Comments on: Serious Case Reviews – Baby Peter and beyond

By: Martin

Martin — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 14:22:46 +0000

A further argument for transparency in the publication of SCRs is the need to cut through the culture of affability that runs through the entire child safeguarding establishment, from local councils such as Haringey to the central government Safeguarding Unit, and embracing government and voluntary sector, the regulator (Ofsted) and the regulated. Sharon Shoesmith, in the Judicial Review of her dismissal, disclosed several emails and communications into the public domain showing the extent of this culture, from Sir Paul Ennals, chief executive of the National Children’s Bureau, Jeanette Pugh, director of the safeguarding group at the Department for Children, Schools and Families, Claire Kober of Haringey Labour Group, and Dr Ita O’Donovan of Haringey Council – all congratulating Ms Shoesmith for her command of the crisis the council faced this time last year. Moreover, Ofsted appears to have failed to disclose lost reports to the Review.

It is not only the slovenly practices of ground level social workers that have contributed to the tragedy of Baby Peter, but the insidious culture of support at the very top – which has gone largely unremarked so far. All levels should be subject to greater transparency.

By: I. de Madariaga

I. de Madariaga — Sun, 22 Nov 2009 17:37:19 +0000

I thoroughly support Lynne Featherstone’s demand for publicity.to be given to SCRs. It seems to me that inefficiency is the general defect vitiating any policy. Should someone be responsible for all visits to take place as planned, to keep note of all missed appointments and make new ones at once, to check that all communications are delivered punctually. The ‘casualness’ that Lynne Featherstone mentions extends throughout the civil service, hence loss of documents, internet communications etc. sense of urgency. Isabel de Madariaga

By: Dee Speers

Dee Speers — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:10:40 +0000

As with Victoria Climbe, when the systems say “this must never happen again, they usually seem to mean “until the next time, when we will review and investigate it and reach the conclusion that this must never happen again!”
What lessons are being learnt?

By: Dee Speers

Dee Speers — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 15:04:05 +0000

Emotional scars can hide behind the facade of …….a smile? Where the signals for spotting emotional distress are often hidden in the age of technological advances?
How of have you seen texts between people sitting almost next to each other? Eyes aren’t called the windows of the soul for nothing!
And don’t rely on the Coronial System to get it right! We have a major problem with enforceable regulation,where if failures occur somebody should be held to account……but they are not and many management teams are acting with total impunity in the face of such passive regulation.We are using inadequate funding and poor training as a reason, why front line workers often fail. They also fail because the case loads are excessive and they are tired beyond observance. Maybe some of management’s renumeration and severance packages could help fund an adequate system?

By: ian josephs

ian josephs — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 08:50:28 +0000

As I remember Mark,BABY P,Victoria Climbé,Maria Colwell, and others were all killed by physical abuse.No babies have ever been killed by “risk of emotional abuse” so why remove them at birth for such a trivial and remote possibilty?
What child has ever committed suicide with a coroner’s verdict of “emotional abuse from its mother”? NONE.
I do not dismisss emotional abuse ( except when it is forecast rather than something that has actually happened) It is a matter of PRIORITIES so preventing physical and sexual abuse should be given top priority over other more trivial parental defects especially those that are mere predictions of what someone thinks might happen rather than anything that actually has happened !

By: Mark Pack

Mark Pack — Thu, 19 Nov 2009 07:45:13 +0000

I think it’s a shame Ian that you so often (as in comments I’ve seen you made elsewhere) are so dismissive about emotional abuse, as if it doesn’t really matter. Emotional most certainly can kill – as when it drives people to committing suicide.

By: ian josephs

ian josephs — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 23:20:48 +0000

No Adrian in the case like so many other cases it is the high priorities given by those running organisations like Harringey to non life threatening parental defects (risk of emotional abuse etc) and low priority given to physical abuse that can kill unlike other West European countries where thank goodness the contrary is true.
Social services have discretion as to which children they seek to remove and if those in charge told them to stop wasting time chasing mothers desperate to keep their children through the endless procession of family courts and concentrate instead on monitoring all those known to be in danger of physical abuse and removing only those who actually have suffered sexual or physical abuse then countless little lives would be saved from brutes who would never go near a court or even try to recover any battered children that had been taken from them;Simple instructions to social workers from those in charge to concentrate on saving lives instead of terrorising loving but mildly imperfect parents would have the desired effect.

By: Adrian Hawkes

Adrian Hawkes — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 20:12:09 +0000

Ian Joseph says It is ‘HARINGEY’ that is the problem, the difficulty with that statement is that Haringey is an organisation, we need to be able to talk to people and people are the ones who have to take responsibility, Haringey in that sense can not be blamed or talked to, and in a big organisation like Haringey it is possible to pass things from one to another and no one will say ‘the buck stops here’, which is why I say we need smaller not larger bureaucracies if we must have them.

By: Peter

Peter — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:47:32 +0000

The secrecy serves only to protect the government while acting AGAINST the interests of the public in general and vulnerable children in particular.

Information about the shortcomings of the Social Services and the National Health Service involved with Baby P should be published forthwith, for reasons of client/patient safety.

I suspect that the truth about Social Services and the NHS is just too embarrassing for the government and others in positions of authority, so they are trying to prolong suppression for as long as possible.

By: ian josephs

ian josephs — Tue, 17 Nov 2009 14:24:30 +0000

With respect Jane Kitto you are NOT spot on! If social workers concentrated on removing children for life threatenig causes (eg physical abuse) instead of trivialities (eg risk of emotional abuse) involving cruel and expensive court cases they would be much better regarded !