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.

Fundamentally, this is a case that should absolutely rock the social work world, and lead to (once and for all) competence and much harder closer observation.

A very close friend is a health visitor and she has zero faith in social workers in general - not due to lack of numbers or resource but due to their competence and capability to carry out their jobs.

I've seen first hand how poorly trained and under performing social workers can have a significant impact on a family; whilst we will never eradicate evil, we can and should be focusing on rebuilding a role that is so crucial to so many children but that is so broken.

What other roles and professions would be completely ignored and forgotten about if children kept dying at the hands of their families and the people who are supposed to protect them despite these people being reported to them again and again and again.

I apologise to anyone who is a competent and well trained social worker, but I hear too many times from friends and family in teaching, healthcare etc that the majority of SW's are poorly trained, unable to deliver the role they should be, and poorly managed and led.

@Malibuismysecrethome no it doesn’t look like an ok bruise to me, but if the child has been medically examined and the paediatrician is saying in their professional view the bruise is consistent with what they’ve been told by parent, I simply don’t have enough evidence for removal. Oddly enough a medics view on an injury will trump the view of a social worker on the same injury.

I'm really grateful to those with experience in SW who have given their insights. It's given me a bit more understanding of the layers and procedures involved in the road to removing a child, and the daily realities of the care system. I can't even begin to imagine how difficult it must be to 'build and maintain a relationship' with parents who are so unfit to be parents and to witness the cycles of deprivation, neglect and abuse over and over again.

Question: why are outcomes for children in care so bad? Is it because of the trauma of being taken from their families of origin (as some posters on other threads have suggested)? Or because of underfunding which means children are taken into care too late, after too much damage has been done and there are inadequate numbers of decent foster places, meaning these damaged children are failed again?

If it's the latter than we as a society should be prepared to pay higher taxes to better fund Social Services/ foster care and also support much earlier interventions, surely?

Also, how on earth can we discourage inadequate parents from having more children without violating people's bodily autonomy? :-(

In terms of children in care it’s many things. Firstly there’s whatever has happened to see them taken into care, combined with pre-birth issues like drug use, alcohol, domestic abuse etc - we know much more about the impact of trauma in utero now. Then the experience of being taken into care which may involve two or three or more changes in care setting, each time the child is disrupted and understands that carers are unreliable and impermanent. If they end up adopted much depends on the understanding, capacity and resilience of the parents who have to learn how to parent from a standing start and cope with the adjustments that brings, and their capacity to understand their child’s needs and access (fight for) the services and supports.

If the child ends up in permanent foster care they’re likely to change placements fairly frequently - my kids brother is now in his 6th placement in four years. That level of disruption really impacts a child’s sense of self and security, their capacity for relationships and their ability to engage at school. They also live with the knowledge that at any time their placement could change and they have no control over that. So young people taking exams, the day after attending a review of their care placement that might mean a house move for them. The standard of foster care varies hugely - some are truly superb and some I’d struggle to leave my cat with, it’s the luck of the draw really.

The majority of children taken into care are at some point returned to their families, and have the challenge of keeping ongoing contact, knowing that they may be returned to parents who aren’t great but are good enough.

The care system is far from perfect, it’s the option we have and works to keep kids physically safe but it’s an uphill climb to hold them steady and supposed their development. It really should be the option of last resort.

@helpadvicewhateverneeded

The average 10 year old (age of criminal responsibility in the UK) has an IQ of 70 and the average 10 year old knows not to torture and murder a child.

No, at any given age the average range of IQ (where 2/3 of people score) falls between 85 and 115, with the absolute mid point at 100. At any given age, an IQ of 70 is at the second percentile, ie 98 in 100 people of the same age (to within a few months in children) would get a higher score.

@Jellycatspyjamas

So you don’t know what the paediatrician saw, and assessed on but your assumption is they did their job competently. You also don’t know what the social worker saw or didn’t see and your assumption is they were negligent.

Suns it up. Definitely an agenda here I think.

As for the way examinations are done…

The government could potentially implement a change that all paediatric examinations are passed for a second opinion, which might help, but that relies on having experienced paediatricians available and often that’s not an easy ask.

@helpadvicewhateverneeded

Fundamentally, this is a case that should absolutely rock the social work world, and lead to (once and for all) competence and much harder closer observation.

A very close friend is a health visitor and she has zero faith in social workers in general - not due to lack of numbers or resource but due to their competence and capability to carry out their jobs.

I've seen first hand how poorly trained and under performing social workers can have a significant impact on a family; whilst we will never eradicate evil, we can and should be focusing on rebuilding a role that is so crucial to so many children but that is so broken.

What other roles and professions would be completely ignored and forgotten about if children kept dying at the hands of their families and the people who are supposed to protect them despite these people being reported to them again and again and again.

I apologise to anyone who is a competent and well trained social worker, but I hear too many times from friends and family in teaching, healthcare etc that the majority of SW's are poorly trained, unable to deliver the role they should be, and poorly managed and led.

Same things could be said (and have been said) in general terms about teachers and health visitors. Same response that unless you do the job you don’t understand the full picture.

I totally agree that I don't do the job and therefore have the picture but these are still my opinions, based on at least 5 people in close with who all work alongside SW's. Of course there will be fab ones but there will also be awful ones, and awful ones should be out at the first sign of awfulness. It's not a job where you can drop balls. (Not a humble brag at all coming up) but I do a much much less accountable job and am paid more than twice the base of a SW. this is wrong. Raise the wage, give better training and make it easier to get rid of the many under performing and incompetent people. It should be a job you do with passion and integrity and clearly something is very wrong with the leadership and processes of children who are known to SW's keep being killed by their own families.

Some people on this thread are being incredibly naive about lived reality.

All very well you saying you would be happy for your dc to be taken away from you and questioned and examined......you have probably never had it happen / never been in the position. You aren't starting from the point of negative experiences. You aren't starting from the point of malicious accusations being made about you.

The idea of a police force having enough officers to routinely attend appointments with SWs is laughable - I don't think the public at large have any concept of how stretched the police are. But even if they were able to magic up these spare police officers, the police can only intervene if there is strong evidence, not "might have"

Paediatricians - do you have any idea how long the wait is to see a paediatrician at the moment ? Yes, they prioritise child protection, but all the time that pushes back the list that is already 2 yrs long in my authority.

All the talk about level of IQ. I am not sure what people on this thread think is out there in terms of support for adults with learning difficulties ??? It is practically non existent in reality.

All the laws an policies are all set up to "support the mothers" - and not take any child away. You don't have to search for long on here to read of how terrible it is to remove a baby or child from it's mother. Far too often 'what might be best for the child' isn't the top priority at child protection meetings.

All the support services that ought to put support in for those who might struggle to parent, have been cut to the bone, or cut completely. Maybe some of the people who are baying for blood could do something more constructive like start volunteering for Homestart ?

So very often, the family (who come on TV to blame Social Services) have the same issues as the parent(s) of the child. I am not commenting on either family named on this thread - I do not know enough about either, but time and time again, the child is either allowed to stay with parents 'because they will be supported by Grandparents' or the Grandparents is given a special guardianship order, because the system is so desperately short of quality foster carers and it seems like a solution, when in fact the grandparents / Uncles /Aunts are also drug users, or have a learning difficulty, or just poverty of experience that makes their own parenting skills far from ideal too. It does not break the cycle at all.

Please listen to MrsTerryPratchett and Jellycatspyjamas and others who have actually worked in this area. Scapegoating one SW is NOT going to end the regular deaths and the constant stream of badly damaged dc who don't actually die, and don't make the headlines but are there in their hundreds and thousands across the country CONSTANTLY and just do not cross the radar of the vast majority of the population.

Thanks @Jellycatspyjamas. 6 placements in 4 years - that's awful. A child I know about was removed a age 5, spent about a year in short term foster care while her dad unsuccessfully tried to get her back, and was then longterm fostered and eventually adopted by a friend of the wider family. This was almost 10 years ago. AFAIK they're doing well. But going from what you're saying this may be an exception :-( .

Please listen toMrsTerryPratchettandJellycatspyjamasand others who have actually worked in this area. Scapegoating one SW is NOT going to end the regular deaths and the constant stream of badly damaged dc who don't actually die, and don't make the headlines but are there in their hundreds and thousands across the country CONSTANTLY and just do not cross the radar of the vast majority of the population
I couldn't agree more.
I'm retired now, but when I worked I was trained in incident investigation and involved in investigating quite a number of serious incidents in healthcare. Nothing as high profile of this, and nothing child protection related as that wasn't my field, but I imagine the principles are much the same.
It is very rare that the cause of a serious incident is as simple as an individual not being bothered to do their job and even rarer that it is someone acting maliciously. Of course bad HCPs (and probably SWs etc) do exist but they are in a very small minority. Most people, even those who make serious errors at work, are not lazy, useless, wicked etc and the chain of events that lead to adverse incidents is often extremely complex and involves a lot of human and organisational factors.
Blaming an individual or a small number of people is at best naive and unhelpful, and at worst deceitful and damaging. It's much easier, and cheaper, for an organisation to say "We had a bad apple, but look , we've sacked them as we're very responsible. All sorted, nothing to see here." than it is to really look at the processes and culture that are underlying factors.
Of course the role of health and social care workers in this case and others needs to be thoroughly investigated, but I would think it is highly unlikely that presenting the head of an individual SW to the public will actually do anything to help matters.

@Kite22

Some people on this thread are being incredibly naive about lived reality.

All very well you saying you would be happy for your dc to be taken away from you and questioned and examined......you have probably never had it happen / never been in the position. You aren't starting from the point of negative experiences. You aren't starting from the point of malicious accusations being made about you.

The idea of a police force having enough officers to routinely attend appointments with SWs is laughable - I don't think the public at large have any concept of how stretched the police are. But even if they were able to magic up these spare police officers, the police can only intervene if there is strong evidence, not "might have"

Paediatricians - do you have any idea how long the wait is to see a paediatrician at the moment ? Yes, they prioritise child protection, but all the time that pushes back the list that is already 2 yrs long in my authority.

All the talk about level of IQ. I am not sure what people on this thread think is out there in terms of support for adults with learning difficulties ??? It is practically non existent in reality.

All the laws an policies are all set up to "support the mothers" - and not take any child away. You don't have to search for long on here to read of how terrible it is to remove a baby or child from it's mother. Far too often 'what might be best for the child' isn't the top priority at child protection meetings.

All the support services that ought to put support in for those who might struggle to parent, have been cut to the bone, or cut completely. Maybe some of the people who are baying for blood could do something more constructive like start volunteering for Homestart ?

So very often, the family (who come on TV to blame Social Services) have the same issues as the parent(s) of the child. I am not commenting on either family named on this thread - I do not know enough about either, but time and time again, the child is either allowed to stay with parents 'because they will be supported by Grandparents' or the Grandparents is given a special guardianship order, because the system is so desperately short of quality foster carers and it seems like a solution, when in fact the grandparents / Uncles /Aunts are also drug users, or have a learning difficulty, or just poverty of experience that makes their own parenting skills far from ideal too. It does not break the cycle at all.

Please listen to MrsTerryPratchett and Jellycatspyjamas and others who have actually worked in this area. Scapegoating one SW is NOT going to end the regular deaths and the constant stream of badly damaged dc who don't actually die, and don't make the headlines but are there in their hundreds and thousands across the country CONSTANTLY and just do not cross the radar of the vast majority of the population.

Yes, I'm happy for me and my child to be questioned when I'm primary school. I was once upset in public and police were called to talk to me and my parent. I was shocked and worried and made it clear nothing was wrong

Possibly not away from the parent in case of coaching etc. But yes, happy to ask any questions. Happy to submit to a medical exam. Happy for my children to answer questions in the next room etc.

Not sure why some take it as a personal grievance that other social workers may be incompetent or even negligent by nature of underfunding. Clearly some bias going on

Nothing. But given the history she has zero chance of keeping future babies. Which is for the best.

That was a failed quote tweet attempt to someone asking what would stop Star's mother from getting pregnant.

@bubblesbubbles11

"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.

Er.. what does this have to do with London

Star Hobson was in Bradford. Bradford social services had individual social workers with caseloads of up to 50 children.
If you have 20, 30, 40, 50 children at risk of significant harm, with bruises and family members making accusations, you can't adequately deal with all of them.
Not humanly possible.

The absolute bottom line is there should've been ongoing monitoring, case should not have been closed. I know from experience how quickly they take parents word for it especially during lockdown. You may not even have to see a sw in person, depending on the severity of the accusation

I don't think anyone can argue in principle, this should not have happened, as in, there should've been an open case and visits even if sporadic.

@SylvanianFrenemies

Nothing. But given the history she has zero chance of keeping future babies. Which is for the best.

But how do you know she has zero chance?

The only effective treatment is enforced contraception which frankly should always be considered when dealing with those unfortunates who are so profoundly handicapped to take adult decisions.

I know how horrifying this sounds to some of you, is it any worse than the needless death of a beautiful young girl?

@pizz

The absolute bottom line is there should've been ongoing monitoring, case should not have been closed. I know from experience how quickly they take parents word for it especially during lockdown. You may not even have to see a sw in person, depending on the severity of the accusation

I don't think anyone can argue in principle, this should not have happened, as in, there should've been an open case and visits even if sporadic.

Absolutely. Each social worker should have about 15 children max and should be able to thoroughly investigate and build a relationship with every child and family.

And, social care departments need to retain staff - high staff turnover, poor retention rates and huge reliance on agency temps are significant problems.

Couldn't agree more @Kite22

All this talk of a girl with that IQ being offered support ..erm....from who exactly?
Schools have little to no funding, at best she would have access to a support hub.

I have worked with many vulnerable people, there is very rarely any winners in the situation. And horrifically, this situation ended up in the death of a beautiful little girl who should have had a loving and supportive upbringing with her great grandparents or parental grandparents.

I think our starting point is that the current system is not working. The litany of names of dead children demonstrates that even if most of the the neglected and abused remain unseen.

In the 50s, 60s and 70s we had a situation in which “illegitimate” children were removed from mothers at birth - usually after they had been press ganged into signing some kind of consent agreement. Nobody wants to go back to that system.

But the balance has shifted too much in the direction of keeping children with the birth family at all costs. The rights of the parents (who have agency and a voice) are given more weight than the rights of the children (who have neither). This is not the fault of the individual social workers who are working within the system - it is the way that system is weighted. And the balance needs to shift.

I would argue that outcomes for children who are removed and placed for adoption or into long term foster care early - while far from perfect - are always better than for those who are left with the birth parent so long that they suffer irreperable harms and/or become too old or too damaged to get a permanent placement.

Perhaps a shift will mean we end up removing some children who might just have made it with their birth parents with a lot of support - but if a shift results in many more children being given a better chance in life then that is the choice we should make.

…and @bubblesbubbles11 I do live in that area and I entirely understand the point you are trying to make.

I would start by stopping the practice of providing housing in independent units for teen mothers and their children. This acts as an incentive for girls in those areas with no other prospects of independent living to have a baby

It's very interesting that your solution is to remove a service, not add one. You know the first thing I'd do to reduce child abuse, house young men adequately, safely and well. Men often glom onto vulnerable women (particularly single mums) to get housing. House them well, remove some risk.

Another thing, think about what YOU can do. Blaming SWs gives you illusion of doing something while washing your hands of your responsibility for children. Volunteer, take in the waifs and strays. My mum housed THREE of my teenaged friends who had shitty lives over the years, I've had seven young women living in my house. Foster, if you have a really warm and loving home. Look out for the kids with issues at school. Don't avoid them. Donate time and money. And don't for the love of that's holy vote for parties which reduce funding for social care.

This was almost 10 years ago. AFAIK they're doing well. But going from what you're saying this may be an exception :-(

I have adopted two children, so see this both from the perspective of a CP social worker having been one for over 25 years and as an adoptive parent. Adoption can be a fantastic option for children but it needs to be well supported. I have the knowledge and expertise to fight for what my children need, many parents don’t and believe me when I say you need need to fight, services don’t come easy because they’ve been cut to the bone. I’d agree with everything @MrsTerryPratchett says.

@MrsTerryPratchett

I would start by stopping the practice of providing housing in independent units for teen mothers and their children. This acts as an incentive for girls in those areas with no other prospects of independent living to have a baby

It's very interesting that your solution is to remove a service, not add one. You know the first thing I'd do to reduce child abuse, house young men adequately, safely and well. Men often glom onto vulnerable women (particularly single mums) to get housing. House them well, remove some risk.

Another thing, think about what YOU can do. Blaming SWs gives you illusion of doing something while washing your hands of your responsibility for children. Volunteer, take in the waifs and strays. My mum housed THREE of my teenaged friends who had shitty lives over the years, I've had seven young women living in my house. Foster, if you have a really warm and loving home. Look out for the kids with issues at school. Don't avoid them. Donate time and money. And don't for the love of that's holy vote for parties which reduce funding for social care.

That's really interesting- hadn't thought of that re housing young men.

@MrsTerryPratchett

You have quoted from an earlier post of mine. But you have quoted selectively, removing the second paragraph, thus completely distorting what I said. You then accuse me of trying to remove a service rather than trying to add one. This is a completely false representation of what I said and I do not understand why you have done this.

What I said was

*I would start by stopping the practice of providing housing in independent units for teen mothers and their children. This acts as an incentive for girls in those areas with no other prospects of independent living to have a baby This is an entirely rational economic choice for them as it replaces a life of unemployment, or a precarious dead end job and gives them a status and a purpose in life. I realise that the unit that FS was in was supposed to come with some kind of support. But clearly it did not.

I would make receipt of state benefits by these mothers dependent on them continuing to access education/training . And I would provide wrap around day care for the children to protect them and to allow the mothers to develop the skills they need or to work. This would be in the best interests of the mothers, the children and society at large. Again, I realise this comes at a price - but it is one that works out far lower than the cost of supporting the many children born into these circumstances who end up with lifelong problems*

I was advocating much greater support for the mothers - housing in units which genuinely offer real support, wrap around child care which would allow them to access education and training and change their lives around.

I do have first hand knowledge of the care system. You will understand why I do not choose to broadcast the details on social media.