Laura Corkill - Her Son's Eulogy

[Dreamwhisper]

I'm just reading the article on the BBC about the experience of Leiland-James' birth mother.

I understand that there are two sides to every story, and that being honest and 100% factual about the complexities around a child being removed can be hard to unpick.

But the whole situation really shines a light on women who are losing everything, losing their children, due to the actions of abusive men.

I was so horrified and brought to tears (well I was crying the whole time) when I read the following:

"They even tried to write the eulogy," she says. The BBC has seen a draft copy of it sent by a social worker, which includes the words: "Leiland I am sorry I was not able to be the parent you needed."

How can this be? The article also suggests that several women have come forward to the charity involved to say that children had been removed from the care of the mother and place with the father accused of abuse?

What's going on here. The prejudice mothers who are also DV victims is appalling.

I remain concerned by the absolute refusal to even consider that a mistake or an error of judgement or bias could have been made, even when it clearly was given how the adoption ended

Exactly. Sometimes I feel like we take for granted that everyone involved in such a complex process is doing the right thing. How can there objectively be a right answer? Surely it's about balancing the odds. If someone can be wrong about the prospective adopter's life and abilities, can they also be wrong about the birth mothers?

The problem is that ‘risk of future harm’ is open to abuse. I am not necessarily saying that is the case here or in any other case, but I don’t see how anyone can claim that it isn’t.

If someone has a proven track record of violence, or sex offences, that’s one thing. However, when the track record boils down to not the individuals violent nature but the violent nature of those she takes up with, then that’s a problem.

To me, that’s far, far too shaky. ‘In the future, you might meet someone and he might be violent’ isn’t grounds for removal.

Yes, there could be more to it as doubtless everyone will rush to tell me - but I’m not totally sure that’s true.

I have no idea why you would and I havent been rude to you.

Its perplexing that you continue to question the concept of future risk of harm when it is the measure by which recommendations are made to courts AND a number of posters have set this out already for you in this thread.

It doesnt mean there isnt also evidence of past harm, again I have no idea why you are misunderstanding this.

In the case of brand new unborn baby, the baby may not have suffered harm (plenty do by mums not engaging with health services in pregnancy, or abusing drink/substance, engaging in dangerous behaviour, exposing the unborn to DV). On the other hand many babies may not have had that experience but their 6 or 7 siblings all did and they have gone on to be adopted.

An assessment has to take account of future risk of harm. If there was no risk of future harm, the child could remain with its parent.

Do you think that children are removed if the parent is then assessed as posing no future risk to the child? Far more children are supported to remain with their parents after harm has been caused to a child, their parent learns, stops using substances, gets help for their MH, leaves the violent partner, stops gambling, learns good parenting skills, all manner of changes can take place

@bellac11 I think this is the bit we are not on the same page on. I assumed that the "future risk of harm" statement was a result of no harm coming to baby yet, but that they believe baby has potential to be harmed due to mother's vulnerability. Laura's baby never left the hospital so it can't be the case that that individual baby had already been harmed by Laura or her partner. Not that harm had already been done and SS believe it won't stop. They feel like completely different things, with the latter being completely cut and dry and the former being a bit more nebulous.

So my understanding was that SS had decided that Laura couldn't take care of her baby and would let the baby be harmed. Which felt a bit unfair and like that perhaps other things could be done to support her.

But as I've said several times I am ignorant to how the process of taking a child into care works.

*To me, that’s far, far too shaky. ‘In the future, you might meet someone and he might be violent’ isn’t grounds for removal.

Yes, there could be more to it as doubtless everyone will rush to tell me - but I’m not totally sure that’s true*

Yes this is what I'm getting at you explained it much better than me.

It feels almost like exploitation of someone's past vulnerability. As we've both said it could fully be that it was very clear Laura had made no attempts to change her life. Perhaps she was still with the same partner who fathered her previously 2 adopted children.

@bellac11 it's generally considered rude to accuse someone of being wilfully ignorant. That's not the case at all, I'm not trying to make any point either way as I don't have the knowledge or experience to do so.

I’ve no doubt whatsoever that it’s a very hard job and some very hard decisions have to be made. I daresay we’d all agree on that.

But is everyone really, honestly, adamant that no errors ever happen? That children are never removed from their birth parents when there is a realistic chance that their birth parents would be able to parent well?

We are, are we not, the only country in Europe with forced adoptions?

Women like Laura Corkhill are over a barrel. If they refute what SS did, then we assume they are lying, or omitting the truth in some way -
how many times has someone said ‘there must be more to it.’ Maybe there is, I don’t know, but I do know women came onto the thread I posted about this and posted similar stories. Moreover though, if Laura Corkhill ‘fought back’ as it were, then she is not cooperating with SS and is therefore reducing the chances of keeping her child. If she cooperates with them, however, she is admitting what they say and what they believe is true.

What do the Laura Corkhills do then? They don’t have money. They often don’t work, or work for low pay, live in rundown areas, have a basic if any education.

‘In the future, you might meet someone and he might be violent’ isn’t grounds for removal.

No, and no court would remove a child just based upon this. Risk of future harm has to draw upon significant evidence to prove that the risk is great enough to warrant a baby being removed at birth, which is a rare occurrence.

As we do not have access to any of this evidence in Laura Corkhill’s case, it’s impossible to comment.

Which is a perfectly reasonable point, other than the fact that a number of women shared similar stories on the thread I started about this.

They could all be lying or omitting the truth - but the problem is it isn’t transparent at all, is it? And as such, it isn’t really fair.

*Women like Laura Corkhill are over a barrel. If they refute what SS did, then we assume they are lying, or omitting the truth in some way -
how many times has someone said ‘there must be more to it.’ Maybe there is, I don’t know, but I do know women came onto the thread I posted about this and posted similar stories. Moreover though, if Laura Corkhill ‘fought back’ as it were, then she is not cooperating with SS and is therefore reducing the chances of keeping her child. If she cooperates with them, however, she is admitting what they say and what they believe is true.

What do the Laura Corkhills do then? They don’t have money. They often don’t work, or work for low pay, live in rundown areas, have a basic if any education*

Thank you, this is exactly my point, I am not very articulate.

It seems particularly cruel in the face of DV victims. Like they're blamed for not being strong enough to leave. Of course there's a truth in that, but instead of blaming the victims for not being strong enough, why can't their be more systems in place to support the removal of the mother and children as a unit instead of the children?

I know full well that in some proportion of those cases, the women will not be willing to make those changes.

But I do feel like the outcomes of at least some of those cases could change if there was a different system in place when dealing with vulnerable women who are not the direct cause of abuse of their children.

I'll search for that thread.

That's a point I was thinking too, it does feel very misogynistic to assume the default answer must automatically be that the women in the cases are always lying.

Again that doesn't mean it doesn't happen. It means that the system shouldn't be able to hide behind our assumption that it is always write and the individuals are always wrong.

I do think it’s worth a discussion that goes beyond ‘there is more to it / SS are not baby snatchers’ etc.

I realise SS are not baby snatchers and as noted above I do realise they do an incredibly difficult job, but no system is without flaws and it’s always worth considering where and how things could be improved.

As things stand, there will be some very clear cut cases that warrant removal from birth parents - this is impossible due to her age on release from prison but if, God forbid, Laura Castle (the woman who murdered Leiland James - the similarity of the names is unfortunate) had a birth child, I think we’d all agree she should never be permitted to keep him or her.

But there are cases where that judgement call is going to be much more difficult.

I do think it’s worth bearing in mind there is prejudice against people who are not very well educated and people with learning difficulties. ‘Learning difficulties’ covers such a vast spectrum for starters. Let’s be frank here - we don’t like the underclass. It’s only been three years since Jeremy Kyle went off the air. We laugh at them, we’re disgusted by them, we demonise them.

I don’t doubt that I could do a better job at parenting than a lot of people who are struggling, but that’s not the point. They are not my children.

This article from family law sums up what I think in the specific case of otherwise able mothers who are victims of DV (I do again need to stress that I don't think ill of social workers, I think it's the system that's flawed):

*Too often victims’ experience is a grotesque indictment of the child protection system that is failing both women and children. A clinical psychologist tells me of one mother who survived a shockingly violent relationship despite getting little support from any service that might have been expected to help. Instead of support and concern for her safety, she lost her children to adoption. In an extraordinary twist, this woman now has a criminal conviction for failing to protect her children, while her abuser remains free. And while the police are seeing more cases of domestic violence, charging rates have dropped. Removing children from their mother – often breaking up sibling groups in the process – by blaming that terrified victim for “failing to protect” is the ultimate in victim-blaming. It has unpleasant and deeply sexist echoes of the way women are regularly told to change their behaviour, clothes and where they walk so they don’t get raped.
We will never effectively protect children if we view the prevention of harm from domestic abuse as the victim’s job: it fails to put the responsibility in the right place – with the perpetrator. We know that domestic abusers regularly break non-molestation orders with virtual impunity. And so the logic of children’s services is fatally flawed: when even the courts cannot restrain a violent criminal, what hope has any victim? How can a woman be required to pack up with the kids and leave home when the refuge and support services to provide a safe haven for mothers and their children no longer exist in so many areas of the country?

In court, the judge is told that the mother has “failed to prioritise her children’s needs over her own”. Social services know perfectly well that the abuse isn’t the victim’s fault – but, they tell the court, she’s the only protective factor in her kids’ lives. And she’s failing at it. Removing the children is, as they see it in some situations, the only good option. But the real issue isn’t that she can’t protect her children from a violent abuser, but that she’s being left to do so alone, then blamed for her inability to achieve the impossible. This illogical and sexist attitude to protecting children from domestic abusers must stop. The Association of Directors of Children’s Services signalled a change in approach in their statement earlier this year, saying: “A focus on prevention and changing perpetrator behaviours is long overdue and the government must lead this endeavour from the front as a matter of urgency".*

A girl I taught had her baby removed on similar grounds - she had been in a violent relationship and despite the relationship being terminated soon after the birth of her baby, she was deemed a risk to her child because of poor choices and because of exposure to domestic violence - but she had not been the one to expose the child to domestic abuse, she had been the one to have had her head kicked in.

And yes, I know there could have been more to it, but I do know the girl and she was about as unsafe around children as an average field mouse.

And - sorry to endlessly bang on! - but I do think it’s important to bear in mind that the only reason Laura Corkhill is being listened to at all is because her son had been murdered.

In the majority of cases, children will be adopted by thoroughly nice, ordinary, loving people. They will have happy homes and good lives. Someone like Laura Corkhill in the background saying ‘but it isn’t right’ would be ignored at best, vilified at worst.

It seems particularly cruel in the face of DV victims. Like they're blamed for not being strong enough to leave. Of course there's a truth in that, but instead of blaming the victims for not being strong enough, why can't their be more systems in place to support the removal of the mother and children as a unit instead of the children?

I think this comes back to my earlier point though about child protection social workers having to disengage somewhat on the matter of being 'fair' to the parents and focus solely on what is the right decision for the child.

They do hear some heart-wrenching DV stories but their job is to protect children, not to protect adults from DV or keep giving adults who can't protect their children from the impact of DV repeated chances because they feel sorry for them.

Laura will have been referred to the DV charity's victim support etc by children's social services. She will have been given those chances and that support to leave. It will have been made very clear to her the expectations on her. If they felt she had social care needs in her own right that prevent her from understanding what was happening then she may have also been referred to adult social care. She will have been eligible for legal aid.

What we know about Laura from publicly available information is that this is not the first child she had removed, it wasn't even the second. She had those chances on at least three occasions previously and on each occasion didn't manage to demonstrate that the things that needed to change had changed.

This wasn't social workers swooping in and removing at birth because of some imagined risk of harm without giving her a chance, it was presumably based on evidence that Laura hadn't been able to sufficiently protect the other children she had already had.

Perhaps if Laura continues to work with the DV charity, continues to demonstrate that she is making positive changes to her life such as attending The Freedom programme, attending counselling, demonstrating that she hasn't come to the attention of the police as a victim of DV etc then if she does have any more children this will all be taken into account and she will be given another chance.

This is exactly the disquiet I felt and why I posted - what happened to that poor baby is a tragedy. But before the article about Laura came out, my thoughts of the birth mother were just fleeting sadness and in the context of the baby - "poor baby, treated badly enough to be put in care and then that happened, it's so devastating".

When it's not really as black and white as that.

I think this comes back to my earlier point though about child protection social workers having to disengage somewhat on the matter of being 'fair' to the parents and focus solely on what is the right decision for the child

Of course, because they're fighting fires on the front line and my heart goes out to them. I can only imagine how it makes one feel to have to directly see children who are not being looked after.

But, we have systems in place so that we shouldn't have to rely only on front line action. If the systems could be changed to demonise the right people and support the vulnerable, who only knows how many young mums, DV victims, and otherwise vulnerable women who could be supported in raising their children.

There could well be many factors at play we aren’t aware of @exwhyzed . I’m trying to talk generally, but it does all seem really odd -
Laura Corkhill was apparently single at the time of Leiland James’ birth and remained so (as far as I could gather) throughout his life.

I certainly don’t think SS are ‘baby snatchers’, or that they have ‘targets’ of children or any nonsense like that. But I do think that sometimes prejudice takes precedence and that people aren’t treated fairly because of this. That goes both ways, incidentally.

And just to be upfront about my experience in all of this as I realise I haven't been (accidentally).

im a social worker working with adults - I've supported many Laura Corkhill's of this world and ensured they had fair access to support during court hearings etc. Some of the stories are horrific and you really feel just how unfair it is for the women losing their children due to being the victim of DV (although usually that isn't the sole reason).

Sometimes I've felt like begging children's services to give them just one more chance, cried in the office with colleagues at the unfairness of it all, felt the despair after the court hearings.

it's so horribly unfair, for mum, for the children. None of them ask to be the victims of DV.

But it is absolutely right that children's services step in to protect the children if the evidence suggests that the mother, however desperately she loves her children, cannot protect them.

Well, it’s fair if ‘can’t protect them’ is constantly going back to the abuser, time after time - and I know that happens. But if ‘fair’ is ‘well she isn’t with him now - but she might be / she was’ - then I’m not convinced that is fair.

But if ‘fair’ is ‘well she isn’t with him now - but she might be / she was’ - then I’m not convinced that is fair.

I agree with you here. And I'm far from convinced that SS give a fair hearing to vulnerable women when assessing their suitability to keep their own babies.

I don't doubt social work is exceptionally difficult. But it is very concerning indeed that the blame for "failing to protect" is placed squarely with the victim of DV rather than the perpetrator, police or courts. If SS have enough evidence of DV to forcibly adopt, then why on earth is the perpetrator not in prison?!

But sometimes this is a very difficult issue to evidence. I’ve worked with mothers who are adamant he’s left, won’t be coming back - then on a visit I’ve found him hiding under the bed. Mothers who have lied under oath in court that they aren’t in a relationship, only to find out later that they were together all along. Mothers who’ve had support but still go back. At what point do you says- is this person trustworthy? Can we trust her to keep this child safe? Can we trust she’s telling us the truth now, despite all the lies before?

I completely understand the dynamics of abusive relationships and why the above happens, and I really do think more needs to be done to target the abusers and not the victims. But ultimately the focus must be on the risk of harm to the children, and the threshold for removal is very high.

I do think there is definitely an issue with social class - we know there is DV in families of all backgrounds, socially and financially. Families in care proceedings are rarely middle or upper class, and I do think there are social workers who don’t look as carefully if the children are nicely dressed, beautifully spoken and attend choir practice or ballet (in fact I know this, because I’ve seen it happen and challenged it).

That sounds like it's a really heart breaking and difficult job sometimes

it's so horribly unfair, for mum, for the children. None of them ask to be the victims of DV.
But it is absolutely right that children's services step in to protect the children if the evidence suggests that the mother, however desperately she loves her children, cannot protect them

That last bit is exactly what I hope we can change in society though. Shifting the burden of protecting them so it's not solely on the mother.

*I completely understand the dynamics of abusive relationships and why the above happens, and I really do think more needs to be done to target the abusers and not the victims. But ultimately the focus must be on the risk of harm to the children, and the threshold for removal is very high.

I do think there is definitely an issue with social class - we know there is DV in families of all backgrounds, socially and financially. Families in care proceedings are rarely middle or upper class, and I do think there are social workers who don’t look as carefully if the children are nicely dressed, beautifully spoken and attend choir practice or ballet (in fact I know this, because I’ve seen it happen and challenged it)*

That's completely fair and how harrowing to have to know that.

I think 2 things would help in my very amateur opinion. One would be changing the perception in society at large (not just in the social care system) towards DV victims and why they feel compelled to stay. Because there is that unsavoury feeling, even to me, when thinking of someone who "chooses" to stay with someone who would hurt them so badly, and put their own children at risk. But it just can't be as simple as them failing, or being bad parents or bad people, at least some of the time.

The second thing would be to hopefully one day have different systems in place for dealing with DV victims. If we can be legally allowed in this country to do something as invasive as forced adoption, I don't see why we can't have more invasive measures to ensure mothers are not able to continue relationships with abusers.

My sister had to stay in a refuge as temporary accommodation when pregnant with one of her DC. She had to sign in and be back at a certain time or her place was at risk. That's just one tiny example off the top of my head.

It might sound extreme but is it really more extreme that literally taking away children from a mother who has been abused extensively by their father?

The trouble is, what if they rail against being controlled by the state? What if they don’t stay in the safe place? Or worse, bring the abuser to the refuge. Then they’ll lose the place in refuge and then what?

It’s in cases like this where court proceedings are considered. It is a last resort when alternatives have been tried.

The simplest way would be to forcibly remove the abuser and have them face consequences, but there’s no mechanism for this unless there’s enough evidence to bring criminal charges, which is often not the case particularly if the victim doesn’t want to testify for various reasons (again not blaming them for that).