GUILTY - rest in peace dear Elsie

[bostonkremekrazy]

Adopter found Guilty today of the murder of little Elsie.
Eight months of abuse behind closed today - after his second daddy went to work, not knowing how her injuries were caused.
A broken leg, facial bruising, a catalog of injuries while in the care of SS - reported by the health visitor - and yet the adoption still went ahead - how on earth did this happen?
An inquiry will now begin with the relevant Social Services.

Sad beyond belief.

It’s such an awful case.

I find it hard to get my head around it, my brain stops at the thought ‘but you didn’t just get stuck with a child, you went through an incredibly long and arduous process in order to invite a child into their family. And yet even as that process was happening the abuse was incredibly serious and doing unspeakable harm.... how does that fit together?’

I guess it challenges my assumptions about what it takes for an adult to abuse a tiny child in a lengthy and fatal manner. I think I’d internalised the idea that anyone who does that cannot love the child they torture and kill. All of which is more fitted to a birth parent or a partner of the child’s parent never having a bond and never wanting the child at all. But this man actively wanted this little child in his life... so how does that fit together? Especiallly as they had another child, so it’s not like he went into parenthood with rose coloured glasses.

I guess it comes down to the plain fact that abuse isn’t logical, or reasonable.

That poor little girl

I think that abuse is more about wanting to have power over someone and control them. And less about love / not love or wanting / not wanting someone in your life.

Otherwise the many many men who abuse their partner would just leave. And abusive parents would just hand over their children over to SS because they didn’t love them.

I’m talking in general of course.

Yes you are of course right Kr1st1na, I couldn’t make my way through it in the depths of last night.

I guess there is never a satisfactory answer about how someone can do these atrocious and senseless acts. Because, there just isn’t ever a reason that makes sense to normal people. I’m looking for the impossible.

That poor little child, and every other child abused and neglected. I’m so sorry.

Social services let this poor baby down. Missing so much of the abuse she was subject to. They should also be hanging their heads in shame and having their liscence revoked. I'd be devastated if I was the sw on this case. I'd be questioning my abilities.

Its so hard isn't it because everybody is going to want to point the finger....but the finger was pointed at the dad, and he was found guilty and will spend minimum 18 years in prison.

SS visited and while they knew Elsie had been injured there were explanations for the injuries. Explanations Doctors believed.

HV saw an injury and advised Elsie needed to see the GP and the father lied and said he had taken her - do HV normally check every single time? - so far in the media, this is the only reported concern that has not been followed up....
Other dad has said in his evidence that the hospital gave no leaflet re advice regarding her injury, should they have done so? Perhaps if they had other dad would have suspected something wasn't right.
If the second leg fracture was spotted at the time of the injury - it would have triggered being seen by a consultant not only the registrar - the registrar missed the second fracture (easily done in tiny bones), who would have known it was a sign of abuse by the nature of that bone being broken.
Neighbours hearing the awful things father was shouting (only after other dad left for work) never reported it to anybody - could have called childline, RSPCC, the GP, social services as they knew Elsie was adopted...what did they do? nothing...

who are people pointing the finger at? SS - who visited probably for 30 minutes at a time (and if anything like mine sometimes during naptime), yes 15 times, but the house was spotless, Elsie was beautifully dressed and clean, probably tottering about happily, SW who was probably overworked, with children needing to be placed, children in at risk homes, etc etc etc....and the father who could fool his family into thinking all was ok, fooled them as well.

There is one person responsible for Elsie's death, and he is now paying for his crime.

Yes, it's true that there is only one person who murdered her, and that he is now in prison.

But we're none of us islands, and I think there should be a long hard look at ourselves, as a society, and time a child gets murdered, and if anything can be changed, it should be.

"This is one man who went rogue!" Is the type of thinking that keeps the USA's gun laws as they are. We're pack animals, any time one of the pack kills their young, we need to work out what went wrong.

It may be that he is a particularly devious psychopath/bad person, but there will still be things we can learn, as a society. Perhaps SWs need to not just visit for short periods over nap time, see the bedroom and go, for instance?

I wouldn't assume SW were only there for a short time - we're visited alternately by our SW and our children's SW and those visits last for around 90 mins to 2 hours. This person was able to present a good front to his family and his partner - if the person who lives with him had no idea he was struggling so much how on earth would any professional be able to tell?

The person responsible for this child's death is the person who killed her. Yes there needs to be a review into what happened but I can guarantee that for the SWs and HVs involved this will be life changing.

I'm guessing on the type of visit because of who the LA is and what I know of them.
It would be nice if everyone could have 2 hour visits but there simply isnt the manpower - SW are leaving the job in droves (are we not surprised?). When are they supposed to find the time to fit more visits, longer visits in? (I see it is postcode lottery of course).
I agree Jelly, the SW (who's names are now public knowledge) will be affected deeply by this, but it isnt their fault.
Overworked, underpaid.
Review the work yes, but they visited often, cared about that little girl, will have grieved the loss.

I certainly don't think the SWs should be blamed in this!

But looking for system failure/suboptimality could prevent another case. Under the current government and underfunding, though, nothing can change, and more children will die for many many reasons.

Our SW told us yesterday that he thinks this will slow down approvals. His manager has called in all current PAR assessments for review. And he thinks it will make people more cautious about same sex adoption (which he is very pro, FWIW)

I’ve said this a million times before; SS have no idea if their home study process works, because they don’t go back post-AO and check. They don’t know whether your drinking spirals out of control or if you gamble the house away or divorce within a year of placement (unless of course SS get involved again or something like this happens).

I know why they don’t, but I also don’t see why anyone has much faith that it does.

I’ve also seen lots of (non-adopters) say that the approval process is rigorous- I really didn’t feel like it was.

And our prep course was dreadful. Didn’t prepare us for a thing.

I don’t blame any of the individual SWs involved here at all but I think the whole process needs re-examining.

I wonder if in the process of speeding the process up south of the border some of the checks and balances aren't there in the way they once were. Our process was very rigorous and by sheer coincidence spanned the most difficult 3 years of our life together (hence it took 3 years). Our SW saw us in times of real stress and anxiety and lost placement support has been strong.

I know that isn't the case in many places and that systems are under resourced but I can't help but think it should be a longer process for a reason - speeding things up inevitably leads to less in depth assessment and "stress testing".

Sorry, post placement support. Though lost may be the right term in some places.

Our SW told us yesterday that he thinks this will slow down approvals. His manager has called in all current PAR assessments for review. And he thinks it will make people more cautious about same sex adoption

I don’t think the issue here is same sex adoption per se. Because it’s overwhelmingly men ( straight and gay ) who are responsible for these types of crime against women and children.

It’s not sexuality that’s the issue here, it’s sex. It’s men that are more likely to be violent and so a family with two men is higher risk that one with one or no men.

Same as a prospective adoptive family with three existing children are considered higher risk than a single person or couple with no children .

So statistically , lesbian couples or single women are lower risk than gay men or MF couples.

I agree with fatberg and kristina.

It's homophobic to suggest same sex placements are a problem as it's likely that statistically a lesbian family is the safest place for a child.

And no, it's not rigorous is it? Our dc have a sibling who has been adopted by a couple who speak all the time about 'telling ss what they want to hear'. They mean wrt discipline (smackers), building attachment (psycho babble) and time off work (maybe 2 months parental leave).

Its really distasteful to be talking about the best place statistically to place a child in regards to sexuality.

The best place for a child should always be with their family - we of course know that sadly thats not always possible.

We also know that gay, straight, bi, people will murder children.
lesbians - Look at the sad case of Liam Fee - poor baby.
M-F couples - look at Billie-Jo Jenkins.
Single F, Victoria Climbie was left in the care of her single aunt.

This is not as clear cut as, a lesbian or single F is the safest place.

This has nothing to do with sexuality, or sex, but power and abuse.

No sorry I can't see what's 'distasteful' about that at all. I might be wrong I suppose but that's different.

Statistically men are far more likely to commit violent crime than women - as kristina points out. So a child is statistically less likely to be hurt in a house without men in it. I had not included single female adopters - apologies for that.

Of course there are exceptions. There always are, but that doesn't make the data wrong.

And I'm only pointing this out in response to what someone's sw said. It wouldn't be fair not to challenge that as it's homophobic (not saying the poster is homophobic but the sws statement is).

I think abuse can also be to do with lack of coping, not just to do with power. If someone is not able to recognise their own feelings and deal with them, process them, take responsibility for them, it means the feelings are going to be suppressed and more likely to come out in inappropriate or volatile ways without control - shouting, swearing, hitting.

Also the transcripts of texts from the convicted father printed in the metro do show a lack of knowledge of development, whether he had previous experience or not, and that the child was being criticised for things which were developmentally normal and for expected behaviour given the child's past.

What the SW said sounded like a knee jerk reaction, but saying the problem is to do with men and sex is an extreme view.

Violence is most likely to arise (in both sexes) when there is a lack of self control combined with a lack of empathy. I have seen no research saying it is innate or hardwired in men. The research on the brain currently goes the other way. Violence is also to do with culture.

I don't think it's innate or hardwired and I totally agree with you about a lack of coping mechanisms leading to abuse.

But 90+% of violent crime is committed by men iirc. There are many many reasons for that. But there's nothing extreme or strange or distasteful about pointing that fact out.

No - I'm wrong - in terms of violent crimes against family and children it's more like 80%.

That's still pretty high.

I think that what fatberg has said is probably more relevant. Many threads on here follow the theme of playing the game, jumping through hoops etc to get approved - which possibly means that the people who get approved are good at playing the game and jumping through hoops but not necessarily (one way or the other, ie they may or may not be) going to be good parents to vulnerable and/or challenging children.

I think that there is often a very high bar in adoption. Adopters are the new start, the ones who provide the new life, the one the child deserves. To then find out and admit that they can't do it might be difficult to deal with for some. And then there is the fear of children being taken away if you seek help.

In relation to other lessons to be learned, one commentator said that once the wheels start turning after placement it is very difficult to stop them. I am not sure how true it is, but I have heard it before, and if it is true it is something which could and should be changed, surely.

In relation to other lessons to be learned, one commentator said that once the wheels start turning after placement it is very difficult to stop them.

Do you mean it’s not easy to disrupt a placement pre-AO?

I think that the person who said it meant that after placement it gets pushed along, takes on a life of its own, and any individual SW raising doubts would find it difficult to get the placement re-assessed. So yes, before AO.

It should be not easy to disrupt! Disruption is a disaster. Although, of course, murder, or abuse, is worse.

Saying gay men should be under more scrutiny is homophobic. All men are more likely to be violent to their family members than women. Stats say so. Prison populations say so. It's unlikely to be 'hardwired', more 'society wired', but observing that an unpalatable phenomenon exists doesn't have to say why it occurs, nor does it mean we can ignore it. Violence is to do with culture, yes. Our culture makes our men more violent than our women.