Baby abuse death,reveiw ordered.

[El Presidente]

BECAUSE as i posted on another post - its a crap job, under paid, can be dangerous, under resourced, poor management and with a very high burn out factor.

So we end up with the social services departments that we deserve, because there is no public will to pay for anything better.

 

[Easy 10]

I don't think I did a very good job of explaining my position. I agree with most of what has been said since my last post, but to say "heads should roll", well which heads?

1. The social worker(s) who were closest to the case, ie the one involved in regularly visiting this family over a period of months, but utterly failed to pick up on the (seemingly blatant) evidence that this child was being battered and tortured.

2. The doctor who missed the small matter of eight fractured ribs and a broken back.

3. The head honcho at Social Services, for failing to ensure that her staff were adequately trained to spot and act on a child who was being systematically tortured to death.


That should do, for starters at least.

 

[User removed 4]

1. The social worker(s) who were closest to the case, ie the one involved in regularly visiting this family over a period of months, but utterly failed to pick up on the (seemingly blatant) evidence that this child was being battered and tortured.

2. The doctor who missed the small matter of eight fractured ribs and a broken back.

3. The head honcho at Social Services, for failing to ensure that her staff were adequately trained to spot and act on a child who was being systematically tortured to death.


That should do, for starters at least.

got to agree.

 

[Simster]

1. The social worker(s) who were closest to the case, ie the one involved in regularly visiting this family over a period of months, but utterly failed to pick up on the (seemingly blatant) evidence that this child was being battered and tortured.

2. The doctor who missed the small matter of eight fractured ribs and a broken back.

3. The head honcho at Social Services, for failing to ensure that her staff were adequately trained to spot and act on a child who was being systematically tortured to death.


That should do, for starters at least.

1. That social worker knew all about the family, which is why she was on the "at risk" register. But we simply don't know whether the social worker simply didn't pick up the signs or to what extent the procedures were not followed. It could be that the social workers hands are tied by the law or by other pressures. I simply don't know, but demanding his/her removal doesn't seem necessarily the best way of improving things.

2. Agreed.

3. Not sure about this either. How long has the head honcho been in the job? You obviously know because in your opinion it is already long enough.

 

[Leekbrookgull]

Albion Rob,have as many reveiws as you want however until those in charge are made to pay NOTHING will change. Any parent will tell you a 17month toddler does not sit around they are all go. That is a warning sign in itself !

 

[Biscuit]

Cameron went to town on Brown this morning.. he didn't use ONE of his SIX questions to ask about the economy just this..

 

[Easy 10]

1. That social worker knew all about the family, which is why she was on the "at risk" register. But we simply don't know whether the social worker simply didn't pick up the signs or to what extent the procedures were not followed. It could be that the social workers hands are tied by the law or by other pressures. I simply don't know, but demanding his/her removal doesn't seem necessarily the best way of improving things.

2. Agreed.

3. Not sure about this either. How long has the head honcho been in the job? You obviously know because in your opinion it is already long enough.

Lets be clear on this - social workers are specifically trained to spot this kind of thing. Thats why they are in the job. Thats why they are needed. That is their role. The fact that the child was on an "at risk" register means that they should be acting with a high level of suspicion in cases such as this. If that social worker "simply didn't pick up the signs" in this case, then clearly, they are not good enough at their job, and should be removed. Not disciplined, because this isn't a question of "misbehaving" at work. This is gross incompetence - and when the stakes are this high, when we are talking about childrens lives, then gross incomeptence isn't a just disciplinairy issue, it surely has to be mandatory dismissal. A child has died because they didn't pick up the signs. We are told procedures WERE put in place following the Climbie case. Had they been followed properly, there's a good chance that child would still be alive.

And I have no idea how long the person in charge of Haringey Social Services has been in that job. Perhaps if she started there a week ago then you could make a case for her predecessor being ultimately responsible. However - the person in charge of Haringey Social Services has a responsibility to be up to speed with their staff and the cases they are dealing with. If she wasn't, then she's failed and should go.

 

[Simster]

Maybe you're right Easy, I just don't know. It's often all too easy to blame the poor sod at the coal face.

 

[Easy 10]

Maybe you're right Easy, I just don't know. It's often all too easy to blame the poor sod at the coal face.

I know, its usually the knee-jerk reaction isn't it, and its certainly no bad thing to pause and think "hold on a minute..."

But in this case, having thought about it, I'm still arriving at the conclusion that I just cannot see how the people closely involved with this catastrophe are actually keeping their jobs.

 

[pasty]

Cameron went to town on Brown this morning.. he didn't use ONE of his SIX questions to ask about the economy just this..

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7724541.stm

 

[Albion Rob]

Albion Rob,have as many reveiws as you want however until those in charge are made to pay NOTHING will change. Any parent will tell you a 17month toddler does not sit around they are all go. That is a warning sign in itself !

But if we start off on the foot that all reviews are whitewashes then we are in as bad a position as we would be if we just went: "Yeah, just sack 'em all."

As I think has been said elsewhere, the review needs to be taken seriously and acted upon but there are wider issues. I agree that those who were at serious fault need to be relieved of their duties but on a wider note we really have to look at why our society produces:

a) Thugs who kill tiny children.

b) A generation that has so much hate for all around it that it lashes out at the slightest thing and has become so insular that most people would struggle to name the people who live two doors down from them (I know that's a generalisation)

c) A country full of people that have become so devoid of any sort of sense of responsibility that any serious measures that were taken to change things would probably be contested and watered down in any case.

Bear in mind that for every one of these stories about the terrible death of a helpless infant, you'll get a nasty, pernicious group of MPs slamming social workers week in, week out for separating children from their parents, claiming they are heavy handed and saying they are basically destroying families.

 

[Albion Rob]

I know, its usually the knee-jerk reaction isn't it, and its certainly no bad thing to pause and think "hold on a minute..."

But in this case, having thought about it, I'm still arriving at the conclusion that I just cannot see how the people closely involved with this catastrophe are actually keeping their jobs.

Worth bearing in mind the lawyers at Haringey got a written warning after social workers presented the case to him/her and were told they had a lack of evidence with which to put the child into care.

 

[London Calling]

So we end up with the social services departments that we deserve, because there is no public will to pay for anything better.

for many city areas that is the service we have.

a friend of ours 2 years out of college, worked in a team of 7 people, however, only 2 people worked in the team, the rest were vacancies.

The manager position came up , she walked into it.

She now manages one person!!

She is also a mum, so does p/t.

basically the service is 5.4 people down.

 

[Easy 10]

Worth bearing in mind the lawyers at Haringey got a written warning after social workers presented the case to him/her and were told they had a lack of evidence with which to put the child into care.

I just cannot fathom how this "lack of evidence" defence stacks up though.
You've got the childs bloodstained clothes, a missing fingertip, a torn earlobe, a dent in the head, missing fingernails, multiple bruising. And now a corpse.

There was obviously enough evidence to place the child on the "at risk" register. So whats the point of doing that, if social workers don't act on it ? If it was a RESOURCING issue (eg they could only get round to visit that family once a month for example), then as unsatisfactory as that would be, it would at least provide some kind of reason for it going on for so long. But they were visiting as often as twice a week - and STILL didn't pick up on this !

What more evidence do they need ??

 

[London Calling]

47 child deaths a year caused by family/ relatives.

the system must be to minimise that number and if possible, work with parents to take the child off the register and for them to have a good home.

what strikes me are the similarities with that other case recently.

violence by 3 adults, another man, double the age of the parents, living with them and handing out violence?

In this case, the signs were there, there no need to repeat them, it is just a shame that our society does more to protect the faces of these monsters, I assume because of their age, than the baby.

 

[London Calling]

I just cannot fathom how this "lack of evidence" defence stacks up though.
You've got the childs bloodstained clothes, a missing fingertip, a torn earlobe, a dent in the head, missing fingernails, multiple bruising. And now a corpse.

There was obviously enough evidence to place the child on the "at risk" register. So whats the point of doing that, if social workers don't act on it ? If it was a RESOURCING issue (eg they could only get round to visit that family once a month for example), then as unsatisfactory as that would be, it would at least provide some kind of reason for it going on for so long. But they were visiting as often as twice a week - and STILL didn't pick up on this !

What more evidence do they need ??

if that happened to a woman at the hands of a man, she would have been put into a safe home and him, locked up!

 

[Simster]

Good point LC, what ruling is it that prevents these scumbags from having their faces shown? I don't understand that one at all.

 

[Easy 10]

if that happened to a woman at the hands of a man, she would have been put into a safe home and him, locked up!

Indeed.
And she'd have the ability of raising the alarm, instead of completely depending on others to pick up on the fact that she's regularly having the shit kicked out of her.

 

[Albion Rob]

Good point LC, what ruling is it that prevents these scumbags from having their faces shown? I don't understand that one at all.

I think there's an outstanding charge against the guy who isn't being named so that's why they've not released his identity for the moment.

Once the other case is complete, I'd imagine his face will be pretty prominent in most papers.

Easy - agree, can't even begin to fathom why the social workers were told there was a lack of evidence.

 

[Easy 10]

Easy - agree, can't even begin to fathom why the social workers were told there was a lack of evidence.

If that is indeed how this played out - I've not seen anything aluding to that.

If what you're saying is correct, and the social workers DID in fact raise the alarm, and presented a case to have the child removed from that family but were instead told by "a lawyer" that there was a lack of evidence, then that puts a whole new complexion on the case. That means someone has not just "failed to notice" the evidence in front of them, but actually had it presented to them and effectively DISMISSED it.

I guess we'll find out from the inquiry.