Social working forcing husband to use in-house psychologist whilst we prefer private practitioner

[bayescr]

In the parenting assessment, there is one intervention program that independent social worker "recommended", for which all parties including ourselves agree to partake in. That intervention is created, promoted, and maintained by an Association. We found a few qualified practitioners listed in its member directory and want to engage with one and fund the cost privately.

The cost is not that high and we can use our private insurance to cover a meaningful portion, so we want to hire a practitioner that meets our requirements (graduate degree (phd preferred) in psychology especially child psychology, over 10 years of senior-level practice in either education, local authority, or NHS, unbiased/independent view).
The practitioner we want to work with meets all our requirements and my husband feels confident and comfortable with her.

The local authority instead wants us to engage with its in-house person. As mentioned, the program itself has nothing to do with local authority and the training is provided by an independent body so all trained practitioners are qualified to offer. The in-house person estimates it will take 6 months to complete!! All the practitioners we have found and spoken to mentioned all sessions can be completed under 2 months, and that 6 month timeline is only caused by the in-house queue and (un)availability. They can put their timelines and opinions in writing to confirm their disagreement with the local authority's in-house timeline. A final report will be produced.

We have discussed our very strong preference to hire our own practitioner with the social worker, but the social worker keeps pushing the in-house guy to us. For us, it makes no sense. For a personal service like this, we should have the final say to choose whoever we feel comfortable with. We are paying for it anyways. It feels like the social worker is forcing us to undergo a particular treatment in the NHS by some unknown doctor and waiting for months, whilst we want to fund it ourselves and do it in a private hospital in a much shorter time frame. Of course, we want to manage the process and complete it asap.

Our solicitor is not useful (never been). Any advice?

[bayescr]

Re above, that intervention is a major milestone towards family reunification.
Isn't the LA's unnecessary and unjustified delayed time scale (6 months vs 1-2 months) a breach of article 8 rights? Failure to offer it in a timely manner should be a breach of its obligations to support family reunification. How can it justify to force the family to take its in-house offering of 6 months over a privately funded 2 months (max)?

[Suzie, FRG Adviser]

Dear Bayescr,

Suzie, online adviser for Family Rights Group here. Thank you for your further posts. I will reply to both here.

We can only offer general advice on this forum, so my response is limited in that I am not aware of the details of the parenting issues identified in the assessment; the way in which this intervention can benefit your child and the relative merits of the two different practitioners.

Also, Family Rights Group cannot comment on the merits of parenting interventions, practitioners nor private v NHS provision of these, so further detail from you would not alter my advice.

You explain that in the recent court proceedings the independent social worker who completed the parenting assessment recommended an intervention that you agreed to, and that the work is offered and regulated by a specific association.

You are frustrated that children’s services wish you to complete the work with the practitioner that they feel can address the necessary issues, as you believe that you have found an alternative that would work better.

Sometimes children’s services know that a particular practitioner can complete a specific piece of work to the necessary standard and in the child’s best interests. I think you could ask the social worker to explain more thoroughly why the ‘in house’ practitioner is a better fit, if this is their opinion.

You explain that the practitioner you have selected ‘meets our requirements.’ Could you find out if the social worker is thinking about additional requirements that best serve the needs of your child. If this is the case, the social worker or team manager should explain the reasons for this to you in detail, not simply over-rule.

Most of the reservations that you have expressed focus on the wait involved, but you also mention your husband’s ability to relate to and feel comfortable with the practitioner. Could this be addressed more? Could the social worker provide more information about how the ‘in house’ practitioner works or arrange a meeting that could happen prior to the sessions starting so that you can approach the sessions with more knowledge and reassurance?

You point out that the pace of the sessions and the time to completion varies a great deal between the two different practitioners. Do children’s services believe that it is more beneficial for your child for the sessions to take place over a longer period, rather than be completed within 2 months? If so, again this should be explained and your view listened to.

You mention a possible breach of Article 8 rights in your second post. I am not certain that you could argue that children’s services are obstructing reunification if they are offering the intervention recommended by the independent social worker.

Instead, this is a difference of opinion and engagement preference that I hope you and children’s services can discuss in more detail and resolve.

If you do not feel that you are being listened to, nor given a thorough explanation you could consider making a formal complaint. You can read about the children’s services complaints procedure here.

I hope this is of some help.

Best wishes,
Suzie