THE MOTHER of twins who were filmed naked by gay foster pervert Craig Faunch has spoken of her disbelief at the failings of Wakefield Council's social services department.
The woman, who cannot be named, told the YEP she was stunned the department had failed to heed early warning signs which she raised in May 2004 – eight months before another boy complained to police.
She had found a photograph taken by 32-year-old Faunch of one of her sons – who was just eight at the time – urinating. She telephoned Faunch to confront him but he hung up.
She then contacted social services who launched an investigation. But she was stunned by what she considers to be a catalogue of failings that opened the door for Faunch and his lover Ian Wathey, 40, to go on to abuse two other boys in their care.
After the photograph came to light, social services arranged for Wathey and Faunch to attend a meeting at her house – a decision she describes as inappropriate. She said it was tense and uncomfortable, adding she and Faunch almost came to blows.
Social services managers Ann Hawtin and Sue Cotton brought the inquiry to a swift conclusion, believing Faunch and Wathey's account that the photograph had been taken to embarrass the boy into closing the door when he went to the toilet.
Fury
Neither Ms Hawtin nor Ms Cotton contacted the police or other independent organisations. Ms Hawtin admitted she probably threw the photograph away during an office clear-out, leaving police to rely on a grainy photocopy when putting their case together in 2005.
And the boy's mum is furious social services never told her the results of their inquiry.
"I was as shocked when I found out they hadn't taken their investigation further as when I first found out about the photo. I'm annoyed. It's not fair on other parents and now someone else has had to have their lives turned upside down because of Craig and Ian."
About the photo, she said: "You just don't do that. You just don't take pictures of kids with no clothes on. Why would they want a picture of my son like that unless it's for something mucky. "
She added: "I gave Craig and Ian my 100 per cent trust and they let me down."

Gay lovers tied the knot while waiting for court case to begin

AS they prepared to face the shame of being exposed as child abusers, gay foster carers Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey decided to marry.
The couple, who gave their address as Dunsley Terrace, South Kirkby, tied the knot at Pontefract Register Office before witnesses Keith Rumley and Linda Walker on April 15 – nine years after first meeting.
But it was at a previous address in a nearby town where their apparently selfless decision to foster children with troubled pasts was exposed as a sham.
Neighbours were wary of Craig Faunch and Ian Wathey's motives for fostering young boys at the home they shared together in a leafy cul-de-sac in Pontefract.
But it was money not sexual deviancy that residents of Sides Road suspected was the reason the gay couple chose to bring young boys into their home.
Neighbours said neither man went out to work and appeared to be living off money from Wakefield Council's Social Services department for fostering the boys.
They used the cash to fund weekends away with the boys at Cleethorpes and Skegness in the motorhome they owned.
Porn
And while the youngsters enjoyed movies such as The Incredibles Wathey and Faunch preferred gay hard core porn.
The film A Young Man's World was found by police in the video player in the couple's bedroom. The movie featured the exploits of a group of older men lusting after and performing sick sex acts with young males.
Disturbingly, it contained footage of two leather-clad perverts seducing a very young pizza delivery boy and forcing him to indulge in vile acts.
It is this video that one of the couple's teenage victims claims he was made to watch while Wathey sexually abused him.
Today the house on Sides Road stands empty with a for sale sign in the garden.
One resident said it had been re-possessed last year and the locks changed.
Shock
Horrified parents spoke of their shock after learning of the pair's behaviour towards their young charges.
One mum said: "I didn't know anything about it until I read details of the court case. I've got two young boys of my own and if I had heard anything I would have been more cautious about letting them out to play on the street."
Another resident said: "No one had any concerns while they lived here. They seemed like nice, normal lads."
The couple looked into foster caring as a way of earning money.
They went through a lengthy period of training, attending courses and undergoing rigorous checks, including criminal and medical, before being granted approval in July 2003.
They asked for boys aged five to 12 although only two of the 19 boys they cared for fitted into that bracket. The rest were all teenagers.

The YEP asks Wakefield Council...

1) Why did the council not inform the police that an indecent photograph of an eight-year-old had been taken by his foster carer?
2) Does the council have a policy on when the police or other external agencies should be involved? If so what is it?
3) Has there been an internal investigation into the decision not to carry out a more rigorous investigation into the circumstances surrounding the photograph and the decision not to involve police?
4) Why was the twins' mother not informed that social services had concluded its investigation into the photograph and had opted to provide Wathey and Faunch with more training?
5) Has any action been taken against any of the social workers involved in this case? Have any been subject to any disciplinary proceedings?
6) Has any action been taken against Ann Hawtin and Sue Cotton for choosing not to escalate the investigation into the discovery of an indecent photo of one of the boys in Faunch and Wathey's care?
7) Has any action been taken against Ann Hawtin after she admitted she probably threw away the photograph during an office clear-out, leaving the police and prosecution to rely on an inferior photocopy?
8) Have any procedures changed in the way potential evidence, such as the photograph, is filed and/or disposed of?
9) What checks are in place to prevent carers such as Faunch and Wathey preying on vulnerable youngsters in the future?
10) Why were parents not informed their children were being placed with a gay couple? Is that procedure still in place?
11) What support has been offered to the children and their parents involved in this case?
12) During the court case, both prosecution and defence witnesses painted a picture of a social services department which was over-stretched and lacking in support for children, parents and foster carers. Is this a fair assessment? If not, why not?
13) What are foster carers paid? Do the rates vary for the type of children and the type of care provided?
14) Wathey and Faunch 'cared' for 19 children with 35 placements over the 18 months they were working as foster carers. How much public money did they earn? If not an overall figure, can you supply a breakdown of the rates of pay for type of children/type of care?
15) Are there any independent assessments available and/or planned of the council's social services department in relation to its handling of children in care? If so, where can we get hold of them?
16) After the discovery of the photograph of the eight-year-old and the decision to provide Wathey and Faunch with extra training, was the couple placed under extra supervision (either covertly or overtly)?
17) How explicit is the guidance foster carers receive concerning the photographing and videoing of children?
18) Does the council agree that had more rigorous action been taken at the time the photo of the eight-year-old was discovered the abuse of the two older boys in this case would not have occurred?
19) What is the council's message to the parents of the youngsters involved? Have you apologised for any failings?
20) What is the council's message to the parents of other children in foster care in the district?

l THIS is the statement Wakefield Council issued in response to the YEP's questions:
Wakefield Council's Service Director for Children in Need Kitty Ferris said: "The safety of children in our care is our first priority. Mr Faunch and Mr Wathey's applications to become foster carers were approved by the council in accordance with statutory requirements and council policy.
"The allegations made against them were referred to the police as quickly as possible and were subject to a joint investigation by the police and social services under the safeguarding procedures. This investigation led to the prosecution of the couple.
"Mr Faunch and Mr Wathey have not been permitted to care for children in their capacity as foster carers since the allegations were made, in line with council policy. The council has now terminated their approval as foster carers.
"In addition, all steps have been taken to limit their access to children and ensure the protection of children. These steps have included the council making an application for the couple to be registered on the Protection of Children Act (POCA) register.
"Although correct procedures were carried out at every stage, the service has reviewed its internal procedures to identify what lessons should be learned. Checks are in place for foster placements including unannounced home visits and the council is regularly inspected by the Commission for Social Care Inspection.
"The council has offered support, where appropriate, to children who have been affected by this case."

Department with history of failure

SOCIAL services in Wakefield have only recently recovered after being labelled among the worst in the country in a scathing report published in 2001.
The Joint Review by the Audit Commission and the Social Services Inspectorate said the department was failing the city's most vulnerable people.
In 2002 Wakefield's social services was given a 'no-star' rating.
The department was placed in special measures and ordered to address an action plan with 84 areas for improvement.
Director of Joint Reviews, John Bolton, said at the time: "Many vulnerable people rely on the authority's provision, but they are being failed. Right now, action needs to be taken to turn the services around.
"What this review is suggesting is a total overhaul of the way services are provided. Those who lead the council need to become champions for change and sweep away the limiting traditional culture of Wakefield social services."
It wasn't until June 2004 that the department was freed from Government controls.