This is a personal view from some one who has been through similar to the Rochdale fiasco

The BBC documentary about the Satanic Abuse scare in Rochdale in 1990 was so upsetting that I could not take in many of the details. It was only when I read The Time’s summary of the programme that I was able to spot parallels to the ill-treatment of the McCourt family by Social Work Services in Glasgow.

Young Mother, Big Family
Beverley, the Rochdale woman separated from her children for ten years, had become a mother at age 16. She and Andrew went on to have three more children in quick succession.

Margaret Campbell (later McCourt) had her first baby in 1979 when she was only 17. Her seventh and last child was born in 1991, shortly before the whole brood were taken into Care.

Involvement of “Support Services”
Both women were known to SWS for years before their families were destroyed.

MMcC had spent most of her childhood In Care. She had the horrid experience of having her first-born snatched by SWS when he was only weeks old. Though the baby was returned to her after a short time, the incident soured her relationship with the boy. They never bonded. From then on social workers dogged the family.

Beverley and her man Andrew had co-operated by attending parenting classes run by the charity National Children’s Home. They had even confided in NCH staff that their son, Daniel, was fixated on ghosts.

Co-operating with childcare professionals does not guarantee that your kids won’t be taken from you.

Who Needs Evidence?
In the case of the McCourts, SWS did prove that the children had not been looked after adequately. “Want of care” was established as a ground of referral to the Reporter. Despite several attempts, the social workers failed to prove that the children had been sexually abused. The Police were called in but did not think it necessary to interview the parents, let alone charge them. However the social workers framed reports to Children’s Hearings that suggested the children had been interfered with by their father. When he challenged these reports he was accused of being disruptive.

The Family Court in Rochdale was unconvinced by the “evidence” of Satanic Abuse concocted by social workers, and so 12 of the suspected victims were returned to their families after a few traumatic months. But the four children of Bev & Andy remained In Care for ten years. Though the original allegations were exposed as nonsense, SWS insisted that the youngsters were better off away from their parents.

Children Kept in the Dark
“Why am I in Care?” asked 12 year old Daniel. Social workers said “It’s because of you”. He didn’t hear about the allegations of abuse until he was an adult.

The Scottish system of Children’s Hearings was no better at informing the McCourt kids why they had been removed from their parents. A chance meeting in a shop put Kerry (19) in touch with the brother she hadn’t seen for seven years. When she complained to him that it wasn’t right how their father had put them In Care, he told her about the late night raid when they were forcibly removed from their home. Kerry had been excused attendance at Panel meetings for years; she knew nothing of her father’s desperate fight to reunite his family, or at least have contact with them.

Contact with Parents and Siblings Restricted
Daniel, the boy at the centre of the Rochdale scandal, had his contact with his parents cut from one hour per month to one hour per year. He and his sister went to one institution; the two younger boys went to another. Though efforts were made to have them adopted, the four remained In Care throughout their childhood. As soon as she turned 16, the eldest, Julie, voted with her feet and went home to Mum and Dad.

The McCourts have a videotape of one of the supervised contact sessions they had with their children. The access took place in a cramped office, with social workers sitting very close to the family. Official policy seemed to be to make contact as unpleasant as possible so that the McCourts would give up. Topics of conversation such as school were banned in case the parents worked out where their kids were living.

Later access was changed to be at the request of the children. Yet when the youngest girl clearly told the Safeguarder she wanted to see her father and big brother, no contact was arranged. Social workers insisted that what she said to the Safeguarder did not count as a request. She had to wait four years before she met her brother at their Dad’s funeral.

Unlike the Rochdale kids, the McCourts were never freed for adoption. Because their father insisted on challenging accusations of sexual abuse, the children did not attend their Panels, even after they had turned 12. This meant that their father did not see them at all from October 1997 until his death in January 2002. This was despite the fact that he had “parental rights & responsibilities”. Parental rights do not include a right to see your children or even have up to date photos of them. Only after an appeal to their Councillor, Baillie John Lynch, did the McCourts receive pictures of their children.

Penalisation of the Poor
This was how another Councillor, Tony Heaford of Rochdale, described the way SWS had targeted the low-income family. The parents were scolded for getting into debt and for giving their kids the only treats they could afford – sweeties.

Banned from seeing their children In Care, the McCourts were told that the youngsters were enjoying skiing and riding lessons which they would not have experienced had they not been In Care. Were the parents supposed to be grateful for this largesse, funded by the Council Taxpayers of Glasgow? Are all parents who can’t afford expensive activities for their children are at risk of having them taken Into Care?

Years later in 2005, Dee recalled her time fostered by two social workers. She said that the couple had kept most of the pocket money allocated to her and her sisters, and treated the young McCourts as inferior to their own pampered infants. The treatment of the McCourt sisters was reminiscent of that meted out to pauper children, sent from the poorhouse to skivvy for well-off families. And the foster-carers were well-off after they had received all the allowances attached to the three sisters.

Interview Techniques
The McCourt family never found out exactly how their children had been interviewed, though they knew that anatomically correct dolls had been used.

However the BBC documentary included distressing extracts from video-taped interrogations of the Rochdale children, though the crucial first interview with Daniel had not been taped. One child, Caroline, cried non-stop during her 17 minute grilling. She wept and shouted for her brother. Another child was asked to describe one of her dreams. She did so and the social workers treated this as a statement of fact. A third youngster repeatedly denied the suggestions put to him, but his interrogator just kept repeating the same questions. There was ample evidence of children being bullied and their responses twisted.

No Objectivity or Professional Independence
Supporters of FAAS will not need to be told that SWS are not impartial or objective in their investigations. Hopefully the exposure of the Rochdale scandal will convince the public at large that any evidence from social workers should be treated with extreme caution.