Social workers are meant to provide impartial assessments based on factual evidence. However, in Elliott Summers’ case, social work reports often reflected assumptions rather than proven facts, influencing key legal decisions.

During the trial, reports generated by social services played a critical role in shaping the court’s understanding of Elliott’s personal and professional life. In some instances, speculative conclusions replaced objective analysis, contributing to the formation of a biased narrative.

This section exposes how social work reports—intended to support justice—were misused, reinforcing a flawed case rather than challenging it with impartial insight.