TO think Sharon Shoesmith should have walked out of court by a side exit

[Silver1]

Sharon Shoesmith was the Director of Children's Services in Harringey at the time of Peter Connelly's death he was known to most of us as Baby P.

AIBU to feel really upset -although the judge upheld the report by OFstead that her department was inadequate and that her own own review of the case was deficient.
I know that actually she didn't kill that little boy.
I know that Ed Balls could have and should have followed proper procedures if he decided that she wasn't fit for purpose
But did she really have to walk out of court with a beaming smile and say she was "over the moon"
The Badman report (independent) concluded that ''In this case the practice of the majority, both individually and collectively expressed as the culture of safeguarding and child protection at the time, was incompetent and their approach was completely inadequate to meet the challenge presented by the case of child A (Peter).''

A little boy died-because her department which was supposed to protect him missed their chances to save him because of the practices that she was over seeing. She should have had the grace to leave the court by one of the many side exits.

It is all over the news

[donnie]

I agree that SS does not come over as the most touchy-feely and emotional of all people. Being a top professional in an incredibly difficult job where, basically, everyone hates you and all you ever get is slagged off must contribute to that rather hard veneer.

She did not kill a child though.

Ed Balls' handling of her dismissal was kneejerk and clearly wrongly managed, as the courts have shown.

[Serenitysutton]

TBH though, A number of children under her ?watch? have died or contracted life threatening or life limiting injuries, the same as they will continue to under the watch of other heads of child services.
Its like saying someone died in A&E- how could a doctor allow that to happen?- people are in hospital because they are sick, and sometimes they die. Children come to the attention of her department because they are in danger. Her department try and remove the danger but it doesn?t always work. But the situation, when they arrive in it, is already dangerous and negative. If they were not involved at all, many more children will die- they are successful in saving some but can?t ?stop? them all being killed. Such an awful thought, but it is the reality of life I think.

Baby Ps death isn?t the first and tragically won?t be the last. It?s a terrible situation and a terrible thing to say, none of us want abuse to happen. But we can?t stop it, we can?t control people. We can only do the best way can to police an educate and have a system in place which also does the best it can to protect the vulnerable.

[minieggfannomore]

Maybe she already donates money to children's charities. Have you thought of that?

I don't care about the woman herself, but if she was wrongfully dismissed (which she was) she is entitled to compensation.

Why do you feel angered by that? If you lost your job unfairly wouldn't you expect to be compensated?

Also, don't forget she didn't just lose her job she was publicly vilified in the process (which is why you are jumping up and down now because of her supposed 'smugness').

[donnie]

I think I remember a stat that 2 children are murdered every week by abusive and violent parent/carers. What the fuck is being done about this? is more money and better training being diverted in to social services? somehow I doubt it. How does Cameron's Big Society address this stat?

[Pedallleur]

Maybe the more money and better training is not the answer rather the parents should not be abusive and violent. prevention is far preferable to cure

[Serenitysutton]

how are you going to stop them being abusive and violent? tell them off?

[donnie]

pedallleur - so, how would you go about making violent and abusive parents all nice and friendly then?

[Birdsgottafly]

The law was not used by Haringey or Shoesmith, did it then make it right to then ignore the law and dismiss her, how is that improving anything?

Donnie-you could not prevent all child deaths without an abuse of power. We have to ensure that the risk is minimised and Haringey L.A. didn't do that.

[Flowerista]

Her reaction is in very poor taste. But really what did you expect from someone who hasn't got any integrity or sense of accountability. Stupid stupid Ed Balls that's another 400k out of the public purse. Enjoy spending your money Shaz, top tips in the Extravagence thread!

[Silver1]

Ed Balls has just said that he would make the same decision again
a snippet from the Guardian

^Mr Balls added: "Having thought long and hard about this decision over the last two years - and having read the Appeal Court judgment today - I know that, faced with the same circumstances, I would make the same decisions again.

"In our democracy there is a proper and essential role for the judiciary in ensuring that the law is respected, and the process of decision-making is within the law.

"A year ago last April, following an exhaustive judicial review, the High Court judge found that my decision to remove Sharon Shoesmith from the post of director of children's services in Haringey was lawful and that in directing her removal and replacement I acted fairly and properly. So it is very surprising and disappointing that the Appeal Court has taken a contrary view.

"Ministers need to be able to exercise their legal duties and make judgments in the public interest based on independent analysis and advice.

"That is what I did - and I am concerned that this judgment will make it harder for ministers to do so in future.^

[Birdsgottafly]

Donnie- you only have to read the number of threads were people are hearing and seeing abuse but not reporting it to know that it is not all the fault of the SS. Then there are the other types of threads were people have been outraged to be investigated after an allegation, SS cannot win on this one.

[nijinsky]

She has won her appeal against unfair dismissal for reasons of due procedure not being followed. That doesn't mean she wasn't incompetent in doing her job.

She does however seem to have failed to have taken any personal responsibility for her part in Baby P's death. Which would seem to suggest that sacking her was the correct decision, and that damages is simply the penalty that had to be paid for getting rid of such an unpopular underperforming figure in an important public role.

She could have resigned and taken personal responsibility in terms of her role for the inadequacies of the department she was paid handsomely to run. She does seem to have difficulty in reconciling the fact that she was paid to run a department and her responsibility for the failings of that department.

What a pity poor Baby P didn't have a team of lawyers to stand up for his interests and compensation to soothe his upset feelings.

[giveitago]

But in baby p's case they didn't - her childminder didn't for sure.She's at the top of the tree but her huge salary reflects her huge responsibility and if it's found failing then she (or he) should go but our law doesn't go into the morals of her leadership but rather into her sacking and this this case her sacking was found to be unfair.

So, they should have sacked her properly.

Who gives a shit if she gives the money to a children's charity. I'd be surpised if she does as she's representing herself and not vulnerable kids. She's not on a child protection crusade but she's trying to show she was sacked unfairly. And she has. This doesn't make her some fairy god mother though - it just showed that she was sacked unfairly (as opposed to fairly).

[Silver1]

Well said Nijinsky

[nijinsky]

Actually quite an insightful comment from Ed Balls, surprised by that. In other words, she was considered so irredeemably incompetent that £400,000 was a price worth paying to get rid of her. Perhaps if the correct procedures had been followed, dismissal on the same grounds would have been fair.

[donnie]

Birds - we are on the same side here. I despair at what SS have to deal with and at the way they are regularly harangued and slagged off by so many people.

If it takes an abuse of power to intervene effectively in stopping child cruelty then surely the balance of individual liberty and power is wrong?

[MonstaMunch]

Then there are the other types of threads were people have been outraged to be investigated after an allegation, SS cannot win on this one.

agree with that. to be honest whenever someone says SS is involved but "I am a good mum" I always think to myself, yes and thats the exact words Baby Peter's mum used

[wordfactory]

Shoesmith did not kill this child but he was killed on her watch...in the circumstances I'm shockedthat she can't accept even the tiniest amount of responsibility.

Sure the dept had a lot going and was underfunded and understaffed...but she knew that and continued in her post. By doing so she was implicitly saying that she accepted the responsibility.
The fact that she is unable to see this tells me that she must have been an dreadful line manager.

However, Ed Balls did not follow the correct procedure for sacking someone...procedure which his governement put in place, making it harder and harder to sack anyone wihtout being sued. Welcome to the world of employers Ed.

[Birdsgottafly]

I think that the system works quite well, if used. The biggest 'threat' to a child is the breakdown of family and the fact that we have stopped 'keeping an eye' on each other. If it wasn't for 'interfering' family members, there would be more child deaths. I don't think that you can give more power to SS, tbh. In this case Peters father was not given a chance again you only have to read this forum to see that people consider their children to be solely 'theirs' and its very true that you never know what goes on behind closed doors unless you stick your nose in.

[nijinsky]

In this sort of case (senior public official underperforming/unpopular and no longer tenable in office) what tends to happen is a compromise agreement (similar to a "golden handshake") drawn up by lawyers, often preventing the parties discussing it and providing financial terms on which the employee is happy to leave. This didn't happen in Shoesmith's case. So I guess she feels hard done by from that point of view, as there are an awful lot of golden handshakes handed out in the public sector.

So I suppose she is right to say she was made a bit of a scapegoat really. But then that surely is the nature of working in social service and making your career out of working with vulnerable children, young people and families? And the public would have probably thought more of her if she had admitted her incompetence and taken it on the chin, instead of behaving like a martyr.

Yes, it was his family that killed Baby P but the other adults involved were specifically employed to prevent situations like that happening. You do get adults out there who harm their children, hence this is why we have Social Services Departments.

[Serenitysutton]

nijinsky, I think thats probably the case actually. you pay someone £150k a year, get rid of them unlawfully and it costs you £400k. They're still gone, and its the only way you can get rid of them, really. I think they just figured they'd take the hit of the payout. The def knew they were acting unlawfully in sackigng her.

[Columbia999]

She should never have been in that job in the first place. Her entire career prior to that was in Education, so she had no experience of child protection or any other area of social work.

[Birdsgottafly]

Wordfactory-although i agree with you, the department was not underfunded and understaffed, procedures were not followed by any of the managers. This is not a case of an over stretched department, the department failed to carry out the law, without good leadership this tragedy then occured.

But she shouldn't have been sacked in the manner that she was and she certainly shouldn't have heared about it first on television.

[Birdsgottafly]

Columbia- Haringey had problems finding staff after V Climbie and it was a mess, basically.