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

The doctor lost permission to work in the UK after the case came to light. She also sued for unfair dismissal. TBH that was another person who shouldn't have been in the position that she was in or even the CP cases being sent to Great Ormond Street hospital, it made communication even more difficult.

I think the whole system of not blaming anyone stinks tbh.

Unfit parents should be told they are not doing their job well enough. The mother was to blame, she chose to live with a violent man(not the child's father). She allowed her boyfriend's brother to bring a child into the house and have sex with her and live together like a couple. wtf she should be sterilised and let out of jail to face the public, I have zero sympathy for her. The boyfriend should also be let out of prison, not kept by the tax payer and let the public know where he lives. Ditto his brother.
As for the biological father well, what the hell was he doing???? I defy anybody to not know when their child's back has been broken yet how concerned was he?
The doctor was at fault-yet she has not been made as much a scape goat.
The whole "softly softly" approach of not critising bad parents is wrong and does nobody any favours imo.

I think she has little emotional intelligence which is inappropriate for a high level social worker. On the other hand proper procedure should have been followed if it was felt she wasn't up to the job, and I agree with those who say the social workers/ doctors etc didn't actually beat and kill this child. The mum and boyfriend did.
I hate the way the general public will turn social workers etc into hate figures rather than the abusers.
If relatives lie detecting abuse can be very hard, and a fractured back in a toddler who can't speak and is crying and moving all 4 limbs is not an obvious diagnosis. Broken limbs are easier to spot as there is often some deformity. I agree the doctor should have kept the child in for observation, as he should have been an obviously ill child, but I don't blame the doc for not spotting there was a spinal fracture if the mum said there hadn't been any trauma as it's not the first thing you'd look for.

The GMC disgreed with you, 2rebecca, IIRC. And they should know.

Great Ormond Street (and the police) did get away with very little scrutiny. I seem to remember the doctor in charge of the clinic where Peter was seen had been warning her bosses for months that children were in danger because staffing levels were far too low.

Oh, and the idea that Tracey Connolly is solely responsible misses the point, rather. TC came from a family with a history of abuse spanning generations, and a history of terrible failings by social services. I'm sure she had an extremely warped view of what was normal - and plenty of experience in telling SWs what they wanted to hear. Google Evening Standard, Islington childrens homes and paedophiles if you want to be really depressed. And amazed that Lord Laming the effrontery to write a report blaming everyone else for Peter's death, without mentioning his own role in the family history.

She wasn't a high level social worker 2rebecca, she was a teacher who had been appointed to a position with responsibility for child protection, which she had no experience of. The front line social workers were raising concerns, but the legal department blocked Peter being removed from his mother, and Sharon Shoesmith didn't help at all with her couldn't-care-less/"aren't we great" attitude.

That Sharon Shoesmith walked out of court with a big 'smile' on her face in no way belittles the case of baby P. She was fighting the case for unfair dismissal, ot answering a case about deficiencies in the handling of baby P case. Also of course she was made a scape goat. Why shouldn't she smile, she was probably relieved.

And actually just reading some of the comments on here, and the words used to decscribe this woman, witch hunt springs to mind

I don't recall the GMC saying that a fractured spine in a toddler was an obvious diagnosis and would be surprised if they did so. They probably felt the child was inadequately examined and the doctor didn't appreciate the severity of his condition and should have admitted him.

2rebecca - the latter, I think, but your original post on that issue sounded as if it was reasonable that the doc had missed the injury (IIRC didn't actually examine Peter 'because he was grouchy and uncooperative' or something equally stupid).

Joni, Shoesmith is no scapegoat. She is someone who accepted a very responsible position, who was paid to take responsibility, who knew full well that department had allowed a child to die in a high profile tragedy once before, who failed to respond to her own staff warning things were going very badly wrong, and finally, when a child died, she tried to cover it up.

If there were deficiencies in the handling of the case by her department then whilst the technical term is unfair dismissal, one has to question whether it was unfair that she was dismissed.
This is not a Witch Hunt, she was blamed for her role in the series of events which led to Baby P's death, if she had run her department better, if she had better qualified SWs handling a case like Peter Connelly, if she had better practice and procedures in place more in line with successful practices used in most of other LAs and Boroughs, if she had used better supervision of the SWs, a more experienced SW with hindsight would probably have been able to persuade the legal team the threshold for removal had been crossed, that doesn't actually make her a scape goat it makes her accountable for her action and inaction.

I just heard Sharon Shoesmith interviewed on radio 4 by John Humphrys. She did not come across well at all. I feel immensely sorry for social workers and I know they have a very difficult job to do, but she does come over as very defensive and combative.

She isn't a social worker and as has been said she was a high paid executive charged with running an effective department - that failed in a very tragic way. She is not a scapegoat - she should carry the can for her department's failings. That's why these posts carry high salaries, so they can take responsibility.

the LA didnt adhere to dismissal policies that's basis of her successful employment appeal not whether or not staff were capable practitioners.it is really important to keep those two issues separate - this is an employment tribunal about her dismissal and the process,not the case of baby Peter

and to clarify Ms Shoesmith isnt a SW,she teacher by training

As I said on the other thread on this, she is unspeakably arrogant.
Her whole attitude since the beginning of this case has only ever been about her.
I hope this woman is never employed in a position of responsibilty again.
The buck stopped with her and her £100,000 plus salary. As someone else said, she has no emotional intelligence or empathy.

so called buck stop with the violent killer and inadequate mother
undeniably the LA has institutional faults and poor practice but the "buck stop" is with the debased adults who perpetrated violence on a child

Of course it was the parents who were responsible, that goes without saying.
But we have Social Workers paid to make sure nothing like this ever happens.
And ultimately it was her department that failed Peter.

she won employment tribunal,about dismissal process
this wasnt another review of peter connelly case
people are mixing two separate things up.this appeal was employment tribunal not competency of practitioners or department.as unpalatable as one may find ms shoesmith or the failings of the LA this appeal wasnt about that

with regards to case other practitioners and dr have all had individual sanction and dismissal and serious case review undertaken.serious case review clearly identified systemic and individual failings. it is harrowing reading

but yesterday ruling was employment related

She gives the impression that she put more energy and effort into covering up her department's deficiencies and in fighting her own battles than in actually doing her job well. Which is probably why she was such a poor manager in her job - her main abilities lie in covering up and providing good soundbites, and glossing over inadequacies rather than producing good results which stand up to independent scrutiny.

She also gives the impression that she thinks the concept that she could in any way be responsible for Baby P's death most unfair. Yet imagine if she had been a good manager, interested in what she and her deparment were there to do...

Scottishmummy the thing is but for BabyP sadly she would just have carried on as before inept as ever but coasting along until the next Ofsted, and there would be no improper sacking.
So whilst she was sacked improperly- she didn't need to gloat about her victory when the whole sorry set of circumstances came about because of how she managed or mismanaged her department.

YY nijinsky and Silver1.
She seems more outraged about losing her job than the record of her department's failures, for which she had ultimate responsibility.
Her attitude throughout this whole tragic saga has been about her own self protection.

I am a CP Social worker and we work very very hard to protect children. On my team we all work well over 50 hours a week, evenings, weekends. Our caseloads are way above anything that they should be, newly qualified sw are given child protection cases on their first day because there are not enough staff to handle the amount of referrals that come through.

The job is so stressful, we get shouted at, spat on, threatened with physical violence, hit, thrown out of houses, cars stolen and burnt out and death threats.

I am only writing this to try and get people to understand the reality of the job. It is every social workers worst fear that a child dies or lives in fear and we do all we can everyday to stop that from happening. Some sw have caseloads of above 50 children!!

Everyone on my team went into the job to keep children safe and to give them a voice to stand up against those who abuse them. We are honestly doing all we can to protect children working within systems which do not support that role.