Star Hobson’s mother

[HermioneWeasley]

I read as an incidental comment that she had an IQ of 70. This doesn’t seem to have been taken into account by social services in terms of her needing more support or being vulnerable. Does anyone know what would normally happen? It seems like a very significant factor which should have had social services on alert.

Did Star's social worker have 50 other children covered in bruises to deal with too?

You simply cannot deny negligence in this case and I don't know why you would

"ask anyone on the ground what the issue is and it is capacity, which ultimately comes down to money"

MrsTerryPratchett

You know what you are talking about.

So tell me the reasons why these two proposed options would never fly:

(1) Social services decide a family is obstructive/aggressive. Why is there not something which says every (unannounced) visit should be one social worker and one police officer? (ie minimum two people)

Granted there might be someone in the home with a criminal record and there is accusation about lines being blurred but the police officer should be there to enforce authority.

(2) There should be an enshrined right to take the child in question to an independent assessment place where they can (in the presence of doctors/nurses) be examined both physically and by questioning with no parents/family members present and this should be accepted as a right of police/social workers to do this. It can be filmed in terms of evidence and shared.

I know from my own experience that children do not willingly share how they feel with strangers and the very act of strangers (i.e subcontractors of social workers) attempting to get children to tell them things can be traumatic. But I think there needs to be a swing the other way towards a unilateral right of investigation of what children are experiencing.

@pizz

Did Star's social worker have 50 other children covered in bruises to deal with too?

You simply cannot deny negligence in this case and I don't know why you would

If your job is to hold one egg, and you drop it carelessly, it's negligence. If people vote for people who give you egg after egg after egg so you're holding 50, and you beg for a basket, or another person to help hold them, or anywhere to put them down and you are refused, then you drop an egg... is that negligence?

SWs cannot always safely manage the cases they have. No one could. You couldn't.

I know it's easier to blame an individual and call for their sacking/shaming/criminalising and we can all feel better and move on. But it's the entire system and culture. It's YOU it's ME it's everyone and everything which needs to change. We can't blame a SW and move on unless we're happy to accept more deaths.

"Did Star's social worker have 50 other children covered in bruises to deal with too?"

Does anyone who reads MN have any idea about anything outside London?

I do not live in Yorkshire. But I absolutely know that that area of West Yorkshire has had its fair share of issues revolving around its areas of acceptance or should I say reluctance to challenge groups of people.

First there was Rotherham. I kind of witnessed it in a distanced way. Gross example of political correctness.

Then there is the whole "Hebden Bridge" vibe. You will always have authority figures (police/social workers) who decide before the facts that because the people are of a minority view (in their mind) they are not prepared to challenge them.

In my view if sufficient members of a wider family are complaining and there are people complaining in that network who have safely and successfully cared for the child before there should be an right for those family members (not via social workers) to expedite emergency court hearings to take children into (if needs be temporary) family care.

I have been reading the court transcripts today and was horrified to see that when she was in the room with her newly dead daughter she was texting and calling people. She has a terrible problem with the phone. It sounds as though she was really addicted to it though I know her girlfriend was highly manipulative and making her answer messages constantly. I was also horrified that she FaceTimed her auntie who said "show me!" and she had to turn the phone to show her auntie her dead child

There should be an enshrined right to take the child in question to an independent assessment place where they can (in the presence of doctors/nurses) be examined both physically and by questioning with no parents/family members present and this should be accepted as a right of police/social workers to do this. It can be filmed in terms of evidence and shared.

Are you happy for this to happen to your child? Because malicious reports are rife. And anyone could report and you child is treated like this.

None of this is easy and simple with lovely black and white answers. SWs aren't stupid, they think of solutions.

Personally I'm more concerned about the IQs of the professionals who directly came into contact with Star and her 'mothers' and deemed that the poor child was being adequately cared for and that the appalling bruising and cuts and reports by concerned relatives were of no concern.

MrsTerryPratchett Fri 17-Dec-21 00:16:48

Well in answer to you.

Perhaps because I feel confident as I type that my children are safe /fed/warm in bed and apart from anything they encountered at school today there will be no bruises on their body (I am a single mum and they are 11 and 13 respectively so I accept responsibility for the emotional bruises my failed relationship will impact them for their life)

Subject to the above - then no, I would absolutely not have any issue whatsoever with a social worker and a policeman knocking on my door and wanting to see my children. I would want to be with them when they talked to my children. If they said during that conversation "we want to take them to an NHS doctor to assess them" I would say yes (I guess provided the assessment was filmed and available to me).

Maybe I am saying the above would be OK with me because (1) I trust the NHS (2) I think a combination of social workers and police might work - but i speak from a position of ignorance (3) I have heard many people in my wider friends network report that social workers often start their interaction with families they get involved with, with a very heavy handed "we are the professionals you do as I say" approach. I think this is correct but it is not backed up.

I don't know.

The point is - there should be UK wide applied massive red flags. If multiple family members (some of whom have previously cared for the child) are complaing - believe them!. FFS they are doing the job of the social worker!

I was also horrified that she FaceTimed her auntie who said "show me!" and she had to turn the phone to show her auntie her dead child

Even worse, it was the murderer's sister who demanded to see her.

@pizz Star was examined by a paediatrician who was of the view that the bruises could have aligned with the story given by FS/SB. Given that medical expert opinion (which we now know was wrong, but paediatricians are the ones who have the experience to make that call not social workers), what do you think the social workers could have then done?

Child protection services are poorly funded and overwhelmed.
It's a horrendously stressful environment to work in, meaning good social workers move to other departments as soon as they can. There will be a high number of newly qualified staff in these teams.
Burnout is very high as is illness and being signed off with stress.
Nothing will change by shouting at social workers - like the police, NHS and housing provision - if you don't fund services for a decade, there will be catastrophic situations like this over and over again.

Treesofthefield so burnout is high and SW’s get signed off with stress, what do they expect their job will be if they are looking after abused children
it’s not going to be easy is it? They can attend home visits accompanied by the police and in fact on two of the visits to Star’s home the police went with them. They failed to do their job, end of, and another child died. How anyone can see that photo of Star’s cheek and not realise something is horrifically wrong I fail to see. It was bruising normally seen after a car crash or similar.
We need to stop making excuses, many people would have cared for Arthur and Star they just didn’t get the opportunity because of failures by Child Protection Social Workers, yet again.

Frankies low IQ would have been obvious at school and she should have qualified for additional support (whether she got that a would be another matter). Such a low IQ would make her susceptible to grooming. I suspect Savannah had complete control over her. It's not like saying your 10 year old isn't cruel it's far more complex.

There are far too many famillies living chaotic and potentially dangerous lifestyles. Better funding and training for education and social services is needed. Frankie should have been supported with an awareness of her existence and having a babu due to her low IQ in the first place. Unfortunately parents of children with additional needs struggle to get support within the education system and there is little support once out of it
Savannah should never be realeased from prison.
Frankie when released will require significant monitoring and should not have another child.
In my area many sociial workers are recruited from abroad due to low retention rates. Jobs are constantly being advertised and therwfore there is too much potential for lack of continuity of care.

IQ of 70 doesn't class as having a learning disability it has to be under 70 to meet the criteria of being eligible for LD support and services. I work in LD services and we regularly turn people away because their IQ is over 70.

so burnout is high and SW’s get signed off with stress, what do they expect their job will be if they are looking after abused children
it’s not going to be easy is it?

I fully expected to work with abused children, to assess their safety and use whatever means available to me to protect them. I’m actually really good at doing that. I also expected to work with really challenging people, to build relationships that would enable me to help them and I fully expected that, where there was no other way, I’d remove children from their parents care.

I didn’t expect my case load to double, doing that work with 15 children on my case load was one thing, doing it with 30 was quite another - I left practice before things got to the 40 stage. I didn’t expect the government to on one hand shout about the value of early intervention while on the other close all the services that would provide early intervention. I didn’t expect an austerity agenda that would increase child poverty and I didn’t expect that child and adult mental health services would all but collapse, leaving very vulnerable children with very vulnerable parents, with no support in the community.

You don’t seem to understand that in that basket of 50 eggs @MrsTerryPratchett referred to, every single one of them are a Star or Arthur, any one of those kids could end up dead if the wrong decision is made, if the wrong thing is focussed on in assessment, if we postpone the wrong meeting. Apart from the sheer distress of seeing children in such living circumstances, knowing legally you’re very limited in what you can do. While also working to tight deadlines, backed by legislation, while also dealing with a public who have no concept of what you do day in and day out, but can tell you you’re not doing it right.

The one thing I did fully expect is to be damned if I do and damned if I don’t. I’ve not been disappointed in that.

[quote JeffThePilot]@pizz Star was examined by a paediatrician who was of the view that the bruises could have aligned with the story given by FS/SB. Given that medical expert opinion (which we now know was wrong, but paediatricians are the ones who have the experience to make that call not social workers), what do you think the social workers could have then done?[/quote]
Thanks for posting this. It provides crucial background information. Funny how nobody is criticising the doctor.

@bubblesbubbles11

MrsTerryPratchett Fri 17-Dec-21 00:16:48

Well in answer to you.

Perhaps because I feel confident as I type that my children are safe /fed/warm in bed and apart from anything they encountered at school today there will be no bruises on their body (I am a single mum and they are 11 and 13 respectively so I accept responsibility for the emotional bruises my failed relationship will impact them for their life)

Subject to the above - then no, I would absolutely not have any issue whatsoever with a social worker and a policeman knocking on my door and wanting to see my children. I would want to be with them when they talked to my children. If they said during that conversation "we want to take them to an NHS doctor to assess them" I would say yes (I guess provided the assessment was filmed and available to me).

Maybe I am saying the above would be OK with me because (1) I trust the NHS (2) I think a combination of social workers and police might work - but i speak from a position of ignorance (3) I have heard many people in my wider friends network report that social workers often start their interaction with families they get involved with, with a very heavy handed "we are the professionals you do as I say" approach. I think this is correct but it is not backed up.

I don't know.

The point is - there should be UK wide applied massive red flags. If multiple family members (some of whom have previously cared for the child) are complaing - believe them!. FFS they are doing the job of the social worker!

What if your ex was abusive and/or his parents were making false reports and you were getting these visits every month or at regular intervals? What if the police force was institutionally racist and you have relatives that have suffered from their racist actions and your children don't trust the police but they have to endure these terrifying visits because of malicious reports?

There are countless examples of why this would not work effectively NOT TO MENTION how much it would cost when there is no money in the pot (don't know why when there is enough money going to line the pockets of Tory cronies, for example). Your idea is pants. Sorry.

Subject to the above - then no, I would absolutely not have any issue whatsoever with a social worker and a policeman knocking on my door and wanting to see my children. I would want to be with them when they talked to my children. If they said during that conversation "we want to take them to an NHS doctor to assess them" I would say yes (I guess provided the assessment was filmed and available to me).

But what would actually happen is the social worker would speak to your child without you, possibly in a neutral venue such as school. They’d take them for medical assessment which would take place without you present, it wouldn’t be filmed and you wouldn’t have a copy initially.

Part of the difficulty is that folk have an idea that the neglectful, abusive parents in some way make themselves known, that they are “other” in some way and there’s a way of telling a genuinely concerned parent, from an incredibly overwhelmed parent, from a neglectful abusive parent just by looking at them and asking a few questions. That, of course, all parents would be happy with someone speaking to their child because they have nothing to hide - until a social worker turns up, asks questions and all hell breaks loose.

It takes time to be a good social worker, time to study and update training, time to build relationships with families, time to build relationships with other professionals, time to pull all the pieces together, time to find a suitable place for the kids to go and time to make a strong enough case to remove a child. If you’re juggling a high case load, time is the thing you don’t have.

@Veeveeoxox

IQ of 70 doesn't class as having a learning disability it has to be under 70 to meet the criteria of being eligible for LD support and services. I work in LD services and we regularly turn people away because their IQ is over 70.

This is wrong. 70 is moderate learning disability. This kind of criterion referenced service turning down an IQ of 70 but accepting 69 is a complete misunderstanding of how IQs work. There is a standard error of measurement and this should be quoted.

askanyone on the ground what the issue is and it is capacity, which ultimately comes down to money

Surely the problem in this case was a woman incapable of providing a safe environment for her child having a baby in the first place? I live in this area and having a baby is seen by many young girls without qualifications or skills as a route to a flat and independence from parents - who themselves are leading chaotic lives and have failed to provide an adequate environment for their children. It is a cycle of deprivation which is facilitated by a society which finds it easier to stick these girls and their babies in a cheap flat somewhere and hope for the best than to address the underlying problems. Sadly a lot of these children grow up in awful environments, under achieve at school, and go on to repeat the mistakes their parents have made. Just go for a walk around Keighley bus station to see what I mean.

If anyone suggests that a 17 year old who is unable to provide an adequate home for a child should not actually have a child in the first place, they are immediately accused of violating her rights/practicing eugenics/demonising the mother/judging her etc. But what about the rights of the child that is born? I am not saying that they are all abused in the way Star was but there will be others who are, and there will be a lot more who will lead hopeless, miserable lives. Perhaps we should be focussing more on discouraging these preganancies in the first place?

It is ironic that someone who had treated a dog in the way FS treated her daughter would be prevented from ever owning a dog again. But in the case of humans we somehow see the right to have children as a god given, inalienable right.

Jellycatpyjamas I can understand the difficulties faced by SW’s but surely you have to concede that in Star and Arthur’s cases relatives and others had begged for help from social services and were offering to look after the children. They had photographic evidence and in Arthur’s case had spoken to the Oolice. Whatever you say these deaths could have, and should have been avoided.
If no one reports then, yes, it’s an extremely difficult decision to make but not in these cases.
Making excuses does you no credit.

It’s not that having a child is an inalienable right, the right to bodily autonomy is an inalienable right - the concept that we don’t force medical treatment on someone against their will is a key human right. We don’t force contraception on others or practice enforced sterilisation - surely you can see the multitude of problems if we did.

Because we as a society hold bodily autonomy as sacrosanct, there will always be people who have children in less than ideal circumstances.

@HeatonGrove - but the reporting of the case does not indicate that Star’s mother came from a dysfunctional family and merely repeated their mistakes? It implies she had a loving family behind her who were horrified by what was going on, but powerless to stop it - as was the babysitter, so not just the family that had concerns. Did they have backgrounds that actually made them all appear to be malicious?

@Malibuismysecrethome I made no comment on the cases concerned - I was replying to the “of course it’s hard, what do social workers expect” comment.

What I would say though is that it’s nit at all unusual for family members to raise multiple concerns about children. Sometimes there are some issues and families are being over cautious, sometimes the concerns are raised maliciously, sometimes there are immediate risks to children - but we don’t know unless and until we can properly investigate, which takes time and experience. We can’t remove every child every time we receive complaints, we do need to work with parents, and with other professionals.

It’s very easy to look with the luxury of hindsight, from our sofa with our morning coffee and make judgements about what should or shouldn’t be done - it’s a much more complex thing when you’re actually in the position of being the person who makes those judgement calls in the moment.

@Walkaround

We don’t force contraception on others or practice enforced sterilisation - surely you can see the multitude of problems if we did

This response is typical of those who want to close down the debate. I realise that mumsnet does not lend itself to nuanced debate, but in what world does what I suggested - “focussing more on discouraging these pregnancies in the first place” - translate into “enforced sterilisation” or “force contraception”?

Obviously I recognise the problems associated with those paths. That is why I did not suggest them.