How on earth did the the authorities let this happen?

Admiral Huddy · 12 Nov 2008 at 12:35

How on earth did the authorities let this happen?

Sorry if this topic has been raised, couldn't find anything in search but this story really quite painful, as an ex-foster parent, father and human being, I feel sick with disgust.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/england/london/7723042.stm

Why do the local authorities and social services think they can brush this aside every time something like this happens without consequence? Then, as Sharon Shoesmith said, "we are learning by our mistakes".

Sharon Shoesmith, chair of the board, said: "The very sad fact is that we can't stop people who are determined to kill children."

This woman needs shooting!

This is total rubbish. You don't have to actually pull a trigger to kill someone. These people are just as much to blame than those that killed baby "P" as those that killed him. They failed to protect him. As far as I'm concerned they let happen just what they are employed to prevent and thus, they should be prosecuted for manslaughter for neglecting their duties.

How many more mistakes have to occur before these people actually learn and make a difference? This could have been avoided!

The baby in this case had been visited over 60 times by the authorities and social services were warned that the baby was in grave danger. Yet after numerous hospital visits, this was still allowed to happen. Surely someone would have thought "Something’s not right here?" Should this child not have been put into care from the first incident and kept there until otherwise in the clear? Why was the child returned to his parents? It’s all too obvious that system has too many idiots, unnecessary procedures and protocols that prevent action appropriate action being taken. I thought these people were employed to ensure the benefit of a childs welfare is the upmost importance but I don’t see this being the case.

What makes me angry is that they blame lack of staffing and foster parents. We lost our right to foster because we had no banisters on our stairs. Surely, in the interest of a childs safety, it's better for a child to be in care with minimal danger than to be with someone who inflict abuse or worse, is a killer. Surely it’s about minimising the risk. What the **** is wrong with some people!!!!!
!

Bennie-Mac · 12 Nov 2008 at 12:39

That is horrible!

Gilly · 12 Nov 2008 at 12:56

It said on the radio last night that the bruising on this poor child had been covered in chocolate to hide it.

Surely someone examining a child should ensure that the child is clean before commencing??

There's just been so many failings in this case, especially in light of the previous case in 2000 following which there'd been so many promises made about never letting it happen again.

platypus · 12 Nov 2008 at 12:58

It is unbelievable how people like this keep their jobs.

antijoke · 12 Nov 2008 at 12:58

I heard on this on the news last night, and upon hearing the horrific injuries that poor child had, made me feel sick. How can anyone do that to such a poor innocent little baby.

This is a real scandal, none of that Ross/Brand/Top Gear nonsense, the people involved should be for the chop.

EDIT: Why can they not be named, they should be named and either life in prison or execution. Looking at the CGI display of the injuries makes me sick.

EDIT2: I cannot read that story without feeling ill. I am truely moved by this.

Gog · 12 Nov 2008 at 13:24

An internal inquiry by Haringey's Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) blamed legal advice taken a week before the baby's death for the decision not to take him into care.

I am assuming that legal advice was not to take the child into care because of lack of evidence of the child being at risk could result in civil action and subsequent payout.

It doesn't excuse why there was a lack of evidence given the history we know of, but if this is the case I can see why that decision was made.

Nanobot · 12 Nov 2008 at 13:36

Sadly, until the authorities/employers/employees are subjected to convictions, it will happen again.
A parent will often get a prison sentence if they neglect/abuse a child, yet a company may get fined or an employee may get sacked. It doesnt sound right to me.

Adsta · 12 Nov 2008 at 13:41

thats just sick w t f is wrong with people now a days :eek:

Cuppa · 12 Nov 2008 at 13:42

anticonscience said:
EDIT2: I cannot read that story without feeling ill. I am truely moved by this.

Same here, lets hope we never become hardened to it.

FTM · 12 Nov 2008 at 13:45

how are kids taken into care? does a court have to approve that it happens? do the social services dept have to seek legal advice before they can act..there may be loads of people at fault here

magistrates often have a lot to answer for but seemt to escape criticism

^TANK^ · 12 Nov 2008 at 13:46

I'm truely lost for words

.

Admiral Huddy · 12 Nov 2008 at 14:52

Gilly said:
Surely someone examining a child should ensure that the child is clean before commencing??

This really is a catalogue of errors and misjudge calls.

Even the childminder had repeatedly questioned the bruises, but failed to do anything proactive about it. I asked my wife, (childminder) what she would do if a child in her care came to here in this state. She said, after questioning the first time, she would call the police and do everything she could to protect the child. Even if it meant holding on he/she against everyone’s will.

I know it’s easy blame everyone other than those who directly inflected the injuries and resultant death, but surely those who failed this poor child must be accountable for their actions (or lack of it) and brought to justice. Otherwise, no example is made and lessons won't be learnt because people forget.

FTM said:
how are kids taken into care? does a court have to approve that it happens? do the social services dept have to seek legal advice before they can act..there may be loads of people at fault here

magistrates often have a lot to answer for but seemt to escape criticism

Nope they haver the power to put them into emergency foster care until such time they decide what to do on a more permanent basis. The key here is the childs welfare.. Which is we they failed in this case.

My wife and I were foster parents but we lost our right because half our stairs didn't have banisters. In the little time we were foster parants, we had about 8 children. We had some really bad experiences with the social services, some stories would actually make your skin crawl..

eXor · 12 Nov 2008 at 15:10

I've just read the article in The Times. It takes a lot to move me but I'm speechless.

Refused to resign? They should be forced out. :mad:

Gilly · 12 Nov 2008 at 15:11

Nanobot said:
Sadly, until the authorities/employers/employees are subjected to convictions, it will happen again.
A parent will often get a prison sentence if they neglect/abuse a child, yet a company may get fined or an employee may get sacked. It doesnt sound right to me.

People make mistakes. If an overworked, underpaid social worker makes a mistake - even as grievous as this one, do they really need to lose their livelihood? How would you coax people into the role with that hanging over their heads?

Morba · 12 Nov 2008 at 15:15

Gilly said:
It said on the radio last night that the bruising on this poor child had been covered in chocolate to hide it.

Surely someone examining a child should ensure that the child is clean before commencing??

There's just been so many failings in this case, especially in light of the previous case in 2000 following which there'd been so many promises made about never letting it happen again.

Its a huge failing on the part of the people going to see the kid.
My wife is a community nursery nurse and has to deal with some dodgy people, however, she had a case recently where the childs face was covered in chocolate, she told the woman that she must clean the child so that it could be looked at properly otherwise it would be reported that the child was not in a state to be checked and the parent refused to clean.

Unfortunately, you are not allowed to just pick the kid up and give them a clean to check. Thankfully in my wifes case, the woman cleaned the kid up and the kid was fine.

antijoke · 12 Nov 2008 at 15:15

The jury heard how the blond-haired boy was once a happy and smiling infant but after months of being used as a "punchbag", he became dead-eyed, hollow-cheeked and unrecognisable.

How did they not notice the deterioration? That one sentence above is the most harrowing thing I have ever read.

Two days before he died, a doctor failed to spot that his back and ribs were broken, later claiming the child was "miserable and cranky".

That has to be sheer incompetence.

Morba · 12 Nov 2008 at 15:18

anticonscience said:
That has to be sheer incompetence.

of the highest order and in this case, clearly people need to be reprimanded for it!

knowlesy · 12 Nov 2008 at 15:21

its simply disgusting no other words need to be said ....how on earth can anyone let this slide !!!!

antijoke · 12 Nov 2008 at 15:23

I saw David Cameron on the news at 1 today and he seemed quiet incensed over this.

philjohn · 12 Nov 2008 at 15:27

As a father to a 20 month old smiling blonde lad, reading about this had me in floods of tears. Let's hope some "prison justice" is meted out on the animals who did this as lord knows with our screwball legal justice system they'll probably be back on the streets in a few years otherwise.

As for Sharon Shoesmith, her flippant remark that she'll "certainly not be resigning" has made me even angrier. Sack her now and strip all benefits, pension entitlement etc. she has absolutely no honour.