In a recent decision in an English court, there is a fascinating parallel between regulators and the social worker concerned.

The central comparison is that they both obtain and assess facts, or their versions of facts, and then make decisions which they fully expect will not be challenged and, if they are, that Courts will automatically uphold those decisions.

In the instant case, the social worker made (albeit with colleagues, one assumes) a determination relating to a teenaged minor. It is clear from the extract from the judgment set out below that the social worker had a fixed idea and stuck to it, even when she was unable to provide any clear indication of what that might have been her reasons. Indeed, her reasons seem to be similar to those in regulators which seem to be based upon what they have read or been told, and to pay little or no attention to differentiating factors.

This approach is increasing, and it's not only in regulators. It's in corporate concerns where investigation and remedy fall a long way below process and obstinacy in call centres and adminstration departments.

It's a trend that has long been obvious and comes from the idea that policies and processes are sacrosanct. The idea that a discussion between like-minded individuals is a means of providing checks and balances is false as group-think has long taken over so discussions tend to provide reinforcement not challenges.

We are on the cusp of a very dangerous situation, across society and across the world.

Full Judgment: https://www.judiciary.uk/judgments/as-v-london-borough-of-waltham-fores…

Extract from judgment:

in my judgment, JS’s assessment of risk and her evidence to this court was
fundamentally flawed:
 In answering questions, by counsel for the Mother, she was very defensive, at times
argumentative and bordered on rude. I understand giving evidence, even for
professionals can be extremely stressful, but her tone and demeanour were
inappropriate.
 The social worker was also clearly very poorly prepared to give evidence. She
claimed a number of times that she could not remember important matters which
informed her assessment because it was all some time ago. I would have expected
any professional coming to give evidence on a matter of this importance and gravity
to have read fully in preparation, not just the bare assessment but the records and
notes that underpin it. She was thus unable, for example, to tell the court exactly
what research she had considered, what the research told her and how it had
informed her assessment. She was similarly unable to recall exactly what direct work
she had done with M, having been invited to undertake such work by the Court.
 There were also clear gaps in her written evidence. The risk assessment is very short
and superficial in its analysis. It lacks detail, and the recommendations and
conclusions reached lack properly evidenced foundation. If what she told the court
was correct and she had better informed herself to carry out this assessment by
undertaking online research about FGM and speaking to nurses at Whipps Cross
hospital, none of that is documented in her report so that the reader can understand
the quality and scope of the material on which she has drawn to form her
recommendations. Similarly, she has not documented her conversations with the
family members she did speak to, possibly an older sister and M’s younger brother.
Those discussions are clearly relevant given her position that the risks to M emanate
from pressure within ‘the family’. The beliefs, attitudes, behaviours and quality of
the relationships within M’s immediate family are thus of direct relevance to the
assessment of risk. JS’s response: that her discussion with family members was not
relevant as the risk assessment was about M, was clearly illogical in that context.
 Her oral evidence was also at points confused and contradictory. Notably, given the
reliance placed on this issue by the Local Authority, having been taken carefully
through the evidence by Mr Kayani she accepted there was no basis to say mother
had been dishonest in 2010 about her knowledge of the FGM perpetrated on her
older daughters. However, JS then subsequently back-tracked on that concession,
continuing to cite mother’s dishonesty as a risk factor which had informed her
overall assessment.
 The social worker’s treatment of Ms Nur’s report was also deeply concerning.
Having received the report of Ms Nur, it should have been clear to the social worker
that her assessment of risk, even if well-intended, had been erroneously based on
assumptions and misunderstandings about Somali culture, the practice of FGM
within Somali communities and thus the current risks to M. Those errors were clearly
and robustly reiterated by Ms Nur in her oral evidence. Sadly, however, there is no
evidence that the social worker has at any point in this process, including during this
final hearing, engaged in any professional reflection and reconsideration of her
position having received and heard the evidence of Ms Nur. Indeed, during her oral
evidence, JS continued to perpetuate her errors and misunderstandings regarding
FGM in Somali communities to justify her own preferred assessment of the risk. That
was despite JS frankly accepting that this is her first FGM case, in contrast to Ms
Nur, a jointly instructed independent social worker with 30 years’ experience in the
FGM space. JS could give no proper reasoned basis for why the Local Authority did
not defer to the views and recommendations of Ms Nur, other than they just wanted
to keep M safe.