The Local Authority’s Refusal to Recognise Trauma Resulted in Harm to the Children
This document sets out a detailed account of professional failings, procedural breaches, and biased decision‑making by the Local Authority during its involvement with one family. It is based on multi‑agency documentation, psychological assessments, adoption support records, educational psychology reports, Section 7 findings, Child and Family Assessments, ICPC minutes, and formal complaint correspondence. Personal histories are intentionally protected; the focus is on professional conduct and the consequences of context‑avoidant practice.
Safeguarding practice in England requires contextual understanding. Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018), the Children Act 1989, and Social Work England’s Professional Standards all require practitioners to consider history, lived experience, trauma, and environmental factors when assessing risk and need. In this case, a senior manager stated: “Context doesn’t matter.” This statement shaped the entire professional response and resulted in misinterpretation, minimisation of domestic abuse, erasure of trauma, dismissal of multi‑agency evidence, inaccurate reporting, biased analysis, oppressive practice, and harm.
The children involved had experienced significant early adversity before adoption. Their individual histories are not detailed here, but they were known to professionals and documented across adoption support assessments and psychological reports. The primary carer had been responsible for the children’s care for over a decade, raising them through trauma recovery, managing complex emotional and behavioural needs, safeguarding them from risk, accessing private therapy, completing nine therapeutic parenting courses, commissioning psychological assessments, working full‑time, parenting alone, experiencing domestic abuse, and repeatedly requesting support. This context was essential. It was not used.
By late 2023, the primary carer was in crisis. Daily aggression, emotional dysregulation, sibling conflict, fallout from domestic abuse, absence of respite, absence of intervention, and absence of collaborative planning were present. Requests were made for crisis meetings, multi‑agency planning, trauma‑informed intervention, accountability, transparency, and support. These requests were appropriate. They were reframed as culpability.
The evidence demonstrates multiple serious professional failings.
The Local Authority refused to consider relevant factors. A senior manager stated: “Context doesn’t matter.” This demonstrates a refusal to consider trauma history, domestic abuse, adoption background, and lived experiences. These factors were legally relevant under statutory guidance. The Local Authority failed to consider them.
The Local Authority failed to take account of multi‑agency evidence. Psychological assessments, adoption support assessments, educational psychology reports, the Section 7 report, the Child and Family Assessment, school evidence, and out‑of‑school club evidence were not read or considered. These documents contained material information directly relevant to risk, need, and safeguarding. The failure to consider them resulted in an assessment that was not evidence‑based.
The Local Authority misrepresented and omitted material facts. The ICPC report contained over fifty factual inaccuracies and omissions. These included omission of positive views expressed about the primary carer, omission of fear expressed regarding the other carer, omission of domestic abuse disclosures, omission of alcohol‑related concerns, omission of interrogative behaviour, omission of trauma history, omission of adoption history, and omission of psychological evidence. These omissions materially altered the assessment and led to an unlawful decision.
The Local Authority reached irrational findings. The primary carer was described as “emotionally harmful”, “coercive”, “controlling”, “non‑engaging”, and “blocking support”. These findings were irrational because they were contradicted by all other professional evidence. The primary carer had completed nine therapeutic parenting courses, commissioned private assessments, engaged with adoption support, and repeatedly requested intervention. The Local Authority’s findings were not supported by evidence.
The Local Authority appeared to treat the primary carer’s professional background as a negative factor. Although there is no documentary evidence demonstrating that this influenced decision‑making, the primary carer experienced being penalised for working in a related field and for seeking professional‑level support. This perception is relevant to understanding the impact of the Local Authority’s approach, even though it cannot be substantiated through records.
The Local Authority acted with procedural unfairness. The primary carer was not provided with CIN plans, meeting minutes, or accurate information. The primary carer was not consulted on key decisions. Professionals who knew the family best were not invited to the strategy discussion. The primary carer’s views were not captured. The children’s voices were not recorded. The ICPC report was not shared in advance. These failures constitute procedural unfairness.
The Local Authority failed to safeguard. Domestic abuse was minimised despite police records, disclosures, professional evidence, and expressed fear. The primary carer was told to “move on” from the abuse. Safeguarding actions were reframed as parental alienation. The other carer’s behaviour was sanitised despite multi‑agency concerns. These failures constitute a breach of the Local Authority’s duty to safeguard.
The Local Authority engaged in oppressive and discriminatory conduct. Documented statements include: “Context doesn’t matter.” “You need to move on from the domestic abuse.” “They will destroy you if you ask for respite.” “You are emotionally harmful.” “You are coercive and controlling.” “You have refused all support.” “You are blocking intervention.” “We don’t need to know the history.” These statements demonstrate bias, hostility, misuse of authority, and oppressive practice.
The Local Authority failed to follow statutory guidance. Evidence was not triangulated. Relevant professionals were not consulted. Balanced assessment was not conducted. Multi‑agency collaboration was not ensured. Adoption support recommendations were not progressed. Domestic abuse guidance was not followed.
The Local Authority failed to record and consider wishes and feelings. The children expressed feelings of safety, trust, fear, distress, and need for stability. None of this appeared in the ICPC report.
The Local Authority failed to act within reasonable timescales. Home visits were not completed within statutory timescales. CIN plans were not shared. Adoption support recommendations were not progressed. Crisis meetings were refused. Multi‑agency planning was refused. These delays contributed to crisis escalation.
The Local Authority acted in a manner that was Wednesbury unreasonable. The decisions reached were contrary to the evidence, contrary to professional reports, contrary to the children’s expressed views, and contrary to statutory guidance.
The Local Authority breached legitimate expectation. The primary carer had a legitimate expectation that statutory guidance would be followed, evidence would be considered, fairness would be applied, and safeguarding duties would be upheld. These expectations were breached.
The Local Authority failed to provide accurate records. Records contained factual inaccuracies, omissions, and misleading statements. Attempts to correct these inaccuracies were dismissed.
The Local Authority failed to provide support. Adoption support recommendations were not progressed. Crisis intervention was not provided. Trauma‑informed support was not provided. Multi‑agency planning was not provided. This failure contributed directly to crisis escalation.
The Local Authority abused its power. The primary carer was threatened, dismissed, and silenced and laughed at.
The Local Authority failed to consider less intrusive options. Escalation to child protection occurred without exploring crisis meetings, multi‑agency planning, trauma‑informed intervention, or adoption support. This escalation was disproportionate.
The Local Authority failed to consider the impact of domestic abuse on parenting capacity. Coercive control, emotional abuse, and alcohol‑related harm were not considered. This failure led to misinterpretation of crisis behaviour.
The Local Authority failed to consider the impact of trauma on the children. Trauma history documented in adoption support assessments, psychological reports, and educational psychology reports was not considered. This failure led to misinterpretation of trauma‑related behaviour.
The Local Authority failed to provide transparency. Internal meetings, decisions, and concerns were not shared.
The Local Authority failed to act proportionately. Escalation occurred despite not conducting home visits within timescales, not consulting professionals, not reading reports, and not triangulating evidence.
Literal examples of failings include:
“Context doesn’t matter.”
“You need to move on from the domestic abuse.”
“You are lying.”
“You are emotionally harmful.”
“You are coercive and controlling.”
“You have refused all support.”
“You are blocking intervention.”
“We don’t need to know the history.”
Omission of positive views expressed about the primary carer.
Omission of fear expressed regarding the other carer.
Omission of domestic abuse disclosures.
Omission of alcohol‑related concerns.
Omission of interrogative behaviour.
Omission of trauma history.
Omission of psychological assessments.
Omission of educational psychology findings.
Omission of Section 7 conclusions supporting safeguarding actions.
Failure to consult professionals who knew the family.
Failure to share CIN plans.
Failure to complete home visits within timescales.
Refusal of crisis meetings.
Refusal of multi‑agency planning.
Refusal of transparency.
Dismissal of accountability.
Dismissal of concerns about inaccuracies.
Minimisation of domestic abuse.
Sanitisation of the other carer’s behaviour.
Ignoring multi‑agency evidence.
The primary carer attended the Local Authority offices and was laughed at by staff.
The primary carer was spoken about by staff as someone to be bullied.
The primary carer was mocked within the office environment.
These actions demonstrate hostility, disrespect, and oppressive conduct by the Local Authority.
Professionals’ views on the children’s complex needs included:
“The emotional needs are substantial and complex, with overwhelm from powerful feelings and underlying fears of neglect, exclusion and rejection.”
“Raising multiple children with trauma histories is a significant challenge for any carer.”
“This level of need cannot be met without the carer’s emotional wellbeing being properly supported.”
“There are significant attachment needs within the context of trauma in close relationships.”
“There may be sensory needs which impact interaction with the world.”
“There has been significant adversity, separation and disruption in formative relationships.”
“Emotional development presents as younger than chronological age.”
“There are difficulties with frustration, conflict resolution, and emotional reactivity.”
“These responses are consistent with attachment‑related needs.”
“There are difficulties with control, impulsivity, emotional regulation, and push‑pull attachment behaviours.”
“There is a history of aggressive behaviours requiring therapeutic intervention.”
“Behaviours are linked to early trauma and attachment disruption.”
“The primary carer shows emotional warmth and attentiveness to needs.”
“The children have a positive home life with the primary carer.”
“The children feel safe with the primary carer.”
“The primary carer has acted appropriately to safeguard.”
“The primary carer has provided stability during uncertainty.”
The Local Authority owed statutory duties under the Children Act 1989, Working Together to Safeguard Children (2018), the Adoption Support Regulations, and Social Work England’s Professional Standards. These duties included the duty to act fairly, the duty to consider relevant information, the duty to disregard irrelevant information, the duty to safeguard, the duty to act proportionately, the duty to maintain accurate records, and the duty to consult relevant professionals. These duties were breached.
The decision being challenged is the decision to escalate the case to child protection, the decision to produce and rely upon an inaccurate ICPC report, the decision to disregard multi‑agency evidence, the decision to minimise domestic abuse, the decision to attribute crisis behaviour to parental harm, and the decision to proceed without proper assessment, consultation, or evidence.
The Local Authority failed to consider relevant considerations, including trauma history, domestic abuse, adoption background, psychological assessments, educational psychology findings, Section 7 conclusions, school evidence, out‑of‑school club evidence, and the children’s expressed wishes and feelings. The Local Authority considered irrelevant considerations, including unsubstantiated allegations, personal opinions, assumptions, and narrative‑based interpretations unsupported by evidence.
The Local Authority acted irrationally. The conclusions reached were contrary to the evidence, contrary to professional reports, contrary to the children’s expressed views, and contrary to statutory guidance. No reasonable authority could have reached these conclusions on the evidence available.
The Local Authority acted with procedural impropriety. The primary carer was not consulted, not informed, not provided with documents, not given an opportunity to respond, and not treated fairly. Professionals who knew the family best were excluded. Records were inaccurate. Key information was omitted. The ICPC report was not shared in advance. These failures constitute procedural impropriety.
The Local Authority breached legitimate expectation. The primary carer had a legitimate expectation that statutory guidance would be followed, evidence would be considered, fairness would be applied, and safeguarding duties would be upheld. These expectations were breached.
The Local Authority acted disproportionately. Escalation to child protection occurred despite not conducting home visits within timescales, not consulting professionals, not reading reports, and not triangulating evidence. Less intrusive options were available and were not explored. Not capuring the children;s voices, or that of professionals.
The Local Authority interfered with family life without lawful justification, contrary to Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. The interference was not necessary, not proportionate, and not based on accurate evidence.
The harm caused was a direct result of the Local Authority’s actions and omissions. The escalation, the inaccurate report, the minimisation of domestic abuse, the disregard of trauma, the failure to consider multi‑agency evidence, and the oppressive conduct all contributed to emotional harm, instability, distress, and erosion of trust and safety.
The family broke down shortly afterwards. No support was accessed because trust in the Local Authority had been eroded to the point that engagement no longer felt safe or viable.