did virtually nothing for 28 days to investigate a claim they had been neglected.

The social workers then wanted another three months to investigate, she said, but finally agreed to settle on two weeks.

But it emerged in a court hearing yesterday that the social workers did not have the "Children's Officer'' designation needed to take the children from their home in the first place.

The children, a three-year-old girl and a two-year-old boy, were immediately returned to their mother, who denies the negligence claim.

The 23-year-old St. George's woman asked that her name not be used. But her story was confirmed by her lawyer, Ms Keren Lomas, who said she dealt with a similar case in February.

According to the mother in that case, the social worker, who was not a "Children's Officer,'' wanted to keep a four-year-old girl in foster care for an extra three months because she had not completed her investigation. The courts refused the social worker's request and returned the child to her mother.

Mr. Richard Voss, interim director of Social Services, agreed yesterday the legal requirement regarding the appointment of "Children's Officers'' had been neglected.

This entailed either listing the names in the official Government Gazette, or appointing them by a letter from the Health & Social Services Minister. Mr.

Voss said the Department had been "somewhat delinquent'' in obtaining these appointments and had set about correcting the problem.

But he said the appointments were a formality and only fully-qualified social workers had been doing the work. "The fact remains that our staff are competent, well-prepared and experienced,'' he said.

In addition, he said, the supervisor is a "Children's Officer'' and looks over every case.

Mr. Voss said he would not talk about specific cases. But Ms Lomas' concerns about the lack of investigation in this case had been passed on to the workers involved.

Social workers may be over-worked, he said, but "cases are prioritised.'' Serious cases are normally handled quickly. And children are rarely removed from their families unless the case is regarded as serious, he pointed out.

"Normally, when children are removed from the home, it means our staff feel that there is a considerable element of risk. We aren't talking about missing a meal or dirty clothes.'' In yesterday's case, the mother said the children were taken because their father claimed they were being left in the care of babysitters too often.

The woman denied the claim, and said she was confident it would be put to rest in the 28 days Social Services said it needed to investigate.

During the following four weeks, she said, she was briefly interviewed at home by a social worker, but there was absolutely no other evidence of any investigation taking place.

"They said in court that it would take them 28 days to investigate, but no investigation was done,'' the mother complained.

She said the social workers did not speak with her father, with whom she and the children are living, nor with her sister with whom the family used to live, nor with the babysitter.

"They haven't really talked to anybody,'' she said.

In the other case, the 40-year-old Somerset mother said the social worker wanted to speak to family members and others, such as employers, who could provide character references. A list of names was provided, but only some members of the family were spoken to.

At the end of four weeks, she said, the social worker told the magistrate that "she hadn't had time to do this and that'' and asked that the child be kept in foster care for another three months while the investigation was finished.