Great. Another baby dead as social services fuck up - WARNING, DISTRESSING

[ImFab]

.

I can't bear to hear another story of a beautiful baby dead because his mother wasn't capable of caring for him and social services weren't up to the job. When will they learn?

Here.

Good grief, that report was upsetting.

Mirabelle if you want any advice pm me.
Look at access courses and try and get some voluntary experience cos you will need it.

this immediate knee jerk blame sw is whole story.isnt as easy as blame sw.after such event there is a why didnt sw do more and implication that a big van and posse of staff should turn up and take child immediately.this contrasts with the oft touted view sw are too heavy handed,too willing to invoke statutory poiwers and remove chidren

the perpetrator was the mum, she is to blame.most likely lots of other factors,such as purposeful lies by mum,concealed facts,missed or avoid appts.

i see it on mn threads- bloody busy body sw/gp/hv.who do they think they are- how dare they ask me this and that.and others asserting yes dont trust them,tell them nothing

anything goes wrong and sw berated for not doing enough. Cuts, frozen posts, increasing caseloads all stretch resources and staff to breaking point

this is a failing and there will be safeguarding review, serious incident review review.

Well said scottishmummy.

I am not going to read this but would like to say that surely it is the fault of the person that killed the child not SWs. Go and spend a day watching what they have to do/deal with before you blame.

I'm usually one to defend SS as they did a good job with my family.

But the case review linked to above was not only harrowing reading but also highlighted one big and recurring problem - the SWs repeatedly believed the mum's claims that her drinking was under control despite clear evidence that it wasn't. That is just flat-out dumb.

How can any SW hear a parent (with known alcohol issues and who is reeking of booze) admit to having been drinking that morning when there's a tiny baby in the house and not have klaxons going off in their head that something's deeply wrong here?

Flamingo -

'That's not what it's about though, fifitot. SS are always reluctant to take children from families unless they absolutely have to because of the wellbeing of the child, not the rights of the parents. Putting a child in care can have huge ramifications fro them, and it's far better, if at all possible, that the parents are supported to bring them up well.@

sorry I do not agree. That might be the intention but but think it's gone too far. I am a trained social worker, I understand the system, I train people in safeguarding practice. My personal view is that social work went down a particular route which is about 'empowerment' of parents to keep children in families. I think it's gone too far down that route. That is all I'm saying.

The risk assessment and management skills of some social workers and the risk ethos of some departments is questionable IMO.

Read the case review everyone then say whether you think the professionals in this case fucked up or not.

I full appreciate the difficult job social workers do - HOWEVER

As in Baby P case, various appointments cancelled by mother, either not followed up quick or enough or rearranged.

Too much belief in the mother's capacity to change (always a fault in these cases.) Social workers want to believe their clients, they want to be positive.

Calls to NSPCC and other agencies expressing concern that were not followed up.

Not enough communication between agencies.

Baby showed significant weight loss, always crucial in these cases, not even mentioned at the Child in Need REview (CP conference as was.)

Could go on. All depressingly familiar. The review actually states that the risk assessment of the risk of harm occuring and the likelihood of it happening was not assessed adequately or correctly.

THAT is why they have to shoulder some of the blame.

I hear what you are all saying about the mother is the one at fault as the social services did not kill this baby.

True, but they are supposed to protect this baby and did not.

The mother is hardly going to say I am going to harm my baby to SS so who exactly is responsible for protecting this child?

There are 2 issues here. One is that yes, of course it is the Mother's fault that the baby is dead.

However we have welfare services set up to protect children. If these people do not do their job then the system fails these children. In some cases, someone is so determined to harm a child that nothing anyone could do will stop that. However this is not one of these cases. It was preventable. There were ample opportunities to intervene. it is a classic case of child neglect. The woman is not an evil psychopath (such as the man recently who beat a baby to death in lancashire, that is a totally different kind of case and far harder for agencies to influence.) This woman was getting support but there was too much focus on her needs rather than the childs. The SCR actually states this.

In a case like this SS are repsonsible for protecting the children merely by the fact they are involved.

In my case it was all about what my parent said. She dictated what happened to me and SS let her. They were in the wrong and they know it.

Where the fuck was the father? Did he not know the mother was an alcoholic (even though she turned up drunk at his office according to reports). Why did the teenage son not get help? Do not understand this at all.

Of course the mother murdered him and SS fucked up by being way too lenient on the mother but what is the father's responsibility in all this? Who is their right mind would leave a defenceless baby in the sole care of an alcoholic who was under suspicion to the police and SS for child neglect? Don't tell me he did not know this!

Poor little boy - neither parent gave a shit about him. Makes me want to cry.

27 months jail (halved I expect). The bitch should be out down.

put not out.

I don't normally post on threads like this but for some reason felt compelled to read the SCR linked here and am absolutely appalled by the catalogue of failures by so many agencies described. I think it is unfair to pick out SS as more responsible than others. As many have said it is ultimately the mother who neglected this child to death.

What i couldn't believe was the number of contacts and opportunities to see that something was wrong here - the report refers to 'optimism' and belief of the mother. Surely to god if friends and relatives are saying that she is drinking and the child is neglected that should be enough to trigger significant action.

The saddest part of the report for me though was that when she phoned 999 to report his death and an ambulance attended they found that he had been dead for 'several days'. My heart breaks to think of how many other children might be in situations like this in our supposedly caring and civilised society.

RIP baby T - you never had a chance.

Completely agree the emphasis shouldn't just be placedon SS. The person who abused and hurt this poor child was his own mother and she is who should be held accountable for her actions.But I also agree that there is too much emphasis on keeping the family together-i think it would be better if another family member could take care of the child if possible.

But the thing is that SS are damned if they do, damned if they don't.

Look at how many threads we see on here about people claiming that a baby has been taken into care or that a parent is being told their baby will be taken into care and SS are accused of stealing babies. even though we rarely know the facts.

Look at the abuse that anyone who admits to being a social worker gets on mn. Time and time again.

Any mother that posts "ss want to take my baby into care" is given only sympathy and anyone who dares suggest that there must be more is shot down.

If that mother had come on to mn saying that ss wanted to take her baby away she would have been advised to seek legal advice and to contact her mp.

That baby's death is down to those who should have been caring for him - his mother.

The thing is Wannabe, posters are not going to say that their child is being taken into care because they have been abused. They will say they have done nothing wrong and how do they get their child back.

It is down to his mother but at a certain point SS are there to step in - any crime is down to the perpetrator but the results of that crime are for the agencies to deal with - so a stabbing is down to the perpetrator but the victim needs help from the police and ambulance service - thats their job just as it is the SS job to safeguard children's care when it has been flagged up to them.

And I am not in the general abuse ss camp - its a very difficult job for low pay and esteem in very difficult circumstances but that doesnt mean we can excuse failings where we see them.

Mother was responsible. No-one else.

Yes mother responsible for his death but the agencies failed to step in. They could have saved him.

The report is clear where there were failings and yes all the agencies involved had some failings but SS ar the lead agency so must carry the can I'm afraid.

Anyway will shut up now. Just makes me so angry.

We all know the mother allowed this child to die.

The point is social services and all the other agencies involved, could have prevented it.

yes, there is a difference between who is responsible and who is to blame