Page 8 | Tustin and Hughes thread 2

Bagelsandbrie · 2021-12-03T14:40:51+00:00

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

Secretminty0 · 03/12/2021 18:37

29 years isn't long enough. But equally, I'm glad it was a sentence worthy of the murder conviction.

Naughtynovembertree · 03/12/2021 18:37

the sw lack powers to lay hands on dc. Fine, good... Are they not allowed to ask the parent to wipe it off? Ask the parent to lift the top etc

Secretminty0 · 03/12/2021 18:39

I was also really sad to read how Arthur's mum ruined her life, she was privately educated from what I've read and had a promising future. The tribute her mother read was very articulate and poignant. The life he could've had with her. Every adult is his life failed him.

mathanxiety · 03/12/2021 18:41

@Geppili, wrt the salt poisoning - it's an extension of the dehumanisation of the victim, and it also represents a serious escalation of the abuse from exterior harm to internal harm.

When you force a victim to ingest a non food substance or something not commonly ingested in great quantities, you are crossing lines towards treating the victim as a non human, a non human not fit to be given human food.

It's a serious escalation from external abuse to internal abuse that happens when the thrill of inflicting blows, beatings, whippings, and other forms of torture isn't as satisfying as it once was.

Sexual abuse in the scenario of the ET and TH household would be in the same category because it would involve internal hurt. This would be especially true if objects were used in the sexual abuse.

ET and TH crossed many lines together very fast. Once they got started, it was only a matter of time before Arthur would have been utterly destroyed, physically, emotionally, and psychologically.

Turmerictolly · 03/12/2021 18:42

@Naughtynovembertree

* the sw lack powers to lay hands on dc. Fine, good... Are they not allowed to ask the parent to wipe it off? Ask the parent to lift the top etc

... and you think they'd readily comply?

Porcupineintherough · 03/12/2021 18:42

@Naughtynovembertree they can ask but they cant insist. They can't necessarily even insist to come into the house or see the child a lot of the time.

And it all takes time. Arrange a visit, no one in. Re arrange, parent says child is not there/sleeping. Arrange to come back another day, rinse and repeat.

Daniel Pelka was taken to a doctor to be examined - they didn't pick up on his injuries because they didnt do their job. But social services blamed.

3WildOnes · 03/12/2021 18:43

@DonkeySkin whilst it would be great to be able to have all visits unannounced you would need to increase the social work budget and number of social workers significantly to enable this. So much time would be wasted going to houses and no one being there/them hiding that you would need to do numerous visits on average before you actually caught anyone at home.

KurtWildesChristmasNamechange · 03/12/2021 18:43

Very similar to the Daniel Pelka case. Massive oversights by SS, school, police and others. That little boy was stealing food from other students at school and instead of looking into why he has doing it they locked sandwich boxes away from him.

IknowwhatIneed · 03/12/2021 18:44

@Naughtynovembertree and when they refuse? Abusive parents are very very skilled at keeping services at arms length, and using complaints processes and the law to support them in doing so. If only it was as simple as just asking.

MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry · 03/12/2021 18:44

they can ask but they cant insist.

No, but if the parent refused it would be an alarm bell and give the SW extra cause for concern. Hopefully the SW would then record this and use it to try and have the child examined by a doctor.

3WildOnes · 03/12/2021 18:46

@Porcupineintherough yes doctors always seem to be let off the blame in a way that social workers aren’t. In the ongoing case of Star Hobson a social worker did take her to the hospital to be looked over and the doctor said her injuries were accidental. At that point the social workers hands were tied and she couldn’t really act much further. Doctors need to be much more thorough when checking over children for abuse.

Naughtynovembertree · 03/12/2021 18:46

In this case with his mother out the picture and huhes happily living with his parents with Arthur I think something about support network should have been written for Arthur's so for instance they visit the family, everything seems fine and then they ask when the gp on his support network saw Arthur.
They then insist Arthur should see the them even with huhes present if necessary but of course this was also lock down

Sometimes however I think allowing gp access would escalate issues in familys because sometimes, sadly it is the gp who cause the issues in the marriage.

Sombra · 03/12/2021 18:47

I wonder if SS didn't investigate more thoroughly is because the stereotypical image of an abused child wasn't there? A clean house, ET and TH come across as articulate in the videos, food (although he wasn't getting it), contact with the school etc? They both just seemed normal at first appearance

IknowwhatIneed · 03/12/2021 18:48

They would but it would need to be on a court order assuming the parents refused, which takes time and evidence gathering. The threshold for intrusion of state on family life is very high - it’s not remotely easy, saying the child has chocolate on their face wouldn’t be grounds enough for a court to order a medical.

Naughtynovembertree · 03/12/2021 18:51

Yes of course, if a parent refused then they warn that parent that will trigger urgent investigation and being seen by a doctor.

MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry · 03/12/2021 18:52

@IknowwhatIneed

They would but it would need to be on a court order assuming the parents refused, which takes time and evidence gathering. The threshold for intrusion of state on family life is very high - it’s not remotely easy, saying the child has chocolate on their face wouldn’t be grounds enough for a court to order a medical.

I understand all this, but it’s about gathering together all the little bits of information that paints the whole picture. It’s really not good enough to say “I didn’t ask her to wipe his face because she’d probably refuse and by the time I got a court order to have him examined it’d be too late” you still have to ask, and you still have to record the response and you still have to take that protective action. Regardless of whether it takes time!

Original poster

Bagelsandbrie · 03/12/2021 18:53

[quote mathanxiety]@Geppili, wrt the salt poisoning - it's an extension of the dehumanisation of the victim, and it also represents a serious escalation of the abuse from exterior harm to internal harm.

When you force a victim to ingest a non food substance or something not commonly ingested in great quantities, you are crossing lines towards treating the victim as a non human, a non human not fit to be given human food.

It's a serious escalation from external abuse to internal abuse that happens when the thrill of inflicting blows, beatings, whippings, and other forms of torture isn't as satisfying as it once was.

Sexual abuse in the scenario of the ET and TH household would be in the same category because it would involve internal hurt. This would be especially true if objects were used in the sexual abuse.

ET and TH crossed many lines together very fast. Once they got started, it was only a matter of time before Arthur would have been utterly destroyed, physically, emotionally, and psychologically.

[/quote]
I am wondering if they started the salt poisoning around the time they decided they couldn’t return him to school because he will “tell lies about us”. I think once they’d decided that they basically decided to murder him in whatever way they could. They realised there was no way back from things. They were going to get found out.

OP posts:

Naughtynovembertree · 03/12/2021 18:54

But agaisnt those circumstances, re choclate it should be.

The child is not at the center of the care here. What happens and what should happen are very different, intervention into the family life!

Intervention into family life asking a parent to wipe their child's face, take them out the push chair!
Lift up the t shirt so the whole back and shoulder can be seen!!

Naughtynovembertree · 03/12/2021 18:57

I'm not sure bagels, they would face lesser charges if he had lived.

PlacidPenelope · 03/12/2021 18:57

@IknowwhatIneed

*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.

Then these are the changes that need to be made and should have been made when lessons were supposedly learnt before.

Abusers lie, it is no good having social workers who it's easy to pull the wool over their eyes as a previous poster who is a foster carer and has extensive experience of social workers has said.

IknowwhatIneed · 03/12/2021 18:58

I understand all this, but it’s about gathering together all the little bits of information that paints the whole picture. It’s really not good enough to say “I didn’t ask her to wipe his face because she’d probably refuse and by the time I got a court order to have him examined it’d be too late” you still have to ask, and you still have to record the response and you still have to take that protective action. Regardless of whether it takes time!

Thanks for that, I had no idea that’s how it worked, after 25 years as a CP social worker you’d think I know the basics of investigation practice. There’s no evidence that mum wasn’t asked to wipe his face (by the doctor btw, not the sw) or how that was recorded or taken forward.

I was responding to the “SW should have wiped his face” comment, which like everything CP related is much more complicated than simply reaching for a baby wipe.

Original poster

Bagelsandbrie · 03/12/2021 19:01

@Naughtynovembertree

I'm not sure bagels, they would face lesser charges if he had lived.

I think they thought if they slowly poisoned him with salt and gradually made him weaker and weaker and kept up this narrative of him “throwing himself” at walls / doors etc no one would realise that they’d murdered him, they’d put it down to him not eating properly and behavioural issues. That was what she in particular was banking on.

OP posts:

MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry · 03/12/2021 19:04

I was responding to the “SW should have wiped his face” comment, which like everything CP related is much more complicated than simply reaching for a baby wipe.

And then you said

I was responding to the “SW should have wiped his face” comment, which like everything CP related is much more complicated than simply reaching for a baby wipe.

Which is what I was responding to.

Naughtynovembertree · 03/12/2021 19:04

Yes, perhaps...

MaryAndGerryLivingInDerry · 03/12/2021 19:05

Ffs. I meant then you said

They would but it would need to be on a court order assuming the parents refused, which takes time and evidence gathering. The threshold for intrusion of state on family life is very high - it’s not remotely easy, saying the child has chocolate on their face wouldn’t be grounds enough for a court to order a medical.