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

So how come the Chief Executive of Haringey wasn't fired if the buck stops at the top? How come she (the CEO) wasn't expected to 'take an interest' in the goings on of the DCS and the DDCS? How come Christine Gilbert wasn't fired given that OFSTED's previous APA (for the year before) judged the authority to be good as a whole and satisfactory for child protection? I think that's what people mean by the 'scapegoating' of Sharon Shoesmith. She alone was not responsible and if the buck stops somewhere, why does it stop with her rather than higher? Indeed, why doesn't it stop with the Secretary of State who created the new Children's Services departments? Who now remembers the name of the CEO of the LA or indeed SS's deputy, who had the social services background that everyone is criticising SS for not having?

It is clear that there were serious flaws in the way the department was run and no doubt Ms Shoesmith should have lost her job - with due process. Bear in mind, however, that she had a previously excellent employment history with the LA in Education (note the letter of support signed by the headteachers of the borough), so whether she should have been asked to leave without notice is another matter. Moreover, as with all social services departments, Haringey were operating under massive cost constraints with serious staffing issues, finding it difficult to recruit good staff and difficult (due to employment law) to get rid of less good staff.

It satisfies people's bloodlust to have a name to hang the guilt on. Just as on those awful threads about the McCanns are full of suggestions that since they 'looked at the camera funny' or bothered to comb their hair, they must not be feeling proper grief, so the threads about Sharon Shoesmith are full of the assumption that because she was a clearly ambitious woman with an apparently tough manner she is necessarily selfish and evil

It just seems that Sharon Shoesmith has a basic misunderstanding about what heading a department involves. Or perhaps I do.

What if a head teacher sat in his/her office, writing reports, commissioning reports, reviewing reports... whilst the whole school descended into chaos?

She wasn't personally responsible for Baby P's death, but she sure as hell was responsible for the shambollic performance of her department.

The buck stops with her because she was HEAD OF CHILDREN'S SERVICES, appointed to do the job. The Head, the top the person appointed to lead it. Yes she was very popular with teachers, some heads sent a letter in support, but she wasn't just running schools she was running the CHILD PROTECTION department as well.
Other Children's Services Departments get by without cases unravelling like this-so why shouldn't she have resigned?
There is a suggestion on here by a SW who has read the reports that her department wasn't understaffed but that her staff were under qualified.
No one is knocking ambitious women, generally their ambition drives them to do their job well so that they can rise higher, not completely ignore half of it.

OP Baby P was murdered almost 5 years ago when her daughters were still dependent on her, they might have a lucrative jobs now as you say. Not then, in 2006. As you know some of her family perhaps your OP is more personal than it seems?

Sharon Shoesmith lost her income/job as well as being humiliated by Ed Balls in a media circus. I imagine that she will be unemployable for the rest of her working life.

She might well be a pain. But she is not a murderer. She is not a psychopathic liar. She didn't break a 2 yr olds back.

At the moment I can't recall anyone else being treated in this way. I'm thinking Potters Bar where many people died. Is corporate responsibility only reserved for public sector management??

Silver by your reckoning surely the buck stops with Ed Balls as he was MINISTER for CHILDREN, SCHOOL and FAMILIES.

Good post, Singersgirl.

The buck stops with the person in charge of the department that wasn't working. Lots of departments with good managers do very well in the circumstances that they work in.

ADA07 I do not know the family AT ALL, I just know someone who worked with one of her daughters. I know what he and his team did, I know the field they work in pays well as do the employers he had, he has since moved on. So this isn't personal just a reflection of many people in society (the public) she was a public sector manager. To be frank that's the sort of inane cheap shot that Sharon Shoesmith would come out with, perhaps you know them well?

just out of interest silver, what do you do?

Never met her, silver. It was you who was claiming prior knowledge and putting me down. It does seem quite personal.

I do wonder why there has been no question of criminal charges being brought, as against some teachers when pupils have died on field trips.

A bit different nijinski - it wasn't a swollen river which killed this child but cruel, sadistic people who are in prison?

Speechless. This woman was the higher management that her staff could have contact with day on day, a position brought into being some decade ago after Victoria C.'s death. She was available daily to discuss, attend, collate necessary material and ensure that appropriate action was taken on every aspect of care of the children in, ultimately, her care. She says she could not know all the children on the At Risk Register. On a salary of £132,000+, I believe it was her remit to know. Figures quoted from Haringey just after her dismissal, 128 social workers, 176 children on their At Risk Register and an annual funding of £44,661,000. Ms.S. had two enquiries being carried out but she herself decided not to enquire about what was being done and found out, although every avenue was available to her. She appeared to believe that the proceedings were nothing to do with her. Many, many points do not add up with her story, but she states "I don't get into the realms of regrets in all parts of my life" and "I don't do blame". We know this decision was on a technicality, not that she was not guilty of overseeing torture and murder of baby P, but what about all the other children on the Register, did she know any of them? She says Ed Balls was irresponsible, how does she judge her own actions in relation to her care and protection of vulnerable babies and children?

2

quite, sybs.

Sybs - The director of children's services does not have day to day contact with frontline staff, be they teachers or social workers. IME experience there would probably be 3 layers of management between the frontline worker and the Director.

Go to your children's school and see how many of their teachers chat to the director of children's servoices on a daily basis.

Jeez, people are so ill-informed on this thread. I can tell you this - she does not have money. Had she lost her appeal she'd have lost everything and been homeless. She is not 'self-satisfied' or 'smug' just someone who had a very tough time for years and finally got some justice for being treated unlawfully. Ok she may not come across well but she's had no media training. The judgment doesn't say she was blameless - just that she was treated unlawfully in respect of her dismissal. She was entitled to get compensation for that.

The remit of a DCS is vast - there are around 70 schools in Haringey, so even at the headteacher level that would be 70 heads to have daily contact with, never mind the 'frontline staff' ie the teachers. Then there's social services on top of that.... I think some of the assumptions about the role of DCS made on this thread are extraordinary. No one living in London goes into a job in children's services of any kind for a cushy life or a Fat Cat salary.

There's no suggestion, as far as I can see, that SS was not a dedicated and hardworking professional (if you read the detailed judgments available online), though she might have been inefficient and ill able to cope with the challenges of the DCS role.

I quote from the Foskett judgment: ?She was plainly very highly thought of within the Borough and continued to be highly thought of by her colleagues within Haringey until the events with which this case is concerned.?

And again: "67 head-teachers from State-funded schools in Haringey wrote to The Times praising the Claimant as ?an outstanding public servant? and referred to her commitment and leadership in the education field and the improvements made in the Borough in the time she had worked there. They suggested that if she should be lost to Haringey ?then our children and young people will lose one of their most effective, determined and committed champions.? They referred to her role in transforming ?a demoralised education service? and to the ?exceptional rate of improvement of many of the borough?s schools [which] would not have been possible without the support of the service that [the Claimant] rebuilt, revitalised and led.?

I don't think anyone is saying that she is necessarily 'blameless' or that she should not have lost her job (and neither does the recent ruling say that), merely that, as with all employees she was entitled to a fair dismissal procedure.

Sybs7 Originally Ms.Shoesmith was in education, but she accepted the post that had been set up after the death of Victoria to ensure a much closer watch would be kept on children at risk. There are perhaps 3 layers, it is stated, until you reach the Head of Social Services. However because of her remit, people in charge of the lower echelons should know when it is essential that the Head is made aware, and it is down, surely, to this Head to organise the set-up as she wishes.
A Serious Case Review into the death of Baby P. which had been overseen by SS in the capacity of Head of Soc.Serv., an in house review, failed numerous examples of good practice in the toddler's care and many factors contributed to official failures to realise he was suffering abuse. From this finding the 3 other case reviews were implemented and SS knew what would be in these reports as she had covered up what had been discovered in the internal audit.
On Monday, 1st Dec. the results were received by Ed Balls who made an appearance on TV at 2pm. I, and others, cannot understand why SS was at home on a work day. The media hype would have got underway after Ed Balls' statement. At this time a number of other members of staff were suspended or removed from child protection work, pending further investigation, or sacked, SS was not alone, but she was in charge! The leader of the Council, George Meehan resigned and so did Liz Santry, Councillor responsible for Children's Services.
It has been written in black & white that whilst these enquiries were in progress, SS was aware of all circumstances and as the findings became abundantly clear, she still failed to respond, very strange!
The salary of £132,000+ is not to be sneezed at, and as she is now carrying out Conference speaking, she is still earning considerable amounts of money. Social Services are dealing with human beings not commodities and SS was the person who oversaw vulnerable babies and children.
As some 68 heads of schools supported SS, perhaps she should have stayed in teaching and not taken on a post that was obviously above her capabilities.
I do take on board that the Judges were evaluating the manner of her dismissal and not whether she had carried out her duties as Head of Social Services as would have been expected of a highly paid and supposedly capable public servant! They did not say she should not have been sacked, merely that Ed Balls did not follow proper procedure. Therefore had 'proper procedure' been followed and she had been sacked, then presumably the Judges would have thrown out the case, together with any claim for compensation!

As a qualified Social Worker, who does have responsibility for child protection, (what Social Worker doesn't?) I am truly heartened by the comments from the majority of posters on here - thank you for supporting the 'front line workers' and not victimising us as a group en masse. We are heart sick of the red tape and legislative barriers that prevent us from doing our job. If we remove children we are damned, if we don't we are damned - this country needs to get a grip and recognise that there are a huge number of people who cannot raise a child in any recognisably beneficial way and stop wringing their hands about the rights of parents. 'The welfare of the child is PARAMOUNT' - no if's, no but's. I LOVE my job, but it costs me, and my family, emotionally, physically, financially, and emotionally to carry out my role to the best of my ability. S. Shoesmith should have the humility to and grace to admit that she is part of a system that is rotten to the core.

Oooh, I said 'emotionally' twice .... just goes to show that the 'job' does get to you in the face of useless managers and policy & procedures.

If we accept that she did not deserve to be sacked for incompetence, then I think it is perfectly reasonable to expect her to adopt a professional demeanour in a sensitive situation.

To be talking in public about being thrilled at the end of a court case that must have brought up harrowing memories for many people shows a lack of sensitivity that is quite remarkable. Whatever happened to gravitas? Why would you need media training to observe a serious professional behaviour?