To think gullibility is a bad qualification for child protection

[friday16]

Or, to be charitable, thinking the best of people.

In the aftermath of the Peter Connolly case, we were repeatedly told how the mother was a clever, plausible, manipulative woman who was able to twist professionals around her finger. Then we saw video footage of her, and saw a dishevelled, incoherent mess with a long history of mental health issues: the precise opposite of the elegant, cool deceiver. This was not American Psycho.

Now in the Daniel Pelka case, we are asked to believe that no-one could have seen through the mother's story that "Daniel's dramatic weight loss was due to a rare genetic disorder". Not a teacher, not a social worker, not (ffs) a consultant paediatrician. We then hear a recording of the 999 call, and (again) it's an incoherent woman who can barely speak English. How was she able to spin a subtle and coherent web of lies which fooled all the terribly clever professionals, when she couldn't string a sentence together?

You have obviously not worked in any of these professions if you don't believe that people can present a front to hide who they actually are. People intent on harm can be intelligent and very plausible.

To be fair, most people making 999 calls are far from composed, and meeting a parent on their own terms, on familiar territory is not the same as seeing them in a police interview room etc.

There is also a degree of seeing a 'them and us' type thing. People don't think of children in these situations as being just like their own children, but as something 'other'.

And then there is the question of what happens to the children when they are removed from families. There is a lack of foster parents, and generally families have to be very dysfunctional/dangerous before a care placement is a better option.

People on the ground have to take all those things, and more, into account, and sometimes children slip through the net. Perhaps because people's views of 'acceptable' are coloured by what they see day in, day out.

It will always happen, because people (parents and professionals) are fallible/damaged/unpredictable.

Well both the OP and littlewhitbag have a reasonable point here IMHO

Peter Connolly's mother was manipulative. She was very good at establishing relationships with professionals where she displayed her vulnerability in order to get them on side. And this helped obscure the fact that she was complicit in the sadistic abuse of her son. No one in real life is like American Psycho - but some vulnerable people are effective at manipulation. I'd be impressed if the OP in an equivalent situation did not get duped herself - maybe she has been already, these kind of situations often arise in supportive communities where people try to help others. I've known all kinds of support groups, religious communities and voluntary organisations become unhealthily dominated by one person's needs simply because the other people present have goodwill. It takes an excellent capacity for critical reflection, challenging supervision and long experience to be able to maintain an effective distance when working with people like this.

But the vast majority of vulnerable people, even emotionally manipulative vulnerable people are not sadistic murderers. So even when professionals make mistakes like this it rarely leads to tragedies on the scale of what happened to Peter Connolly or Daniel Pelka.

It would be wrong to excuse the failure of many professionals to talk to Daniel and establish how much he was suffering. I am sure there are many people in Coventry who bitterly regret not taking action when they could. But their errors probably did not arise out of simply gullibility.

My example isn't quite the same, but does show that people can fool the professionals if they really want to.

We have a close relative with severe mental health issues. For years the young adult children tried to tell doctors that there was a very real and potentially dangerous situation going on. Nothing was done and when the relative was finally interviewed they appeared as normal as the average person. They were clever and cunning and had just enough control to fool professionals who should have known better. It was only when people outside the family were at threat that anything was done.

It is very sad, but I can believe that social workers, doctors and teachers didn't have the time or understanding to do something.

The problem is that many of us would probably be flagged up.

Say, for example, when DS fell off his cot basically head first on the floor. (I think, as he had a large bump on his head and I didn't see it)

You don't have to be very clever or suave to lie convincingly.

The problem is that many of us would probably be flagged up.

Say, for example, when DS fell off his cot basically head first on the floor.

Although presumably the police haven't made thirty visits to your house following reports of domestic violence, your DS isn't scavenging for food in bins, your DS's school hasn't locked food away because of a mysterious un-named "rare genetic disorder" that is causing him to lose a large amount of weight but makes eating dangerous and he doesn't have a large number of unexplained bruises on his body?

people can be deceptive i know a little about child protection and i also know parents who say things that sound plausible I do not think i am gullible people can present a front, many people are dishevieled (sp) and seem out of sorts does not mean they are abusing their children, I know of somebody who was spotless her children were spotless but the neglect and abuse that went on was terrible.

FWIW i do agree that these little boys were let down nothing was done for them

I think the issue is that many many children DO have illnesses etc ....sometimes for a period of time. And they are genuine too.....schools etc are USED to parents saying "it's x, y or z" and these parents are NOT abusing their children. The parents might also be a dishevelled mess but doesn't mean they are abusing their children.

Also people tend to take things at face value...if you are told a child has an o going issue causing weight loss, you see regular appointment letters etc then generally you are going to go down the path of "he is being seen by a doctor for his health issue"

They are not cool deceivers but they are persuasive that things are okay when they are not. The consultant paediatrician will only do something if they have concrete evidence of abuse.....maybe when the child was seen they didn't. You can't remove a child because they are losing weight and you just dot believe the parents. You have to have concrete proof that the child is being deliberately starved and that is difficult to prove without moving into the house.

I will be honest and say I have not read Daniel's case as it sounds too distressing

You have a point OP, just HOW do these people fool others? I can only answer that they just DO. There will be something concrete about what they are saying which reassures. And they can be very convincing.

It's a horrible case....

No the difficulty is that police making visits to the house because of domestic violence were different people to the teachers being told lies about a child's medical condition (a plausible lie - Prader-Willi Syndrome does exist, Daniel did not have it) and different again to the health visitors being notified by A&E when he attended hospital with injuries which indicate neglect or violence. Daniel did, incidentally, suffer a cut on the head at 8m which his mother explained as the result of falling during a nappy change, but whether this was true or not is unknown.

If the teachers, health visitors and police had all known everything that each other had known they might have seen the picture of abuse emerging. But equally would we want women who are victims of domestic violence to resist seeking help because this will automatically mean their confidentiality is breached and disclosures are made about their relationships to their child's school or to medical services - making genuinely vulnerable women too scared to seek help because of the stigma this might place upon their parenting will also place children at risk.

As I said I do not want to excuse inadequate practice and the SCR does highlight poor practice. But if we want children to be safe we need to search for better answers than the police and teachers and healthcare professionals are either gullible or do not care about children.

Deception comes in many forms- although I agree with some of the points the OP is making.

There needs to be much, much more training for school staff especially in tactics a users use to conceal abuse. This can include presenting themselves as a victim.

You can't remove a child because they are losing weight and you just not believe the parents.

Surely, if you're a paediatrician dealing with a case, actually knowing what the "rare genetic disorder" might be quite useful? It's hardly disbelieving the parents to ask what the condition he has is, and perhaps get some details?

Prader-Willi Syndrome does exist, Daniel did not have it

It's possible my Google skills aren't working this afternoon, but I can find no suggestion that the parents claimed he did. It's not in the SCR, nor does it appear to be in any of the court reporting. They just cited "a genetic condition", unspecified.

What I find baffling in this case is how they managed to use to excuse that he had a rare genetic disorder. My 11yo dd has a rare-ish condition, she has had some of her blood held at our local children hospital since she was 3. That sample is still on a database and has had various people with an interest in her condition examine it and there is no end to the number of consultants who want to see her How did this get past a pediatrician without corroboration or referral to a consultant?

Thank goodness it's refreshing to see a post from someone recognising that the mothers in these cases are often being manipulated and abused by their partners.

Our tendency to scapegoat is unforgivable in this instance, whether we are scapegoating the mother or a particular professional, we are simply not learning by our mistakes.

The top-down management of the NHS, the Police and the furtive jobs-for-the-boys nature of SS all lead to cover-ups, buck-passing and as a result, institutional neglect of children.

I'm furious about this. WTF planet was that consultant paediatrician, paid by the taxpayer at least £100 per HOUR, on?

In both cases protocol wasn't followed, if it was, both boys would be alive, today.

The SRC in PC case stated that, people didn't use what was available and didn't do their jobs properly.

The same can be said in the second case, a CAF should of been used, but then I have seen parents on here object to CAF's when medical conditions are involved.

Having these protocols in place should save lives, but they can give everyone a false sense of security and I have worked with people who are not thorough enough, to double check that things are being done and are in place.

Friday, the parents used the fact that English was not their first language and it was assumed by teachers etc that it was possibly PWS.

That is the problem, assumptions were made, not factual information gathered.

Schools need to recognise that the Summer holidays and Christmas time should be a time that a referral is made, to have checks in place over a non school attendance period.

Miss, there are still some branches of the medical professions that are not using safeguarding procedures and they don't see themselves linked to Children Services.

In many LA's the recording system doesn't include schools or health and this isn't being addressed or budgets allowing this to happen.

The amount spent on inadequate recording and sharing systems is a disgrace. Anyone who sees a child or their family should be on an information sharing system.

From the little I've read, the school did try to flag up their concerns, but nobody else acted.

Friday, the parents used the fact that English was not their first language and it was assumed by teachers etc that it was possibly PWS.

Could you point me to an account of this? It's not in the published SCR.

But the bruises all over his little body ....... :( As well as the weight loss.

Good lord when my DD1 was 6 her dad was playing a game in with her a shop in Richmond, while i was shopping, swinging her round by her hands. Gently - not like a maniac. Somehow this popped her shoulder out momentarily and we took her straight to A&E to have her checked out.

It was the first time she had ever been to hospital. SS visited us 3 days later, to ''check up on her''. And fair enough. Fair enough.

I do not understand how a child be tortured for that long in so many ways, and have that many agencies and professionals see him, and be concerned about him (the school did report his state) and it STILL slip through the net?

I've been 'questioned' by the SS, it was a learning experience. They entered my home, talked to each of my family in turn in private, saw there was nothing to worry about, I got some perspective and got some support.

Medical conditions, disability are a reason for MORE input and support, not less.

DP died of starvation, he must have been desperately thin. I think the doctors were avoiding dealing with it because they knew they would be rumbled for not intervening sooner. They are all in it for the money, their jobs and their status. That is the manipulation we should be looking at.

PC's mother was manipulated by the men around her. They had records of serious violence and there was a case file on the empty desk of a police station for months which prevented protection measures being brought in sooner. And Balls goes in and sacks the Director of Social Services. A great triumph for democracy that was.

1. It is possible to reduce type 1 and type 2 errors, but they cannot be eliminated. They are a fact of life. And people die as a result, which is utterly terrible. This is true for possible abuse cases, clinical trials, identifying potential terrorists, and many other situations.

2. To my eye, you are posting in a very aggressive tone towards other people, Friday16. You may be very angry about what has happened, but there is no need to be angry towards random posters on Mumsnet about it.

it was assumed by teachers etc that it was possibly PWS.

Seriously? Primary school teachers felt able to diagnose a very rare, complex genetic condition based on what? Reading Katie Price's columns in the paper?

OK, let's accept that for a moment. PWS is associated with wide-ranging health issues, developmental delay, etc, etc. If the school believed the child had PWS, what measures did they put in place to help him? Did they apply for a statement, which would surely be immediately granted?