Tustin and Hughes thread 2

[Bagelsandbrie]

Continued from www.mumsnet.com/Talk/_chat/4416690-Emma-Tustin-is-a-murderer

@Turmerictolly

I think there needs to be a police officer attached to social work teams. Perhaps then, less experienced or intimidated social workers (very common sadly) van ho about their proper job with less fear.

I agree, but there's barely enough police to attend serious crimes, let alone anything else so sadly this is unlikely to happen without major reforms. I would be very intimidated going to a property with a suspected/known violent individual who no doubt hates everything social services do and represent. My friend left social work after a series of scary positions she had been put in by shortages of staff and a lack of support became too much. I don't blame her.

@MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry

and there are many threads about not allowing grandparents access to their grandchildren.

Slightly off topic but I think relevant to the discussion of how children are viewed by some, not as people, but as property of their parents. The term “access to” is an issue IMO. Children aren’t property to be accessed. They are people that grandparents can have contact with. It’s a small point but the language we use matters and is reflective of how we view things. We would never say we wanted access to our mothers, we would say we want to see her, we want a relationship with her, we want to have some contact with her. Not access to her like she is a room we want to get into because we have a right.

Very good point.

@Bagelsandbrie yes that's what makes this case so awful I think. This was not a child who was killed in secret and in silence. This was a child who died begging for help whilst his abuse was recorded and documented and all for nothing.

@Turmerictolly

... and child protection social workers live in absolute fear that any of their cases at any time could become tragedies. In the knowledge that they face criminal and disciplinary procedures for any professional oversight. Every day HAS to be a good day.

Would you do this job for £35K?

I'm sorry but people are aware of this when taking on the job. If they don't think it's worth the pay, then the answer is to not take it as a job! The same goes for any job that could come with serious repercussions if it's not done properly.

Why did they give poor Arthur lots of salt? Was that to make him ill? Or to make his food unpleasant? I just cannot understand any of their heinous behaviour, but I find the salt poisoning particularly hard to understand.

*That's where an unscheduled visit, a chat alone with him with the parents outside, and a physical exam, would have shown them other indicators of the abuse.

This should be the standard practice of SS visits from now on, otherwise all the talk of lessons learned is just bullshit to shut us up, once again.*

SWs do make unscheduled visits, but the parents need to allow access - SWs don’t have the legal right to demand to see the child, much less see them alone, they don’t have the legal powers to demand access to the home - even the police need a warrant to access someone’s home without permission or due cause.

In the Baby P case, Peter's mother smeared chocolate all over his face to cover the bruising, the social worker clearly lacked the basic common sense or nous to wipe the child's face.

Actually they lack the legal powers to lay hands on a child without parental permission, there’s a lot of assumptions about what SWs can and can’t do - so much of the work involves relationship, cooperation with parents, we can’t just turn up, demand to see inside kitchen cupboards, demand to see a child alone, etc etc.

If you want to campaign for a change in the law to give SWs free access to your home and your child, go right ahead.

@Geppili sadism pure and simple. Giving a hungry child food that was barely edible or unpleasant to eat. This wasnt simple neglect, they wanted to hurt him and make him suffer.

@MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry, I agree that using the phrase "access to" is loaded and symptomatic of an ownership attitude that can have dire consequences. But I also think that grandparents' involvement, whatever you call it, can mitigate against atrocities escalating, and fosters a move away from the ownership attitude.

To me it seems that these cases are a toxic combination of unhelpful and counter productive attitudes stemming from current cultural values, and a chronic lack of resourcing.

We need wider society to understand the rights of children better and their potential role in protecting children at crisis times; parents to balance their rights over their children with their responsibilities towards them; more and probably better paid social workers and police to have more powers OR to be enabled to use their existing powers more discretionarily (if that's a word) with less fear of repercussion or retribution (because roles and rights are better understood and appreciated by society at large).

I've tried to follow the case as often as I can because it's truly horrific. Does anyone know why Tustin got a longer sentence than Hughes? Is it because she physically caused more harm to the little boy then his dad did?

and there are many threads about not allowing grandparents access to their grandchildren.

Slightly off topic but I think relevant to the discussion of how children are viewed by some, not as people, but as property of their parents. The term “access to” is an issue IMO. Children aren’t property to be accessed. They are people that grandparents can have contact with. It’s a small point but the language we use matters and is reflective of how we view things. We would never say we wanted access to our mothers, we would say we want to see her, we want a relationship with her, we want to have some contact with her. Not access to her like she is a room we want to get into because we have a right.

I hadn't actually thought about the term I used. When I said 'access to," I meant it in the same way as "having contact with." The difference in language is very slight but the end result would be grandparents being allowed to see a grandchild.
I meant that denying grandparents access to, or contact with a grandchild, should be prohibited.

@IknowwhatIneed, are you a social worker? What do you think you would need to be able to stop cases like this? If you could wave a magic wand?

@Porcupineintherough thanks. As soon as I posted my question, the word sadism came into my mind, and I pushed it away. Its so hard to conceive of how evil this couple are.

@Harriet1216 should it? And what if the grandparents are abusive? Or neglectful? Or generally unpleasant? Parents should just hand them over.

@21dolly

I've tried to follow the case as often as I can because it's truly horrific. Does anyone know why Tustin got a longer sentence than Hughes? Is it because she physically caused more harm to the little boy then his dad did?

It’s mostly because she was at home alone with him when he was fatally injured. Hughes wasn’t there. But he took part in the abuse leading up to it as much as she did.

@21dolly because she murdered him.

@21dolly

I've tried to follow the case as often as I can because it's truly horrific. Does anyone know why Tustin got a longer sentence than Hughes? Is it because she physically caused more harm to the little boy then his dad did?

She actually caused his death. TH was not in the house at the time.

@21dolly Tustin was found guilty of murder and the judge set the starting tariff at 30 years (with I think a very small amount of credit given for previous good character which took it down to 29 years)
Hughes was convicted of manslaughter so the starting tariffs are different for that, generally lower than for murder, however the judge still felt it was at the very serious end of the spectrum so he set a high starting tariff (starting from 18 years with the additional years added because of the severity of the offence)

I'm sorry but people are aware of this when taking on the job. If they don't think it's worth the pay, then the answer is to not take it as a job! The same goes for any job that could come with serious repercussions if it's not done properly

That’s all very well except there’s a chronic shortage of people wanting to do it, which is affecting the ability of local authorities to safeguard children. We need people to want to do it.

@21dolly she was the one who actually murdered him. She was convicted of murder, and Hughes of manslaughter as he wasn’t present but encouraged a level of violence towards poor Arthur by Tustin

(I say “a level of” as it didn’t reach the threshold for him to be convicted of murder, or at least that’s how I read the sentencing remarks. Not because I’m minimising his actions).

@BoreOfWhabylon

The least sentence I can pass on you is one of 21 years. There will be concurrent terms of 9 years for the offences of child cruelty. You will serve 2/3 of that term less any time you have spent in custody and will then be released on licence until the expiry of that term.

Hughes will be out in 13 years. He's 29 now, will be early 40s then. Plenty of time to shack up with other women or father more children himself. And he will.

Surely this can't be right? Can the sentence be appealed as too lenient?

I hope there is an appeal.He was absent when Arthur got the fatal blow but he was a full participant in the cruelty toward that poor little boy. Tustin sent Hughes texts and soundtracks detailing Arthur' s suffering and Hughes heartily approved and threatened him more. That child was telling people his father was going to kill him - he was terrified but no one raised a hand to get him out of there.For me, this participation by Hughes in the prolonged torture of Arthur merits almost the same sentence as Tustin's. He KNEW everything that was happening to his son and joined in.27 years for his part would have been appropriate.

Thank you all. I think I've been focusing so much on the abuse and the build up to the death that I completely forgot she was the one who physically murdered him. I also had no clue that Hughes wasn't at the house at the time.

I'm not quite able to put into words how frustrating it is to hear how many opportunities there was to save Arthur. It's just ridiculous how much he went through and the fact that his dad got less because he wasn't physically there at the time is just a joke. I understand it's how the legal system works but it really isn't right

But I also think that grandparents' involvement, whatever you call it, can mitigate against atrocities escalating, and fosters a move away from the ownership attitude.

Oh I totally agree with you, it’s just the term “access to” that I have issue with and normally I see it in terms of fathers wanting “access to” their child, so it really wasn’t specific to grandparents - just the phrase itself regardless of who is using it.

I hadn't actually thought about the term I used. When I said 'access to," I meant it in the same way as "having contact with." The difference in language is very slight but the end result would be grandparents being allowed to see a grandchild.
I meant that denying grandparents access to, or contact with a grandchild, should be prohibited.

I know what you meant, and like I said, the language we use, often without realising it, matters.

Arthur needs to be allowed to be laid to rest now. It's like a final insult how they're arguing over his burial and he's been laid in a cold morgue for 16 months. I just mentioned this on another thread.. but could he not be made a ward of court so he can finally be buried?

@kirinm

I don't lay any blame on the extended family but I think if I felt that my nephew / grandson was being abused I'd still go round there and make repeated complaints regardless of threats from the police. There shouldn't have been threats from the police but it wouldn't stop me. I suspect if anyone did get arrested by the police, it would have been investigated further.

Part of the problem is that the extended family have a difficult balance to find.

My parents were neglectful and abusive. By the time I was 7 things were getting very out of hand. My maternal grandparents, maternal aunts & uncles and paternal uncle were non-contact by then. They’d pushed and pushed and my parents had been able to cut them out.

My paternal grandparents had called social services several times, they’d spoken to our schools, and they’d had arguments with my parents, but they’d never pushed it too far because they knew as soon as we were out of sight things would be much worse and they’d be in no position to do anything:

As it was my teacher, Head teacher and my sibling’s HT put their careers on the line after another frustrating call to social services went nowhere. They called my paternal grandparents and suggested that if they were to come and take us they’d turn a blind eye.

It breaks my heart that all these years on social services are still over worked, under funded and failing children.

@IknowwhatIneed, are you a social worker? What do you think you would need to be able to stop cases like this? If you could wave a magic wand?

I am, though not in practice now precisely because of the level of risk I was carrying.

If I had a magic wand I’d increase SW numbers, reduce case loads, give time and space for reflective practice. I’d ring fence physical office space for social workers (many work “agilely” or hot desk) so that they can use informal supports and learning from more experienced workers. I’d build confidence in interpersonal skills needed to engage with parents, who are often challenging in their own right, core training would focus on people skills, professional assertiveness and effective relationship building. Id raise pay to attract better candidates and establish the profession as a specialist area of work rather than the current jack of all trades.

I’d change the law to make it easier/possible to intervene more directly, I’d improve children’s care services raising the bar both for residential care and foster carers so we could remove children confident that they were going to a safe, nurturing environment. I’d make sure community supports were well staffed and effective so children could safely stay at home wherever possible, with high quality care placements as an option of last resort. I’d significantly lower the threshold of “last resort”.

For starters.