However I have now read the Executive Summary of the serious case investigation (which I found from a link on a rather emotional piece on Tom Harris’ blog)
And I have to say I rather veer towards the social workers view of this case
Those who know so much better, now that the outcome is known, should be forced into saying how they would have applied our rather confused social prejudices & assumptions at each stage :
1 The interests of the child are paramount
2 Children taken into care to be looked after by the state do less well than those who stay with their own family, even if that family provides a less than ideal home
3 Any woman who abandons or voluntarily gives up her child for adoption is unnatural
4 Only in the most extraordinary circumstances, & on the strongest possible evidence, is it right to remove a child from its mother. These strictures apply even more forcefully to attempts to remove a child at, or soon after, birth
5 Government has a duty to ensure that no mother & her child(ren) are homeless or financially unsupported
6 No woman should be forced to depend upon a man for support
7 No publicity shall be given to the name of any child involved in any sort of care proceedings
& to say how they would have been so sure about what was really going on
****
Extracts from the executive summary (Child P is referred to as Child A in this document):
There were no concerns about the welfare of any of the children in the family prior to mid December 2006, when child A (then aged nine months) was presented at a hospital with a head injury and bruising, considered by medical staff to be suggestive of non accidental injury
on 22.12.06, child A and his youngest sibling became subject of child protection plans
Various professionals noted that child A was an active child who was observed to throw his body around and head-butt family members and physical objects.. From March, a main element of the child protection plan was to obtain a developmental paediatric assessment, to ascertain if there was an organic reason for such behaviour
in March 2007, when Ms A was seen to slap her eldest child
Haringey’s Children & Young People’s Service obtained legal advice on 25.07.07, which indicated that on the basis of the information provided, the threshold for initiating Care Proceedings (a Care Order would have meant that the local authority would have shared parental responsibility with the child’s parents and would have had the authority to remove child A) was not met.
Child A was seen by a paediatrician on 01.08.07, for the purpose of the developmental assessment. The paediatrician judged that he was unwell and miserable with a possible viral infection and partly healing scalp infection. The doctor completed a history, prescribed medication, arranged for various tests to be made and a follow up appointment made to complete the assessment.
Child A died before the intended follow up appointment was made.
Related post
