Dad: I lived with 24-hour CCTV and the threat of my son being taken away

Published: 2nd June, 2011
by TOM FOOT

A FATHER has revealed how he lived for six months with his wife and baby boy under 24-hour CCTV surveillance by social workers deciding whether to take his child into care.

The 33-year-old, who lives in Camden, said he was taken directly from the Royal Free Hospital, in Hampstead, where his wife gave birth, to Camden Council’s £1,000-a-day residential family assessment centre in Walthamstow.

He would spend 34 weeks under round-the-clock watch amid threats that he would lose his son if evicted from the Big Brother-style parenting boot camp.

He said: “Imagine you are told you are now going to a place where you can’t leave. Your parents are not allowed to visit you and you are being watched every minute of the day under a microscope. It is like the Big Brother programme. 

“It’s worse than being in a cell.

“It is impossible to be normal when you know the camera is watching and you are told that if you do something it could lead to your child being taken away. You lost that connection. The experience has made us lose our respect for ourselves.”

Families are sent to residential centres like the one in Walthamstow when social services have exceptionally strong concerns about the welfare of new-born babies but with the possibility that these can be can overcome.

But the Association of Directors of Children’s Services – representing bosses of local authority departments – told the New Journal that “situations where such surveillance is useful are likely to be very limited”.

The cost of assessing the family at the Walthamstow centre, run by private company Care2Share Ltd, is about £7,000 a week – or £250,000 over six months.

The father said that after 34 weeks he was accused of “slapping” his baby and told he had failed the assessment. Despite being monitored day and night by CCTV, he said no evidence of the alleged assault has been disclosed to his lawyers. 

He has no criminal convictions but admits social workers hold strong concerns about his family unit and the welfare of the child.

He said: “Could this not have been solved with some kind of counselling? 

“I’m am sure this is all about money – why else would they be spending so much.”

There are six rooms, a communal kitchen, garden and bathroom in the privately-run residential assessment centre. The house is monitored night and day by staff who keep a behaviour log and file reports at the end of the stay.

Some experts say that the parenting boot camp can have positive results. 

The Ofsted watchdog recently rated the service as excellent in a report, adding: “Families are advised of the use of the cameras during the referral process. The home has a confidentiality policy, which includes relevant details regarding the use of CCTV in the home.”

The New Journal understands families undress in the dark because they know they are being watched at all times. 

Analysts have questioned the wisdom of monitoring parenting skills under the pressure- cooker conditions.

Colin Green, communities and young people committee chairman for the Association of Directors of Children’s Services, said: “The situations where such surveillance is useful are likely to be very limited. 

“But we should be open to a wide range of approaches, as long as they are evidence based, in working with families where there are serious concerns about the care of their children. 

“Evidence of past behaviour, of ability to put a child’s needs first and of ability to change while living in the community are usually the best evidence when considering whether parents are able to care for a child where there have been serious concerns.”

The father is awaiting an appeal hearing at the Family, Drug and Alcohol Court and is hoping his son will be returned to him. Journalists are banned from attending these hearings under privacy laws.

A council spokeswoman said: “Making decisions about children’s future care can be difficult and our priority must always be to ensure the safety and wellbeing of children.

“All matters relating to family decisions like this are debated in court where the plans are agreed and overseen by the court. Any agreement to use residential units is discussed fully with the parties before they are agreed in the court. 

“Matters are also regularly reviewed in the court so parents are given an opportunity to challenge the use of any specific assessment.

“We understand that some families experience difficulties and we work with them to find a way forward. 

“However, this pro­cess can be slow and sometimes it is necessary to use things like residential units. 

“Using such facilities for long periods of time is never a first choice  but is sometimes necessary.”

She added: “We hope to continue to work with the family to resolve issues and ensure any children involved have secure and loving homes for the future.”