A HIGH Court ruling which saw a two-year-old girl returned to her family gives hope to parents challenging judgements made by social services, an expert has said.

The claims come after a judge overruled a decision by Brighton and Hove City Council to remove a child from her father and put her up for adoption.

Cathy Ashley, chief executive of the Family Rights Group, said the ruling gives hope to parents challenging bad practice but emphasised this case was “very exceptional”.

She also hailed the case as one of “national significance” as the judge was not dissuaded by the “status quo argument” for keeping the child where she was. The child had been taken into care when she was four weeks old in 2012 and placed with an adoptive family when she was 14 months old.

But in a written judgement released by the High Court on Wednesday, the decision was overturned and a scathing assessment was given of the work of social services.

The girl, now two years old, is due to return to her father and three siblings pending the outcome of an appeal by her adopters.

Ms Ashley said: “I think what it does is demonstrate to local authorities and to lawyers that the courts will challenge bad practice – even to the extent of returning a child home after moving in with an adopted family, although this case is very unusual.

“Of course it does give hope to some parents, although this is a very exceptional case and it would be doing a disservice to say we are going to be seeing lots of this in the future.

“It provides a check and shows actually poor practice will be challenged and courts will take dramatic action if they have to.”

She added: “I cannot think of any other cases where a child has been placed through the adoption process and returned to the family.”

Ms Ashley also said problems identified by the judge such as an “oppositional attitude” should have been recognised by senior managers.

She added organisations can become “defensive and entrenched” which contributes to the breakdown of relationships which can have “devastating consequences like we are seeing in this case”.

Ms Ashley said: “We need a non-defensive culture from the local authority.

“Brighton and Hove generally has a good reputation but nevertheless, reading through the judgement it is very damning.”

Brighton and Hove City Council said it would not be appropriate to comment on the case due to the appeal lodged by the child’s adoptive parents.

EXPERT CRITICISE COUNCIL AFTER ADOPTION MOVE

EXPERTS have criticised Brighton and Hove City Council following a decision by its social services department which was overruled by a High Court judge.

Cathy Ashley, chief executive of the Family Rights Group, said problems identified by the judge such as an “oppositional attitude” should have been recognised by senior managers.

Ms Ashley said: “Obviously there are brilliant social workers out there and there are poor social workers out there.

“Not only is there the fact there appeared to be this poor relationship between the social worker and the father but there are questions as to why there was not recognition of this higher up.”

Another expert, Dr Ray Jones, professor of social work at Kingston University, said local authorities across the country feel pressured into carrying out more adoptions rather than working with parents.

He said: “The danger is the government is pushing hard and setting targets.

“It is because Michael Gove took a very strong view that adoption was likely to be a good way forward for children where there might be concerns about care – partly reflecting his own experience of being adopted and that has remained the government’s position with timescales and numbers.”

He said more emphasis should be placed on “working with parents to try to make care better for children”.

FATHER AND DAUGHTER REUNITED BY JUDGE

AFTER three years of fighting a father was told by the High Court he could be reunited with his daughter when it quashed a council decision.

The girl was taken into foster care at just four weeks old in December 2012 after the council assigned the family a social worker following persistent mental health issues suffered by her mother.

The council was concerned the girl’s father put his relationship with her mother before the safety and needs of his children.

Their other three children were left in their care under super- vision orders – with the family seeing the youngest child in contact visits.

In a psychological assessment, the father’s skills as a parent and the children’s attachment were praised – recommending the girl be placed in a home with her father and siblings.

However, when the assessment came to court this was contradicted during oral evidence given by social worker Gail Miller in September 2013.

The council described the father as being resistant to professional or therapeutic work to support him in changing priorities from partner to parent.

The decision for adoption was made because it was considered that returning the girl to her family would be likely to affect the father’s ability to care for the other children.

The girl was then adopted and lived with her new family for 16 months before the father’s case came to the High Court.

High Court judge Ms Justice Russell this week said the basis of the council’s case was a parenting assessment carried out in 2012 by social worker Beverly Hendry – yet a district judge had been critical of the evidence calling it “uncon- vincing”.

Ms Justice Russell said staff had demonstrated “seemingly belligerent behaviour” and taken an “oppositional stance” towards the man and “by extension his children”.

She complained of one social worker being “grudging and defensive” and said “unprofessional attempts at case building” had been “reprehensible”.

Evidence by one social worker and a manager could “only be described as psycho babble”, said the judge.