'Child Protection Should Be Higher Priority'

12:16pm UK, Sunday November 16, 2008
The controversy over the death of Baby P shows no sign of abating amid fresh claims about the quality of care he received from Haringey Council.

According to The Sunday Telegraph, the council's legal department advised that the child did not need to be taken into care just nine days before he died.

At a meeting of council officials on July 25 last year, a lawyer advised social workers the evidence that Baby P was being abused was not strong enough to warrant removing the child from his mother, the paper said.

The toddler died in a blood-spattered cot on August 3, having suffered more than 50 injuries despite 60 visits from the authorities over eight months.

Asked why it was not deemed appropriate to take the youngster into care, Haringey's head of legal services, John Suddaby, said: "That's obviously an area of concern and is one of the things that will be looked at."

The Labour group which controls Haringey Council is holding an emergency meeting to discuss the case in the north London borough.

Ministers and inspectors have faced further questions over whether they could have prevented the 17-month-old losing his life.

Further details of the horrific abuse suffered by Baby P have also emerged in today's newspapers.

The News Of The World quotes a 15-year-old girl who allegedly witnessed the tot's torture.

Jennifer wrote:12:16pm UK, Sunday November 16, 2008
The controversy over the death of Baby P shows no sign of abating amid fresh claims about the quality of care he received from Haringey Council.

According to The Sunday Telegraph, the council's legal department advised that the child did not need to be taken into care just nine days before he died.

At a meeting of council officials on July 25 last year, a lawyer advised social workers the evidence that Baby P was being abused was not strong enough to warrant removing the child from his mother, the paper said.

The toddler died in a blood-spattered cot on August 3, having suffered more than 50 injuries despite 60 visits from the authorities over eight months.

Asked why it was not deemed appropriate to take the youngster into care, Haringey's head of legal services, John Suddaby, said: "That's obviously an area of concern and is one of the things that will be looked at."

The Labour group which controls Haringey Council is holding an emergency meeting to discuss the case in the north London borough.

Ministers and inspectors have faced further questions over whether they could have prevented the 17-month-old losing his life.

Further details of the horrific abuse suffered by Baby P have also emerged in today's newspapers.

The News Of The World quotes a 15-year-old girl who allegedly witnessed the tot's torture.

I SERIOUSLY hope that she has not been paid for that story in the NOTW because she is as guilty as anyone for not speaking out

Melanie wrote:

Jennifer wrote:12:16pm UK, Sunday November 16, 2008
The controversy over the death of Baby P shows no sign of abating amid fresh claims about the quality of care he received from Haringey Council.

According to The Sunday Telegraph, the council's legal department advised that the child did not need to be taken into care just nine days before he died.

At a meeting of council officials on July 25 last year, a lawyer advised social workers the evidence that Baby P was being abused was not strong enough to warrant removing the child from his mother, the paper said.

The toddler died in a blood-spattered cot on August 3, having suffered more than 50 injuries despite 60 visits from the authorities over eight months.

Asked why it was not deemed appropriate to take the youngster into care, Haringey's head of legal services, John Suddaby, said: "That's obviously an area of concern and is one of the things that will be looked at."

The Labour group which controls Haringey Council is holding an emergency meeting to discuss the case in the north London borough.

Ministers and inspectors have faced further questions over whether they could have prevented the 17-month-old losing his life.

Further details of the horrific abuse suffered by Baby P have also emerged in today's newspapers.

The News Of The World quotes a 15-year-old girl who allegedly witnessed the tot's torture.

I SERIOUSLY hope that she has not been paid for that story in the NOTW because she is as guilty as anyone for not speaking out

I'm sure a 15 year old would know how bad it was when it was going on and she did not report this sooner? She is guilty as the rest of them

She could have been scared out of her brains. I think this is the 15 year old girlfriend of Owen, the one who was living with them that helped kill Baby P.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7723042.stm

Described by an officer in the case as a "slob, completely divorced from reality", she had spent hours in internet chatrooms or watching television.

Her boyfriend, who kept knives and Nazi memorabilia in the house, was "sadistic - fascinated with pain", the detective said.

Owen had been living in the house after splitting from his wife and going on the run with his 15-year-old girlfriend.

SharonS wrote:She could have been scared out of her brains. I think this is the 15 year old girlfriend of Owen, the one who was living with them that helped kill Baby P.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/7723042.stm

Described by an officer in the case as a "slob, completely divorced from reality", she had spent hours in internet chatrooms or watching television.

Her boyfriend, who kept knives and Nazi memorabilia in the house, was "sadistic - fascinated with pain", the detective said.

Owen had been living in the house after splitting from his wife and going on the run with his 15-year-old girlfriend.

Ah yes! Good thinking there!

http://www.libdemvoice.org/after-baby-p-what-can-be-done-5931.html

Recently, Lib Dem Voice has been snowed under with hits and comments from new readers, all expressing their anger in the face of the Baby P tragedy. (If you’re a regular, you won’t find anything in this post you don’t already know - fear not, normal LDV service will soon be resumed, but this does seem something of a special case).

If you’re one of those new readers, I’d like to suggest ways you can put your anger to good use. We can all talk endlessly about who’s to blame, what should be done with killers, what should happen to the social workers. But the reality is that none of that will bring Baby P back. You cannot change what is already done by talking.

But you can help prevent this from happening in your town. You might feel powerless. But believe it or not, you’re a citizen. You have the power to hold your own local authorities, your local councillors, and your local MPs to account – whether you’re a mother, a father, a grandparent, or even still a child yourself. You’ve probably never thought about getting involved in local politics before. Perhaps you’ve never even voted because you don’t believe you can ever change anything.

I’m asking you, bearing in mind that there may be children in your neighbourhood who are suffering and are still very much alive and saveable, to give it a try. If the government isn’t doing something right, you need to be the person asking why. You have a vote for your local council and for your MP, you pay your council tax, the council and its services are there to serve you. You have the right to demand answers of them.

Here are a few suggestions (regulars might like to contribute others in the comments):

Find out the names of your local councillors. You can do this here------> http://www.councillor.gov.uk/

1. All councillors should hold regular sessions where their constituents can approach them about any worry or problem they have. Talk to your councillor about your concerns and ask him or her to find out about the record of the Child Protection Services in the area. Or, you could go straight to the services yourself and then approach your councillor if you find anything that worries you (see 2 and 3).

2. Get in touch with your local Child Protection Services (they ought to be in the phone book under “council”) explain your concerns and ask how they can reassure you that nothing like the Baby P tragedy could ever happen in your town. They ought to be able to tell you about their ratings system – whether they’re Excellent, Good, Satisfactory or Inadequate.

3. Of course, ratings can be wrong – Haringey itself was rated as “Satisfactory”. So get a fresh perspective. Find your local newspaper website (they probably come through your door; if not google the name of your town along with “local newspaper”) and do a search on it for “child protection”. That ought to find any past articles about local mistakes or serious cases. Call the newspapers and ask them what they know about the case, and what happened afterwards. Were lessons really learnt? Were any mistakes dealt with properly? If the newspapers don’t know, they might be able to point you towards the right people to approach to find out.

4. Write to your MP. You can contact them here----> http://www.theyworkforyou.com/
Ask them to sign the two Early Day Motions on child protection put forward by Lib Dem MPs John Hemming and Lynne Featherstone.

5. Go to the local campaigning section of the NSPCC website. The NSPCC has ten local campaign co-ordinators who run campaigns about problems in their area. Find out if your nearest co-ordinator is running any events, petitions or other campaigns that you could donate time and skills to.

6. Join the Facebook groups for Baby P and encourage others to take practical action as well – tell everyone about your local investigations on the Facebook wall.

7. Don’t give up until you’re satisfied. You have rights - exercise them.

Just a note: it’s very important to be firm but polite. This is an emotional issue, but keep it professional. You have a right to demand answers, but you don’t have a right to be rude or abusive. If any local officer is rude or unhelpful to you, ask to be told about the complaints procedure (all councils have one) and complain. If any elected representative (MP or councillor) is rude or unhelpful to you, make sure you vote in your next local elections and in the next General Election to get them out of office.

Lastly, please come back to this site and tell us what you’ve done, and how it went. Any result, however small, is a step in the right direction. We can’t ever stamp out incompetence and mistakes altogether. But the more we hold our public services to account and demand they do a good job, the better they will be, and the less likely it is that any other child will be failed by the system as dismally as Baby P was.

Social workers responsible for the care of Baby P tried to prevent his mother’s newborn child being taken into care against the advice of police, despite the fact it was born in jail, The Times has learnt.

Council officials did not want the new baby – a girl – to be taken into care as they said it was "against the human rights" of the mother, even though she was on remand over the death of Baby P.

A social worker told police: "We need to let her bond," but Scotland Yard officers eventually over-ruled Haringey on the issue. A source involved in the investigation said: “There was no way that police were going to allow this baby to be looked after by the mother.”

Today the council finally apologised over the death of Baby P, who suffered months of abuse despite being on the “at-risk” register, and 60 visits from health and social workers in the last nine months of his life.

However, it emerged that the day before he died, the council’s social workers offered to pay for his mother to go on a trip to the seaside as a “treat”.

The mother, who cannot be named for legal reasons, had just been told by police that they were not going to take any action after she had previously been arrested on suspicion of assaulting Baby P.

Unaware that the boy was probably already seriously injured, including having fractured ribs and a broken back, social services said that they would arrange the trip for the next week.

The mother told the Old Bailey: “I felt like everything was finally falling into place. I was so happy, nothing could get me down.” But the next day the child was found dead in his cot.

However a council spokesman denied the mother's claims that a trip was offered and said: "No such offer of a holiday or a trip to be paid for by the council was either made or implied. It is not our practice to offer such a holiday or a trip."

Today Councillor Liz Santry, Haringey cabinet member for Children and Young People, said: “On behalf of Haringey Council I would like to say how deeply saddened I am about the death of Baby P. This is a really tragic occurrence and the circumstances of his death are really dreadful.

“He died over 15 months ago, and for those past 15 months in Haringey there has been a huge amount of anguish, and endless discussion about what more we might have done to save this little boy.

“I have to say that we are truly sorry that we did not do more to protect him. Our duty is to protect our children. We did not do so in this instance and I would like to say how truly sorry we are.

If I could change things it would be

1, More health visitors and to expand their role. Development checks should be reintroduced because all children had these regardless of class etc....no stigma.... but problems can be identified especially if they are done in the child's home. Pre school children and babies are further at risk because they are not seen every day like school age kids.

2, Less paper work and more face to face contact with families.

3, Create multi disciplinary teams so that collaboration between services really happens.

4, Knock all this politically correct rubbish on the head and stop blaming neglect on poverty, it doesn't take loads of money to care for children.

5, If parents are not looking after their children properly they should be made to take responsibility. Children should live in appropriate standards of cleanliness in order to safeguard their health and inclusion as school. Children are being dragged up in beastly surroundings-it's disgusting and they are getting away with it because we are taught not to judge.

6,We need to start judging and giving these children a chance otherwise they will learn the same and nothing will change.

I dont understand how people like this sick bitch can plead poverty if she can afford to smoke (£5 a day at least) and pay internet charges....those are not necessities in my opinion....

People always blame/use the children for getting what they can out of the state but the parents wont give up their bad habits...

Ambersuz wrote:I dont understand how people like this sick bitch can plead poverty if she can afford to smoke (£5 a day at least) and pay internet charges....those are not necessities in my opinion....

People always blame/use the children for getting what they can out of the state but the parents wont give up their bad habits...

Agreed. They can't afford to put the heating on but smoke 40 a day! I'm sick of hearing all the excuses and I'm not even qualified yet. As I said, we need to be more judgmental and stop pussy footing around people that sit on their arses all day and let their kids live in shit.

poinksy wrote:

Ambersuz wrote:I dont understand how people like this sick bitch can plead poverty if she can afford to smoke (£5 a day at least) and pay internet charges....those are not necessities in my opinion....

People always blame/use the children for getting what they can out of the state but the parents wont give up their bad habits...

Agreed. They can't afford to put the heating on but smoke 40 a day! I'm sick of hearing all the excuses and I'm not even qualified yet. As I said, we need to be more judgmental and stop pussy footing around people that sit on their arses all day and let their kids live in shit.

Exactly....oh please do a good job when you qualify...I know you will cause you already see whats wrong out there....it seems so many do the job just for a wage and not because they really care!

Ambersuz wrote:

poinksy wrote:

Ambersuz wrote:I dont understand how people like this sick bitch can plead poverty if she can afford to smoke (£5 a day at least) and pay internet charges....those are not necessities in my opinion....

People always blame/use the children for getting what they can out of the state but the parents wont give up their bad habits...

Agreed. They can't afford to put the heating on but smoke 40 a day! I'm sick of hearing all the excuses and I'm not even qualified yet. As I said, we need to be more judgmental and stop pussy footing around people that sit on their arses all day and let their kids live in shit.

Exactly....oh please do a good job when you qualify...I know you will cause you already see whats wrong out there....it seems so many do the job just for a wage and not because they really care!

Some people go along with what other people think, it's dangerous to do that, we must use OUR eyes and our instincts not other peoples....they're followers afraid to challenge....not me though! If I need to challenge I will!
The social work degree has only been going for about 4 years, its envisaged that what we are taught will change the nature of social work. Here's hoping!

But poinksy they didnt learn from the Victoria Climbie case.....I've only just recently heard about that little girl


I'm going to start a thread about her too!

poinksy wrote:

Ambersuz wrote:I dont understand how people like this sick bitch can plead poverty if she can afford to smoke (£5 a day at least) and pay internet charges....those are not necessities in my opinion....

People always blame/use the children for getting what they can out of the state but the parents wont give up their bad habits...

Agreed. They can't afford to put the heating on but smoke 40 a day! I'm sick of hearing all the excuses and I'm not even qualified yet. As I said, we need to be more judgmental and stop pussy footing around people that sit on their arses all day and let their kids live in shit.

Well said both of you x

I live in a predominantly rich area, but there is a housing estate where all the mums/dads plead poverty but drive big fancy cars, smoke all day and dress in designer gear. But guess what? When it comes to the school holidays they have 'no money' to take their kids out.....I get SO angry!! (some of these kids are in Kai's class at school).

It's because they cannot be bothered. We live about 40 minutes away from central London, where museums are FREE!!! Take a packed lunch and all you need is the train fare £5:00. Truth is, they would rather sit there and moan all bloody day.

It goes against her HUMAN RIGHTS????? OMG! What about Baby P's bloody rights???

eddie wrote:It goes against her HUMAN RIGHTS????? OMG! What about Baby P's bloody rights???

Exactly edds....when I read things like that...i'm left either very angry or I just feel like crying...or both!

Ambersuz wrote:

eddie wrote:It goes against her HUMAN RIGHTS????? OMG! What about Baby P's bloody rights???

Exactly edds....when I read things like that...i'm left either very angry or I just feel like crying...or both!

It is SICK. That's what it is. This country is too soft on all the wrong people. I have a nasty feeling this BITCH will be out in 5 years.

4:43am UK, Tuesday November 18, 2008
Children's Secretary Ed Balls will this morning announce measures aimed at enhancing the protection of youngsters who are at risk.

The Government legislation will aim at enhancing accountability for a child's wellbeing, with local services forced to chart their progress in intervening at an early stage.

Concern for the plight of vulnerable children has heightened following the Baby P furore, who died after suffering more than 50 injuries at the hands of his abusive mother, her boyfriend and a lodger.

Haringey children's services in north London has been accused of failing to protect the 17 months old child.

The Department for Children, Schools and Families' plans will ensure that multi-agency Children's Trust Boards are operating in every local authority area.

It will be responsible for improving the safety and wellbeing of all children and young people in the area.

The boards - which will be made up of the local authority, health, police, schools and other services - will be legally required to agree and deliver a Children and Young People's Plan, setting out local strategies for child safety arrangements.

Individual members will then be held to account.

The Government is pushing for early intervention for children at risk to be central to the blueprint.

In a speech due to be delivered to directors of children services this morning, Mr Balls will blame "organisational barriers and competing priorities" for "getting in the way".

He will pledge to do "whatever it takes to strengthen local arrangements to enable children to live and grow up safely".

The Government will also publish new reforms aimed at improving mental health care for children and adolescents.

Under the plans a new National Advisory Council on Children's Psychological Wellbeing & Mental Health will be created.

Ministers will also announce the second phase roll out of £20m in targeted mental health support in schools and a helpline for parents concerned about their children.

Seeing is believing....or are they just saying this to calm the public down?

I hope not!

Let hope this poor little boys tragic death..makes the world open their eyes..and allow every child to live a happy safe life.

By Andy McFarlane

A senior social worker wanted to have Baby P[Peter] put into foster care before he died after months of abuse at home but was overruled, the BBC has learned.

So, how do social services decide when children should be taken away from their parents?

Baby P suffered 50 injuries before his death last year




The horrific case of 17-month-old Baby P has led to some to call for a review of the "received wisdom" that children are better off with their parents.

With the NSPCC estimating that one child is killed by a parent every 10 days in the UK, many say it is time to look again at the care system.

Currently, the police have powers to take a child away temporarily if there is deemed to be an immediate risk to the child's safety.

But government guidelines say these should only be used in "exceptional circumstances." Long-term cases require a court order.

'Significant harm'

Most social services referrals result in a series of meetings between the family, teachers, health workers and police, who decide whether a child is at risk of "significant harm" and should be placed on child protection plans.

There were 35,000 such children, some not yet born, as of 31 March this year. The British Association for Adoption and Fostering says a further 64,000 were in local authority care.

But putting a child into care is not straightforward.

"Magistrates look at whether efforts have been made to help parents, through parenting classes, help with finances or ways of playing with their children," said Nick Frost, professor of social work at Leeds Metropolitan University.

Prof Nick Frost

We work in a world where there's a lot of pretty poor parenting and children with bruises and it's difficult to keep perspective

"If they haven't given the parents that chance, social workers could be quite severely criticised."

The law dictates a child's wishes, background, emotional and educational needs must be considered, alongside the risk of abuse or neglect and the capability of the parents, before a care order can be granted.

So, why is it assumed children are better off with their parents?

Prof Frost said being shifted from one foster home to another can lead to children losing faith in society and falling into crime.

Sue Woolmore, of the NSPCC, said children are more likely to thrive with their own family because they maintain a sense of belonging and identity.

She said a lack of resources meant there was a shortage of skilled foster carers.

"You can't just pick up a child from one environment and put them into another without building bridges," she said.

"Instead, local authorities will look at the extended family to see if they can care for the child.

"Usually it's better for them to go to the same school to maintain friendships."

Most children taken into care are able to return home once the risk is removed, for example if a parent comes off drugs or stops seeing a violent partner.

Supervision 'crucial'

But Prof Frost said deciding when to refer a case to the courts in the first place is not easy. Two people could assess the same case and still come to different conclusions.

"We work in a world where there's a lot of pretty poor parenting and children with bruises and it's difficult to keep perspective," he said.

For this reason, he said, good supervision from managers was crucial.

A government-funded National Children's Bureau report last year said children who were put into hospital because of neglect or abuse were "in danger of falling through the net" because overworked staff were failing to identify those at risk.

But Dr Peter Sidebotham, associate professor in child health at Warwick Medical School, said professionals generally get decisions right.


Baby P: The debate over how to avoid a repeat of the Baby P case will go on

He said in most abuse or neglect cases, the parents still genuinely loved their children but economic or emotional issues made it difficult for them to be good parents.

"Even in adverse circumstances, most children have a built-in resistance and a lot will do well," he said.

The important thing for professionals was to put the child - and not simply the parents' rights - at the centre of decision-making, said Dr Sidebotham.

However, he said professionals felt under pressure because of the "fear of being seen to be labelling abuse when it isn't there" and often held back from doing so until the signs were irrefutable.

Allowing professionals to intervene earlier, while not necessarily taking the child into care, could bring benefits, he added.

Without more resources, this is unlikely to happen.

Around £400m is spent on foster care in Britain, while the Association of Directors of Children's Services says authorities in London spend on average £62,000 per child in care every year.

There is no suggestion finances dictate whether children are taken into care.

Mrs Woolmore said local authorities spend significant sums providing support to children who are subject to protection plans.

Violent incidents

But she said most children who die because of abuse or neglect do not fall into this category.

The extent of the problem was revealed this year by a Cardiff University survey of casualty departments.

It suggested there were 8,067 violent incidents against children under 10 last year, up from 3,805 in 2006.

But because social workers are required to spend time with those on child protection plans, they are often frustrated because a lack of finances means they cannot help those who do not meet that threshold, Mrs Woolmore added.

Most professionals agree in a liberal society you have to leave an element of risk.

But as to how best to manage that risk to ensure there is no repeat of the Baby P case, the debate will go on.

Source: BBC News

By Astro

It suggested there were 8,067 violent incidents against children under 10 last year, up from 3,805 in 2006.


Good heavens and even knowing this they didnt take action sooner for Baby P???

Ambersuz wrote:It suggested there were 8,067 violent incidents against children under 10 last year, up from 3,805 in 2006.


Good heavens and even knowing this they didnt take action sooner for Baby P???

It sounds like a question of money to me.

The missed opportunities in the case of Baby P that have emerged in the last 24 hours are breathtaking in their scope.

Here was a child who, between his birth on March 1 2006, and his death on August 3 2008, was seen 22 times by social services; 14 times by hospital staff; 13 times by doctors and four times in clinics.

A total of 28 experts - social workers, doctors and police officers - saw him during the period he was known to be at risk. And yet time and again he was returned to the torture chamber that was his home.

It defies belief - and yet the facts must be confronted, dissected, analysed. For if this can happen to a child upon whom the spotlight of every agency charged with safeguarding him was focused, what possible hope do we have of identifying and protecting those children who slip beneath their radar?

The bleak economic times that lie ahead make it imperative that we think hard about this. Recession trails in its wake the grim consequences of job losses, debt, increasing poverty, and family break-up: factors that will make many more youngsters vulnerable to abuse.

That no single agency is to blame in the Baby P case is increasingly evident. Haringey social services, the police and the local hospital, St Ann's, all share a degree of culpability.

As the BBC's Panorama programme revealed on Monday, police and social workers knew that Baby P's mother had a new boyfriend and yet this was never followed up.

And how a paediatrician allegedly could have missed eight broken ribs and a broken spine is, for me, the most startling and incomprehensible fact of this case.

It is to be welcomed that social workers are no longer the first target for the lynch mob in these sorts of cases.

We have progressed to a greater public understanding of the enormous pressures that such professionals, often young, idealistic and poorly paid, face in those parts of Britain where lives are unimaginably grim and an absence of moral values allows the unthinkable to occur.

In this case, their failure - and it was a desperate one - was not to recognise that the only hope for this child was his removal from his mother.

One of the most telling statements so far is that from a police report after Baby P's death, which described those involved in protecting him as "too parent-focused".

Despite all evidence to the contrary, despite every human instinct that must have kicked in when visiting Baby P, the consensus was that this "family" - the mother and her pitiful son - must be preserved whatever the cost.

We should, however, be less understanding of the leadership - or lack of it - under which the social workers toiled.

One week into this unfolding horror story, I find it difficult to accept that Sharon Shoesmith, Haringey's Head of Children's Services, is still in post.

The borough's Queen of the Clipboard seems to believe that box ticking and bar charts - proof that she followed the all-important "procedures" - are a substitute for common sense and good judgment. And if she possessed any judgment, she would have resigned by now.

As it is, and despite the mobilisation of her supporters in Haringey and her daughter's accusation of a media "witch hunt", surely it can only be a matter of time before her services are dispensed with.