A COUNCIL has been slammed by the UK’s top divorce judge for “serious failings” in its handling of a family case involving a 13-month-old boy.

High Court judge Sir James Munby said Darlington Borough Council’s actions in the child custody case were a “textbook example” of how not to behave and blamed the authority’s senior management for its failings.

The toddler’s 25-year-old father, from Darlington, will now be allowed to bring up his son, who was born while his mother was in prison, after the judge ruled he had the boy’s interests at heart.

The council had applied to keep the child – identified in court as A – in care and wanted to put him up for adoption.

Family Division president Sir James over-ruled the council, saying its case was “a tottering edifice built on inadequate foundations”.

He stopped short of naming the social workers involved because it would be unjust to “name and shame them when others are not similarly exposed.”                       

Darlington Borough Council’s chief executive Ada Burns said senior management and leadership “fully accepted” responsibility for the case and the authority has reviewed its practices.

She added: “We only think about commencing care proceedings when we believe that they are in the best interests of the child, and do not make those decisions lightly.”

The High Court in London heard social workers had raised “quite extraordinary” concerns over the father’s morality and his previous association with the English Defence League.

They also accused him of being immoral because as a 17-year-old he had sex with a 13-year-old girl and was given a police caution.

The judge raised “serious failings in social work practice” and said A should be returned to his father, who the judge said “clearly loves him.”

In his ruling Sir James said the council had “conspicuously” failed to show the boy would be at risk if returned to his father.

The child’s mother backed the father’s bid to care for his son but although he was allowed supervised visits social workers did not think him suitable to raise the child.

But Sir James said the local authority had not carried out any “very rigorous analysis” of allegations against him.

“The local authority was too willing to believe the worst of the father,” he added.

The council alleged the father lacked honesty with professionals, was immature and lacked insight into issues of importance.

They also claimed his relationships were “acrimonious and characterised by violence.”

But Sir James said the father, supported by his own mother, would be able to protect A from risk.

He said: “Both the father and his mother have A’s interests at heart, neither would want to see him to come to any harm.”

He added: “I cannot accept that the father presents the kind of risk to A which would have to be demonstrated to justify a plan for adoption.”

While naming Darlington Borough Council, Sir James said he had deliberately not named the care workers involved.

He added: “Ultimate responsibility for such failings often lies much higher up the hierarchy, with those who are almost invariably completely invisible in court.

“The present case is a good example.

“It is Darlington Borough Council and its senior management that are to blame.”

The council’s chief executive Ada Burns said: “We always look to help families care for their children.

“In this case we should have given greater consideration to placing the child with the father.

“We have taken the issues raised by Sir James Munby on board and used them to review our practice and support to families.  

"The responsibility for this has been fully accepted by the senior management and leadership of the council.”