Will lessons really be learnt after this tragic child abuse case?

[Tolkienista]

The horrific case of baby Preston Davey sickeningly abused by his adoptive parents (a teacher and his partner) concluded in a guilty verdict in court yesterday.
The details are too traumatic to contemplate the awful end of this child's life.
Once again the age old phrase "lessons will be learnt" has been quoted and I have to say, will they?

I know life is extremely complicated & I'm in no doubt that the killer of Preston was manipulative, cold hearted and extremely secretive in covering up his abuse of this defenceless little child.
I guess that because abuse generally takes place behind closed doors, child abuse will sadly always be a part of our society.

Utterly utterly tragic.

With this particular case I think the fractured elbow or the 3 hospital visits should have triggered a full medical and an investigation.

Exactly.

Not this case, but I remember regarding Baby P the social workers (young, female) were afraid of the family so had backed off at the door.

Social work needs to attract tougher applicants - either sex - with appropriate authority and back-up. Maybe ex-military could be encouraged to go into social work.

We already have that, the law says if there’s enough concern to merit an order, part of that order can demand children are presented to social work. The process of granting an order protects the rights of all concerned. Any intervention short of an order, including child protection registration, is voluntary, in that engagement isn’t compelled legally and parents can refuse.

People up post are saying that a social worker cannot insist on seeing a child. That the law does not provide for that. Which I find astonishing.

I’m usually one to agree you can’t stop all child abuse. But they visited an and e so many times in just a few weeks including with a broken arm.

I was visited by multiple social workers after taking my baby to a and e with a fever (they didn’t like that he wasn’t in a coat from the car to the hospital) but I was very young.

If they were straight would there have been less worry about seeming homophobic? Or did they assume because they both had good jobs they were automatically good parents?

Varley was a master manipulator and you can see him playing into the stereotype of the flamboyant gay man to make himself seem harmless and innocent in the hospital footage. And the job as safeguarding lead is very sinister he would have known exactly what to say.

Really?? I can just see how that would play out. It's not one single agency, a SW could call the police, but they won't come out and if they did, unless there is an immediate concern of harm, they can't force entry without a warrant.

Clearly not rigorous enough. I do wonder what weight was given to the fact he was a ‘teacher’. I suspect far too much. And perhaps assumed to be upstanding and safe around children. Clearly he wasn’t. At all.

Sometimes there are no signs. I am not saying that this was the case here (edit: quite the opposite, apparently). But even the most rigorous process will not be enough to catch all predators or otherwise unsuitable people.

Every so often a high profile case comes along that shocks everyone to the core
Its often "the authorities " overlooking (accidentally or deliberately) red flag after red flag.
Sadly there is a role call of babies//young children who have been battered to death by parent/step parent/mother's latest boyfriend.
Every single incident ends with a police officer or social worker telling the populace that "lessons will be learned"
Then it happens again
And again
And again

DS2 attended A&E twice as a toddler - once with perforated ear drum (accident) and once with prolapsed bowel hanging out of his bum. On both occasions before examination the medics dismissed parental concerns due to lack of distress. DS2 is autistic and hypo-responsive to pain so we sat and waited and lo and behold. I was more concerned by this as he was not yet diagnosed. Except I was called in to GP after ear drum perforation as this can be a non accidental injury caused by being hit in the head. Obviously wasnt but hospital had flagged safeguarding concerns which the gp followed up.

I can’t understand why the hospital would not flag potentially non accidental injuries - especially when adoption was not complete - to relevant care organisations and the gp. It seems that biological parents are subject to scrutiny whilst adoptive parents that have passed the process get a free pass due to previous vetting. Surely the same scrutiny can apply to biological and adoptive parents that visit A&E with a potentially non accidental injury?

As an adoptive parent whose kids were at one time frequent fliers at A&E, believe me it is followed up, especially in the period post placement and pre adoption order because the local authority is the corporate parent.

This was a parent in a regulated profession with a keen knowledge of safeguarding, post placement, which is an incredibly stressful, challenging period in adoption. He will have known what to say and how to present to divert attention. It takes a very experienced social worker to see through that, if possible. When I adopted I had routine visits from both mine and the DCs social worker twice weekly, that level of support (and scrutiny) is unheard if now because of resourcing issues but is absolutely necessary for both the children and their new parents.

No they won't , because each of these heartbreaking horrific cases have individual aspects to them.
So how can a protocol be made when no one can really know what will happen before it does -if that makes sense.
I think there are some amazing case workers, social workers who go above and beyond but there are some not so good ,also some parents who are extremely talented at hiding the abuse they commit.
These atrocities have always occurred and they always will.
I cannot stand hearing 'lessons will be learned' empty promise that means nothing now because we have heard it too many times in response to far too many deaths of precious little children.

Preston was let down by several agencies, including medical staff, according to an article by Manchester Evening News which I have just read

His mother was clearly a troubled young woman as she was convicted of murder when she was 14/15. And Preston was taken into care five days after she gave birth to him

NB: some may find the contents distressing

Edited. Have removed link, posters can search if they want to

Totally agree. And when agencies have EDI quotas, I think they are far too eager to acquire that stat.

I also think class plays into this. He was a professional, teacher with safeguarding responsibility. And, as a member of the LGB quota, a sacred caste.

WHY they chose to remove this baby from foster care to two men who weren't even local - knowing what we know about non-related men and child abuse in the home - needs closely looking at. Heads should roll.

There are so many red flags on this case, the hospital visits, ignoring the foster carer's concerns. Its completely unforgivable. That poor, poor child.

Thank you to everyone who's taken the time to reply to my post.
I think it's fair to say that everyone is sickened by the cruelty to this defenceless little boy and the level of vindictiveness dished out by this cruel adoptive father.
Also, no one is any doubt that social services and child protection services are overwhelmed by case loads and visits to monitor and assess.
As a teacher, thankfully I never had any pupils in my care that I had concerns about.
I don't know the answers, but I hope that when sentencing takes place later, he is given the maximum prison sentence permissable by law.

I think the threshold for support needs to be much lower, and the support itself much more accessible.

For the most part, those that kill and a use their kids don't set out thinking they want to abuse their kids. They have their own traumatic backgrounds, addiction issues, strained lives etc. The earlier those pressures are relieved, the less often and less severely children will be abused or need to be removed (the threshold for that also needs to be lower).

(I'm not excusing them, I know that there are plenty of parents suffering the same pressures, I'm just saying what I think would result in less abused kids)

The sacred caste aspect jumped at me.

People seem capable of understanding it when you talk about, say, Catholic priests being immune from suspicion in the past. But not when you talk about the modern versions!

I find it interesting that even in this thread the discussion of "lessons to be learned" seems to be focused on "given that abuse is occurring, how could social workers / hospitals have identified it", and less on "are there statistical patterns that could have prevented this entirely?"

We already know that "unrelated man in the house" is such a huge risk factor. Two unrelated men trying to adopt a baby should be identified early as potential risks even before any hospital visits.

Anyway, death penalty anyone? Bring back drawing and quartering? This case is horrifying.

What the fuck was wrong with the hospital? Three visits in almost as many weeks, and one for a fractured elbow. I would've thought this would set off massive red alerts all over the place. Or was it ignored because of the "sacred caste"?

'Is there a pattern?' is key.

I look at the men who've been involved with Pride who turned out to be sexual predators. And the horrendous paedophile ring discovered at LGBT Youth Scotland and the former employee at Mermaids promoting paedophilia. And I see a pattern. Obviously not all gay men but opportunists exploiting general goodwill and a fear of being branded a bigot.

In recent years, an LGBTQI organisation has been encouraging UK agencies to consider polyamorous groups as foster carers as that's their growing usership. I recently saw an invite to a training on Swinging in relation to fostering from the same place.

Whilst we can park the notion that all gay men are a danger, gay men are just men - and bad men will go to any lengths to get access to children and, as such, should be more carefully scrutinised.

And I would like to think most gay adopters and foster carers would agree that safeguarding should reflect proposed risk.

@ginasevern there's a lot wrong at that hospital

Blackpool Victoria hospital does not have a good reputation. These are just a few of the more recent issues
https://www.cps.gov.uk/north-west/news/senior-heart-surgeon-jailed-sexual-offences
Surgeon working at BVH assaulted 5 female members of staff.

Woman on stroke ward was sexually assaulted and bled to death as a result This is not linked to the surgeon other than it being the same hospital
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy85lz5ppdo

Nurse drugging patients so her shifts were less busy
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-lancashire-67706765

Another member of staff who is also a rapist
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/ce989vygkz7o

I think you are slightly underestimating how violent people can be. When my family had social worker involvement, the social worker waited down the street for the police to arrive because the police carry things like tasers, batons and handcuffs and also wear stab proof vests. They can also arrest people. It didn't mean the social worker wasn't tough. It just meant they had a different role and different equipment.

Did they not used to be? I am sure that when my (gay couple) friends adopted a child they were restricted to above a certain (potty training?) age?

They were/are excellent loving parents however and would've been to a baby too, I am safe to say.

And can you imagine the outcry if social workers turned up to home visits tooled up? Not to mention fundamentally changing the role, remit and professional basis of social worker. The vast majority of social work is supportive in nature, their role involves care, support, scrutiny and protection - it’s a careful balance of working with people to promote and protect their rights and public protection. Very skilled and nuanced in a way most folk don’t understand, I can’t imagine any social worker wanting to attend a family with weaponry or powers of entry or arrest, that’s what we have police for.

I dont think gay men should be allowed to adopt, or pay women to have babies for them.

Yes, that’s how it was for us during that period post placement but pre adoption order. It’s supposed to be monitored closely, as the child is still in care! Where was the monitoring in this horrific case?

All I can think is that a teacher involved in safeguarding knew exactly what to say to explain away the bruises.

Completely heartbreaking.

I think men are inherently very selfish and far less capable of the sacrifices of parenthood than women; and that’s before you factor in the abuse aspect. I have deliberately avoided this case as it’s so upsetting but I remember an earlier article that said they often left the baby with one of the mums, and complained about the disturbance he brought to their lives. I feel there are a lot of men who want a baby to exercise their right to have one, and as an accessory. I am rabidly against men buying surrogate babies. It’s all utterly immoral and a safeguarding nightmare, and it’s the poor babies who pay the price for society being ‘equal and enabling’.