Star Hobson verdict in

[Lougle]

Savannah Brockhill Guilty of murder. Frankie Smith Guilty of causing or allowing death.

She also knows (FS) how to Snapchat, TicTok, get hair extensions, make up, stream, pose, video, etc. Her defence world though.

Worked not world

I think that anyone who works in local government in general should be healthily cynical. That doesn't mean that members of the public i.e. customers should be treated in a rude, impolite way but, rather that there should be evidence to back up what they are saying. I would also make the point that it is possible to have a learning disability, low IQ, serious and enduring mental health issues or be from any minority background and still be manipulative and untruthful. In fact, I have found that many people rely on bamboozling anyone in authority by complaining that their treatment is unfair because they are (and insert here a defining condition). The sensible thing is to park that complaint and continue to investigate but too often the subject become derailed. I understand that in this case the convicted murderer complained that the complaints were being made on the basis of homophobia and racism, as she has a gypsy background. I wonder how much weight was attached to that rather than considering actual evidence?
I also wondered if there was any use of steroids to bulk up her body, causing uncontrollable rage as a result ? Again, no-one seemed to take the trouble to think outside the box.
And again, I would say that we need more social workers and a smaller caseload for each so that investigations aren't rushed.

Haven't RTFT.
I can't understand that there isn't a continued involvement of SS when 5 separate people (most of whom are family members) had reported concerns. Would there not be a cumulative effect? One person reports and they could be seen as getting the wrong end of the stick/have something against the mother. 5 separate people? That's not a coincidence.
But I maybe social services are too understaffed or unsupported to follow up if a plausible excuse has been provided every time

Something else that I feel needs looking at is the malicious making of calls. I'm not sure if there is something in place already (there might be?) but this must waste such a lot of time and money, when SS is so underfunded anyway.

It's obviously a 'thing' which happens fairly regularly. My partner's ex threatened to go down that line early doors. I'm not sure of the answer, because the last thing we want to do is deter people from reporting abuse.

Other than saying that they were told the bruises on her face were from hitting a coffee table, there hasn't been much said about the medical examination. I've read that she there was evidence of two fractures on her leg that were refractured while healing. She also had a fracture to her skull. I know that x-rays are only used strictly where necessary with children but is there any other way of getting images that could be used to find hidden injuries? In so many of these cases they are only found after the child has died.

[quote Bagelsandbrie]@JeffThePilot I’m not sure about that… I mean the police seem to face charges for things pretty frequently- for example, the two policemen in the news recently charged with taking photos of the two murdered sisters- and yet people still want to join the police. If people know they’re doing their jobs properly it shouldn’t put people off.

I’m not talking about minor mistakes - we all make them, and even within social work there are times mistakes will be made and that’s understandable especially with the workloads etc but in these sorts of cases (Arthur and Star etc) these aren’t just mistakes - it’s negligence and should be charged as such.[/quote]
Well that’s because what those officers did was a criminal offence.

You can’t compare that - an active choice to commit a crime - with a mistake made by a social worker with a caseload of 30+ families, desperately trying to prioritise and drowning.

The truth is, if you try to criminalise that without any other detail, you won’t have anyone to do the job and many more children will suffer and, yes, die. It’s already hard enough to hang on to social workers (I left child protection because of the conditions and take my hat off to those of my colleagues who stick it out).

Everyone immediately goes to blaming individual social workers every time a child dies, with no consideration given to structural issues contributing.

If there’s proof after investigations that a social worker wilfully neglected their duties, that’s different, but we don’t know that and yet people are still calling to “name and shame” and for “heads to roll”. I understand how emotive it is, believe me, but i don’t think anyone appreciates how impossible it can be to do the job “properly” right now.

When my son did hit his head on a coffee table I was given a proper grilling from the consultant. He was rather 'old school' so I don't know if that had a bearing on it, but I was left with the feeling that if the injury was non-accidental he would have found out.

Surely it’s not hard to do your job properly if you have five different reports of abuse, all raising the same concerns, and from close family members. This is what we find hard to believe.

@Malibuismysecrethome

Surely it’s not hard to do your job properly if you have five different reports of abuse, all raising the same concerns, and from close family members. This is what we find hard to believe.

Agreed!

I’d also point out that in relation to bruising etc, social workers are reliant on the advice given by paediatricians. If Star was taken for a paediatric medical examination (probably arranged by social worker) and the conclusion was that the bruising was accidental, the social worker is in an impossible position - you can’t go to court with evidence which says there’s been an accidental injury and expect a judge to listen.

But nobody shouts to name and shame paediatricians or say they should resign, do they.

@Malibuismysecrethome

Surely it’s not hard to do your job properly if you have five different reports of abuse, all raising the same concerns, and from close family members. This is what we find hard to believe.

Yep.

And if people have read the trial updates for both Star and Arthur they will have seen that the social workers in both cases weren’t just overworked and made a mistake. They were grossly negligent. They failed to make the proper checks and failed to investigate properly. I’m not making that up or exaggerating. It’s there, black and white in the court documents. Even the judge in the Arthur trial told the social workers he didn’t think they were taking the case seriously enough. (After they failed to find notes they’d made on a meeting and frankly didn’t seem bothered about finding them and then miraculously did after the judge chastised them for it).

Again, there are mistakes and there is negligence. Two very different things and in these particular cases there was clear negligence.

@JeffThePilot

I’d also point out that in relation to bruising etc, social workers are reliant on the advice given by paediatricians. If Star was taken for a paediatric medical examination (probably arranged by social worker) and the conclusion was that the bruising was accidental, the social worker is in an impossible position - you can’t go to court with evidence which says there’s been an accidental injury and expect a judge to listen.

But nobody shouts to name and shame paediatricians or say they should resign, do they.

Neither Star nor Arthur had medical evidence to say their injuries were accidental or otherwise because social workers didn’t make the correct steps to have them assessed properly! It didn’t even have a chance to get to that point.

The serious case reviews will look t the full picture of what went on.

@Bagelsandbrie Star was examined by a paediatrician after her bruises were seen, and social workers would have been reactive t9 the outcome of this. Concerns weren’t raised by the paediatrician.

I have some small contact with Social Services through work, and as I understand it, they are understaffed, with massive caseloads, there's a shortage of placements for children, and not enough experienced social workers because a.) so many are leaving the profession and b.) there's no attempt to replace someone who leaves with someone with a similar level of experience because they have to be paid more.

Combine that with outcomes for cared for children being so poor that every effort is made to keep children with their birth families...

People wring their hands when a tragedy happens, but nobody is going to win an election based on more money for social services and an increase in the numbers of social workers. And money is needed, a lot of it.

Neither Star or Arthur were examined by medical professionals or seen by doctors before their deaths. Some of us are saying that social workers should take children for medical examinations where abuse is suspected, especially in the case of heavy bruising like Arthur’s shoulder or Star’s face. Let’s face it most parents would have rushed a child to A&E with injuries like that but hear people did not. That’s a red flag in itself.

Another shockingly tragic case. That poor beautiful baby.
I agree with much of what has been said, Star was let down by social services who neglected to do their job.

Why did they give warning that they were coming? If SS have several reports on the same child why can't they insist on examining the child properly - taking off t-shirt/ dress etc to look for bruises. After all in these instances that's what their there for isn't it?

The rights of the child to protection should be equal to those of the parents so a patent should have no ability to refuse to allow a child to be properly examined by a professional if there's an accusation of abuse. If this was implemented properly so many children would still be alive.

SS should not be allowed close a case on a child where there's been multiple reports until this examination has been carried out

It's not exactly rocket science. I'm clearly not a SW but from reading reports on Arthur & Star it seems like SS have to tip toe around the parents for fear of transgressing their rights and all the while the rights of the child are being utterly ignored

Tougher laws are needed to force parents to comply with SS

@Malibuismysecrethome

Neither Star or Arthur were examined by medical professionals or seen by doctors before their deaths. Some of us are saying that social workers should take children for medical examinations where abuse is suspected, especially in the case of heavy bruising like Arthur’s shoulder or Star’s face. Let’s face it most parents would have rushed a child to A&E with injuries like that but hear people did not. That’s a red flag in itself.

Star was assessed by a paediatrician during an investigation by social services, the paediatrician believed that Star had fallen and hit her face on a coffee table. I think that did happen (and FS witnessed it) however the evidence showed that Brockhill would then assault Star in the same place as the original, minor injury would be and convince FS that the severe bruising was from the accident.

If trained SW and paediatricians oversaw Brockhills excuses then I can fully understand how FS, who was manipulated and confused, did too.

@Malibuismysecrethome

Neither Star or Arthur were examined by medical professionals or seen by doctors before their deaths. Some of us are saying that social workers should take children for medical examinations where abuse is suspected, especially in the case of heavy bruising like Arthur’s shoulder or Star’s face. Let’s face it most parents would have rushed a child to A&E with injuries like that but hear people did not. That’s a red flag in itself.

As I’ve said, Star was taken for a paediatric medical which would have been arranged following a strategy discussion between social care and the police. The paediatrician did not suggest non-accidental injury.

I wept when I heard about this last night. And I've never done that before.
FWIW I believe that both women should be sterilised, and I truly hope that they get what they deserve in prison.

People are of course entitled to a defence. But a decent judge should rip up the IQ “mitigating circumstances” . As I and a pp have pointed out, if someone can be adept at setting up social media accounts, using them, travel around, look after their appearance etc then their IQ may be lower than average, but they are competent . And saying “oh, poor thing, she was easily led” - absolute claptrap. She had the wherewithal to be thoroughly crafty .

If this woman has such learning disabilities that she has no moral understanding and in addition a propensity for extreme child cruelty then she needs to be in a secure institution.

I really hope Frankie gets the longest sentence available, still not enough in my eyes. Her own sister (who has star's second name so obviously names after) reported her for abusing Star.

It's "SMITH", for fuck's sake. Not bloody "Frankie".

This is an evil monster who has been part of the killing of a child. Her OWN child.

@patchysmum

Sorry - that wasn't at you specifically, yours just happened to be the post before mine.

I'd just read the many posts since I last visited the thread last night and was appalled at the number humanising this monster.