parent facing the permanent removal of their child must be entitled to put their case to the court, however seemingly forlorn, and that must surely be as much the right of a parent with learning disabilities (as in the case of the mother) or a parent who lacks capacity (as in the case of the father) as of any other parent. It is one of the oldest principles of our law – it goes back over 400 centuries to the earliest years of the seventeenth century – that no-one is to be condemned unheard. I trust that all involved will bear this in mind.’
Chris Godfrey
February 2015
www.colletonchambers.co.uk/latest-news/leave-to-apply-to-revoke-placement-or-oppose-adoption-orders-a-meaningful-remedy/Cox and Carter :- Trying to get child back after adoption order‘… We cannot afford to proceed on the blinkered assumption that there have been no miscarriages of justice in the family justice system. This is something that
has to be addressed with honesty and candour if the family justice system is not to suffer further loss of public confidence. Open and public debate in the media is essential.’I remain of that view. The passage of the years has done nothing to diminish the point; if anything quite the contrary.”
In my judgment, and giving appropriate weight to the terrible burden which what is proposed will inevitably impose on the adoptive parents, although bravely and responsibly they do not oppose what is proposed, the claims of the birth parents, the best interests of X, and the public interest all point in the same direction: there must be a re-opening of the finding of fact hearing, so that the facts (whatever they may turn out to be) – the truth – can be ascertained in the light of all the evidence which is now available.
The law on re-opening a case is Re Z, and the President quickly skates through that (having already decided above that there is going to BE a re-hearing)
The re-hearing is going to take place in October 2016. That will be four years after the injury, three years after the Care Order, two years after the Adoption Order, and a year after the parents were exonerated at the criminal trial. If nothing else, this case has not shown that the legal process can react swiftly. The President has also indicated that there may be before then a hearing about how the Press can report the re-hearing (thinking of the Poppi Worthington case, and the press interest there is going to be in this, it might for example include almost-live reporting and tweeting)
https://www.theguardian.com/…/parents-cleared-of-abuse-laun…IF the findings are overturned at that re-hearing, there’s still a massive legal mountain to climb for the parents. The guidance in Webster is from the Supreme Court, so it isn’t open to the President to simply ignore it. It does however, give the small chink of light An adoption order once lawfully and properly made can be set aside “only in highly exceptional and very particular circumstances”:
So a Court could potentially find that these ARE highly exceptional and very particular circumstances. (though showing why very similar circumstances in Webster didn’t meet the test but this one does is going to require some particularly skilful footwork.)
I appreciate that people’s FEELINGS about this will be very strong, and many of you will strongly support the parents getting the child back. If I was doing the odds, based on the Webster decision, it is at best a 20% chance, even if they overturn the findings. The Webster decision, in law, is a really high mountain to climb. That test, as a Supreme Court decision, is a test that really only Parliament or the ECHR could change. So it is not hopeless for these parents, but legally they have a mountain to climb.
It is certainly true that the public debate and the judicial position on adoption is rather different than it was in 2008 when Webster was decided. It is possible that this will have an impact.
A dreadful set of circumstances for everyone involved – if the parents are found both to the criminal AND civil standard of proof to have not injured their child then what has happened to them has been the most awful thing one can imagine. They will have been completely let down by the British justice system.
It is almost impossible to understand how the child would make sense of it. The child’s adopters, who have had this child in their home for two years and who are now the legal parents of that child and consider him as part of the family, and who went into that process in complete good faith have to face months of doubt and anxiety about the future. It would be nice if whatever the Court finally decide about the adoption order, both his adoptive parents and his birth parents get to play a strong part in his future life, but that in itself would be a brand new arrangement, never tried before in England, and litigation doesn’t often foster that spirit of all parties wanting to work together to do what is best for the child.
One thing is for sure, we are going to have a huge public debate about adoption in October 2016 when this case is decided, and an even bigger one if the parents are cleared but the adoption order still stands (as the precedents suggest that it would)
https://suesspiciousminds.com/2016/06/12/cox-and-carter-trying-to-get-child-back-after-adoption-order/
Under pressure: How the rise in care applications is squeezing the system
Care applications are at an all-time high and experts warn that this is increasing the risk of serious mistakes being made
New normal
Even though some of the individual factors appear to be short-term, Cafcass chief executive Anthony Douglas feels that rising care applications are the ‘new normal’.
“Whether this is a temporary spike or the new normal has been the question for something like seven or eight years,” he says. “When something goes on that long it is a bit like climbing a mountain that stops for a bit and you seem to be on a plateau but then the climb goes on.
“All the factors that have lead to increases over the last seven or eight years are still there and so I think it will go on. The section 20 numbers are probably short term but over the last seven or eight years there have been a number of short-term factors that have kept pushing the system up.”
www.communitycare.co.uk/2016/06/09/pressure-rise-care-applications-squeezing-system/
Enforcement of Child Contact OrdersThis has long been a difficult and emotive area of family law – on the one hand, the need for Court Orders to be upheld both for confidence in the family law system and the ordered Contact to take place (especially as the Court will have considered that to be in the best interests of the child in making the order in the first place) and, on the other, the available penalties, how practical they may be and the impact on the child’s welfare in using them.
These types of matters are in the minority but, as you might imagine, are the most intractable with the emotional distress to the parties and to the children at its highest.
The Court may consider a breach of an Order as contempt of Court and this makes available to it fines or imprisonment. The Court may also change a child’s residence. The problem with these options is how practical they are in the circumstances and the potential impact on the carer and, therefore, the children. Ultimately of course it is not likely to do much for the children improving their relationship with their non-resident parent, who they may even view as to blame for their other parent being imprisoned/fined.
Thanks to the Children and Adoption Act 2006, unpaid work and financial compensation may also be used as means of enforcing Orders…. but how does the Court actually deal with these matters.
A recent study funded by The Nuffield Foundation and published in July this year has sought to gather information on these types of matters and their outcomes.
The study found that most enforcement applications are brought by fathers as a result of Contact breaking down completely, although there were cases brought for enforcement because the parent with care of the children was late for Contact or sessions were being missed. 59% of cases studied were brought back to Court within 1 year of the original order.
Although most people probably believe that the main reason for Contact Orders being breached is as a result of the unreasonable behaviour or implacable hostility of the parent with care, in fact the study found that these matters made up just 4% of the studied sample of cases.
Most common were cases of parents in significant conflict – either through a lack of any trust or where they were in competition – meaning that they were entirely unable to work together. Next common were those cases where one or both parties raised issues of risk, be those alcohol, drugs, mental health or domestic violence and 10% of cases saw older children rejecting all or some of the ordered Contact in a reasoned way, citing the behaviour of the non-resident parent or their lack of sensitivity as an issue.
Most of the cases were dealt with by the Court setting out a timetable for Contact but also putting in place measures to encourage the parents to work together, be that mediation, parenting education courses etc. but the Court also dealt with matters by setting out a new timetable for any Contact, assessing risk issues by way of drug testing or by restricting Contact to supervised Contact and by seeking the views of the children involved and following those.
In 9% of the cases sampled, the Court sought to ensure compliance with the original order by way of punitive action. These were largely restricted to the cases of implacable hostility, which formed the smallest % of cases sampled.
The study finds that largely the Court alters its way of dealing with these matters depending on the reasons for the case returning to Court and in the vast majority of matters, the Court deals with them appropriately. Given that most enforcement cases centre on the parental conflict or risk issues, it is positive to note the Court’s focus on co-parenting, protection and problem solving as opposed to pure punitive measures, which almost certainly wouldn’t assist.
If you are struggling with issues concerning your children as a result of any Divorce or separation then contact our family law solicitor in Worcester, Louise, on 01905 731 731 for expert advice.
http://www.nuffieldfoundation.org/sites/default/files/files/enforcement%20briefing%20paper%20final.pdfhttp://www.wwf.co.uk/articles/enforcement-of-child-contact-orders
Exposed - the council lapses in care of YOUR details
County Hall, home of Worcestershire County Council
NEARLY 100 cases of personal data breaches have occurred at Worcestershire County Council in just three years - sparking serious concern from civil liberties campaigners.An investigation has revealed how at least 20 workers have been disciplined since 2011 after people's personal details were exposed to third parties.
Findings under a Freedom of Information Act request have revealed that between 2011 and April 2014 there were 97 breaches of data protection laws.
32 leaks were put down to a "lack of due care and attention" from staff, but other reasons cited included theft, items going missing, details being disclosed to others in error, or the information not being disclosed of securely.
Also, 20 workers were disciplined but not one had to resign or were sent to court for breaking data protection laws
The findings have been criticised by campaign group Big Brother Watch, as the county council's record puts it just outside the 10 worst performing authorities in the entire country.
While the council did not go into details about each case, examples of data breaches around the country include workers using IT systems to access confidential data on family members, adult social care assessments being emailed to the wrong people, laptop thefts, adoption letters send to incorrect addresses, job CVs being circulated in error, school teacher disciplinary actions being leaked and even a children's social worker sharing details of one youngster with another family she was working with.
When comparing Worcestershire with some other 'shire' councils there were just six breaches in Oxfordshire, six in Derbyshire, nine in Northamptonshire, five in Kent and 27 in Warwickshire, while Staffordshire had none at all.
Emma Carr, a director at Big Brother Watch, said: "Despite councils being trusted with increasing amounts of our personal data, they are simply not able to say it is safe with them.
"A number of examples show shockingly lax attitudes to protecting confidential information.
"For so many children and young people to have had their personal information compromised is deeply disturbing.
"With only a tiny fraction of staff being disciplined or dismissed, this raises the question of how seriously local councils take protecting the privacy of the public."
Councillor Lucy Hodgson, the cabinet member for localism and communities, said: "We take the security of our information very seriously and promote a working environment where staff report 'near miss', 'suspected' and 'actual' security incidents.
"This helps us protect people's personal data and meet our responsibilities under the Data Protection Act - and ensures any potential areas of weakness in process, procedure or training can be identified and addressed at an early stage and resolved.
"All staff are subject to mandatory training on their responsibilities under the act and the number of incidents recorded indicates the raised awareness of staff of the importance of addressing such issues when they arise."
Elsewhere around the country, one council worker in Cheshire used CCTV equipment to watch a friend's wedding, while in Lewisham a social worker left bundles of paperwork on 10 vulnerable children on a train, including details on sex offenders and specific protection orders.
Big Brother Watch said from 2011 to April 2014 there were 4,326 data breaches in local councils leading to 50 dismissals, 39 resignations and just one prosecution - in Southampton, where one worker downloaded "highly sensitive" details to a private email account.
Coroner could break new ground by revealing background in Dana Baker caseMr Williams told the hearing: “With the most recent death of the little boy [Daniel Pelka] starved by his mother and stepfather, for the first time in 40 years, people in the media were asking if lessons were being learned.
“I think there is now a momentum. If I have to make the decision [to disclose the information], if I have to be the first, I will.”
He added: “I’ve read every report of every child abuse death since Maria Colwell and the failures are always the same – lack of communication, not taking the child seriously, lack of management etcetera.
“I’m now sitting here in 2013 dealing with Dana Baker. If lessons are not learned and history seems to show they are not, not judging the evidence in this case, is it now time to say that anonymity is not working and that, therefore, the balance should be in favour, in the public interest, of disclosing documents in this case so that individuals and organisations be held to account?”
www.kidderminstershuttle.co.uk/news/10714344.Coroner_could_break_new_ground_by_revealing_background_in_Dana_Baker_case/
Lessons learned after Dana Baker tragedy
Agencies involved in the care of tragic teenager Dana Baker today insisted lessons had been learned since she killed herself, after an inquest ruled there had been 'serious systematic failings' in the way she was looked after.
Yesterday, Worcestershire coroner Geraint Williams said there had been ’serious systemic failings’ in the care pf the 16-year-old, who hanged herself from a tree in 2011.
Speaking at the conclusion of her inquest, Mr Williams found systems were in place to protect Dana, but agencies did not abide by them and that arrangements set up for her were ‘largely compartmentalised’.
This, he said, led to inadequate communication between agencies and individuals.
The 12-day inquest heard how a breakdown in Dana’s relationship with her foster carers left her devastated and at heightened risk of suicide.
She moved in with an adult friend called Sally King, but took her own life two days later on March 1st in 2011.
Mrs King told the hearing she was given no advice or guidance on how to look after the schoolgirl.
The case review, chaired by the Worcestershire Safeguarding Children Board, said Dana could have been better handled following the split from her foster carers.
Search your own area for similar news stories.WHEN COURT ORDERS ARE VOIDwindowsontheworld.net/2014/07/windows-on-the-world-when-court-orders-are-void/