Sharon Shoesmith was unfairly dismissed - WTF!

[Mandy2003]

Verdict just now on the news. I am speechless.

Has anyone heard her interview this morning in which she said "I don't do blame"?
Is she the most arrogant woman I've ever seen?
The buck stopped with her and her £100,000 plus salary.

I agree with JosieZ.

She's doing nothing for her standing amongst the general public with her comments during her interview with John Humphries. She clearly feels she was not accountable in any way for the failings of social services in Peter Connolly's case. There was multi agency failure in this situation but child protection procedures let him down, as is the case all too often.

She's arrogant in the extreme.

heard on radio 4 last night that the judge had said that just because someone was accountable didn't make it right that the buck stopped with them. I haven't read the whole judgement but in my book if you are accountable then ultimately the buck does stop with you.
Balls was wrong in not following the process and we have him to thank for the huge compensation figure we are going to have to handover to this woman. but she should have had the good grace to have resigned anyway.

If she was sacked unfairly ( and she obviously was ) then she was right to take her case to court. However, I'm a bit shocked at her language - 'delighted' for example - and she's smiling too much which is coming across as insensitive.
She seems to be turning herself into a cause celeb - not a good move.

The stats in JosieZ's post are a bit mangled - it wasn't 55 children killed in Haringey; that figure was supposed to apply to the whole of the UK. But actually it may have been 113 deaths.

From the judgment here:

"In his report prepared in 2009 ... Lord Laming said that ?Home Office data shows that in 2007/08 55 children were killed by their parents or by someone known to the child.? After the hearing in October 2009 was concluded it was impossible not to note the Ofsted Press Release on 15 October 2009 relating to the publication ?Learning the lessons from serious case reviews: Year 2? which indicated that the 173 Serious Case Reviews (see paragraph 66 below) carried out and completed between 1 April 2008 and 31 March 2009 related to 219 children and included 113 cases of child deaths as a result of an incident ? not all, it should be said, because of the kind of neglect and abuse shown in the present case. However, of the 219 children identified, 68% were known to social care services at the time of the incident."

Yes she was sacked unfairly inasmuch procedure wasn't followed but in the circumstances she should have resigned anyway! You would think she might have the integrity to have seen that but she clearly doesn't.

I wonder how many children's lives Sharon Shoesmith saved or massively improved in her many years of service. Yes, she comes across as tough. You have to be pretty resilient to do a job like that; it is an enormous and wide ranging role. I'm pretty sure she must have worked very hard in previous roles to get that job.

I can't stand the scapegoating and demonising that goes on in this country. It is reprehensible to try to score political popularity points by responding to the public's baying for blood.

Whether or not she should have resigned or have been sacked in an appropriate fashion is a different issue. She has every right to seek fair treatment.

Good post singersgirl.

I also find the scapegoating that goes on, hideous. It takes attention away from the real offenders. Baby p's death was directly caused by the men his MOTHER welcomed into her home, and by her own refusal to protect him. If you want to get angry, direct your anger at people who torture abuse and kill little children.
If professionals are culpable of not carrying out their jobs properly (and it seems at least one doctor and social worker were culpable here, and also that management systems were not as robust as they should be) then of course that should be addressed. But it should be done through the correct procedures and it should at all times be acknowledged that the people who KILLED a child
Here were not the professionals.

I agree with you lynehamrose and am appalled at some of the personal comments about Sharon S on this thread - people saying they hate her and other insulting personal comments. I am surprised MN have not deleted these posts.

I have spent 30 years of my working life in Children's Services for a LA (not an inner city one but a shire county) am now retired. I have been a social worker in child protection, and manager in fostering and adoption.

The thing is that some cases like Peter Connelly come to the attention of the public, Jasmine Beckford, Toni-Ann Byfield, Victoria Climbie and a child in B'ham whose name I forget. Of course the death of Maria Colwell (in the 70s) was probably the first one to come to the attention of the public and policies and procedures in social services were more or less re-written after that child death. However as all posters will know now, there are many many children who die at the hands of their parents when Soc wrks are involved and they never come to the attention of the public. I have to say I have no idea why some hit the headlines and others don't. Melpomene has posted the judgement (thank you for this but don't have time right now to read it all but will do so later today) Apparently some 55 children in the UK were killed at the hands of their parents, or step parents. Though there is a suggestion that that figure could actually be 113.

Of course it is a terrible thing when a child dies at the hands of the people who are supposed to love and care for them, but it is impossible to eliminate risk entirely. Whenever a case hits the headlines the tabloids fill their front pages with WILL they every LEARN meaning social workers. It isn't a case of never learning and I wish Directors of SS would not come on TV saying they will learn the lessons of the current child death. What they should be saying is that it is impossible to eliminate risk, no matter about being on the CP register, no matter how many visits are made, because whilever therre are parents out there who for whatever reason kill their children, then it will happen again and again - social workers would have to live with servcie users and even then it wouldn't be possible to be on watch for 24 hours of the day.

Re Sharon S - I am extremely pleased that justice has been done. She was indeed made a sacrifical lamb by Ed Balls's knee jerk reaction to court the Sun and Daily Mail readers of the country, who were baying for SS's blood. I just wish some of these people could spend a month or two with a child protection team, to see just how difficult and stresful it is to be a soc worker in child protection.

What happened to the social workers and directors of the other 54 children who died in one year, and didn't come to the attention of the public - nothing, exactly nothing. If there was evidence of incompetence then steps should have been taken for the sw to undergo further training, but the point is no director was summarily sacked on TV like SS. Balls drove a coach and horses through employment procedures, and SS was not even given the chance of the right of reply, an ingrained part of any democratic process.

I just hope she gets the payout she deserves.

Wow, some really balanced and informative posts here.

Sorry, I got my figures wrong in my previous post.

S Shoesmith was trying to make the point on the Today prog that it's impossible to eliminate risk no matter what is done but John Humphries wasn't prepared to accept that and spent the interview trying to push her into accepting blame. She wouldn't accept blame but did accept responsibility for the actions of her staff (if I remember correctly). No doubt tomorrow's headlines will scream
' Shoesmith claims she is not to blame'.

The manipulation of the truth by the media is quite scary imo.

The 55 children who died at hands of parents and carers that year did not die in circumstances similar to Peter C - horrifying as that figure is, it could mean a parent killing a child to get back at an estranged partner, it could mean awful cases such as parents of disabled children killing their children (and themselves) because they feel they have no future. 55 children in the UK did not die prolonged, sadistic and, ultimately, avoidable deaths as Peter did.

While I agree it is impossible to eliminate risk, when a child is believed to be in danger and social services have been alerted, then they have to do their best to minimise risk - this was not the case with Peter Connelly.

As for posters saying Sharon Shoesmith didn't kill Peter, no one's arguing with that. The people who did have been jailed. But, as head of a department that showed serious weaknesses and procedural failures itself, she should take some responsibility for his death and she should have accepted that it was wrong to remain in her position. I find her saying that she is "thrilled" with the verdict to be in extremely poor taste and I hope the counter-appeal at the Supreme Court overturns this judgment.

Agreed lalalonglegs - had she not been sacked and clearly she shouldn't have been as she was, she should have resigned. it would have been the right thing to do. It is not scapegoating, it is the recognition that well paid heads of department have to take responsibility for the failings of that department. That is how it works.

To suggest we are just scapegoating because we don't understand how it should work is just insulting.

I am not some tabloid scapegoater, I am querying her lack of integrity.

Fifitot mention the resignation of the heard of Probation services due to failings in his department. Another case that springs to mind is the Alder Hey organ rention scandal. The Chief Exec of the hospital resigned over that. Even though she played no part in the retention, she accepted that it had happened on her watch and her position was untenable. Shoesmith should have done the same, especially after the Serious Case Reviews indicated massive failings in her department.

Another thought for those defending her. There are many cases, in health and social care especially, where management fail to listen to their staff, or provide proper support and training, etc, all leading to a climate where frontline staff are set up to fail. When the inevitable failure happens, it's the frontline staff who have their lives and careers ruined, while management stays, or is quietly moved elsewhere. This is hugely unfair, yet this is exactly what Shoesmith wanted to do. So why on earth are frontline workers on here defending her?

Why didn't Ed Balls remove her as soon as he knew about Baby P's death in 2007? One year later when the trial happened, plus all over the newspapers... he decided to act.

LaLa - I fail to see how you can possibly have evidence for the assertion you make that the other 55 children did not die in the same kind of horrific circumstances that Peter C endured. So if someone (usually a father) kills a child to get back at the estranged partner, that is ok? There have been quite a few of these cases inthe news lately.

Like you I don't have the details of how all these children died, but I can certainly tell you how in 30 years I knew of 3 children who died at the hands of a father or step-father. I am not going into detail but I can assure you that these babies and children suffered long and prolonged abuse. They did not reach the headlines.....not even the case of the mother and her boyfriend, the latter killed the 12mth baby girl, and her little finger nails had been pulled out - they walked around the local town with the dying baby in the pushchair to buy cigarettes before they called an ambulance. These cases were all in the shire county where I worked. The mother in the case I have cited said that her boyfriend had been hurting the baby but she was to afraid of him to stop him or tell anyone. His excuse was he did not believe he was the baby's father.

Some parents (because of their own past abuse) simply do not have what is necessary to love and care for a child. In all 3 cases, (one father - 2 step fathers) all between the ages of 19 and 24 had all suffered horrendous abuse themselves as children. One of the fathers (aged 19) recalled how his step father had made him stand naked in the front garden (aged 10) because he had wet the bed, called all the neighbouring kids around from the estate and hose piped the boy with cold water, and made him stand outside for an hour without clothes on. There are many other examples that I could give, but they are just too horrifying to post. Us humans are the most dangerous of the animal species.

Incidentally none of the 3 cases I knew of, hit the headlines and no social worker, manager or director was sacked in the way SS was. She's right - she was not to blame but she was responsible for her department, and she has never denied that. I heard the John Humphries interview, which I thought was quite disgraceful as he was unusually arrogant and pushed and pushed her to say the child's death was her fault.

Inkyfingers - yes take your point and underlines my belief that he did so to pander to the Sun readers. Parliament makes the law, including employment law, but it does not allow a cabinet member to ride rough shod through the law to appease the public.

Talking of resignations in other public services - did the manager of the Dr who failed to notice that Peter C's spine was broken resign or get sacked - NO. Have any chiefs of police been sacked over the killing of the Chilean man (forget his name) who they shot 7 times on a tube train and then told monstrous lies to cover themselves - NO. or the recent case where a PC unlawfully killed Ian Tomlinson (the newspaper man) at the G20 protest and then the police lied and lied until the Guardian produced the evidence of Mr. T being hit forcibly with a baton and pushed with force to the ground. Even though the DPP are bringing a criminal case, I think the PC may get off. Will the chief of police resign over this or be sacked - I don't think so!

10,000 people in the UK die of cancer because it has been undetected soon enough by GPs............do managers of PCT resign or get sacked - NO.

I could go on but think I've said enough.

The difference between a child dying like Peter Connelly and a child dying as some form of revenge against an estranged partner is that the latter type of death, while brutal and horrific, is generally sudden. SS aren't involved. SS were involved with Peter and didn't co-ordinate themselves effectively and he died because they failed to control his mother and step-father. I'm not querying cases where there is little forewarning or where the abuse is so effectively hidden that SS do not become involved but in cases such as this one where it is strikingly obvious that something is wrong, where there are tip-offs and referrals and, through a series of slip-ups, the child dies in horrible circumstances, then the head of the department bears some responsibility.

It doesn't matter that the doctor hasn't been sacked too, I agree he or she should have been.

Regarding the Brazilian, Jean Charles de Menezes, there was a massive cover-up and it left a bad taste in a lot of mouths. Yes, someone should have gone and I believe that it did lead to the downfall of Ian Blair, head of the Met at the time. We don't know what will happen re: the policeman who hit Ian Tomlinson, we will have to wait and see.

I do find your defence of Sharon Shoesmith both unconvincing and disingenuous: just because any number of other people have been fortunate enough not to lose their jobs, doesn't mean that she should have kept hers.

Can I point out that it that this verdict isn't that she did nothing wrong, it's she wasn't dismissed following the right procedures.

She should have resigned. I know the law is there to protect everyone and agree with that, but when you are in a top job you know the risks. It just plays into the stereotype of public sector worker entitlement.

Hang on, so just because the police, the Met in particular, have an atrocious record when it comes to professional accountability, it's ok for other professions to follow suit?

Nina - a quick google would have shown you that the consultant involved in the Peter Connolly case was not only sacked, she's been removed from the GMC register:
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-12429911

Should Balls have sacked her on TV? No. It smacks of Michael Howard's intervention to increase the prison sentences of the Bulger killers, i.e a move based more on populism then the legal system.

However, I have found Shoesmith's behaviour throughout to be utterly distasteful. She was happy for her staff to be hung out to dry, as long has her job was safe. Hence my bafflement at social workers defending her here.

Also, in case it is not already clear to you, not all of us commenting only know about child protection via tabloid reading. Myself, and I suspect a few others commenting here have professional experience of exactly how difficult it is, however, poor practice must always remain unacceptable.

Oh how I wish those of you saying that Social Services should have prevented Peter's death, could just learn how stressful and difficult it is to be a soc wrk in child protection today. Thankfully I am retired. The problem is social workers are "damned if they do and damned if they don't" - I spend a lot of time on other threads, challenging posters who claim that social workers "snatch" children from decent parents, just to get them adopted.

Social workers know that their first duty is to keep the family together and it is no use going to court for a Care Order unless you can prove that you have done everything possible for this to happen. In Peter's case, the soc workers were continuing to support the mother (they are not mind readers and could not have known about the existence of a boyfriend in the house) and it turned out that this was not the right course of action. No one will hear about the many hundreds of families across the UK are supported well enough to be good-enough parents.

Lala - you are still making massive assumptions (that soc works aren't involved in cases of children being killed by a parent to get at the other parent) I know of 2 such cases in NOttingham where my friend works - they didn't hit the headlines. You still haven't supplied the evidence re your assertion that these other 54 children didn't die in horrific circumstances, even though I have provided evidence of a horrific abuse of a 1 year old in the LA where I worked.

I am supporting SS because as she says, she was responsible for her department b ut was not to blame for Peter's death and Ed Balls's action was unlawful.

GothAnn - you too are making assertions that you can't evidence "she was happy for her staff to be hung out to dry, as long as her job was safe."
How on earth do you know that - are you a mind reader. I agree with you that poor practice is not acceptable, but at the risk of repeating myself, you simply cannot eliminate risk while there are parents who are so damaged by their own childhood experiences that they can inflict horrific injuries on their children. As you are have professional experience of child protection, surely you cannot disagree with that.

Just out of interest, do you as a professional in cp believe that you can wholly eliminate risk to children, via social work intervention?

Nina - I admire you love but you are wasting your time with some here who want to believe everything they read in the papers without ever having to step out of their cosy little worlds to see what you are up against.

The underfunding of children's social care (and social care in general)
The number of families on your caseloads
The rapid turnover of an increasingly demoralised workforce
An exhausted workforce going in and seeing families who will do all in their power to pull the wool over your eyes (like poor Peter Connelly's so called family). Any wonder that sometimes people are deceived when staff are so tired and demoralised. Am amazed there are not more frequent cases hitting the press.
The demands of those who expect the impossible with limited resources (service users as well as the public).

Those os you railing against social workers need to climb down from your ivory towers, take of your rose tinyed spectacles and walk a mile in their shoes. I guarentee by the end of the day you will be physically, mentall and emotionally drained from what you witness, experience and take.

Sharon Shoesmith WAS unfairly dismissed. The rules are there for a reason. So she should indeed be compensated.

Then having sorted that out she should be banned from ever having a position with any responsibility again and ostracised by all decent people for her attitude.

As for this crap about tired/overworked social workers not being able to do their job. I suggest then they that stop taking the salary for this job they can't do. At least this would highlight the problems and force changes. Keeping the money and helping maintain the fiction that it's working means that they are not part of the solution, but part of the problem.

Bloody hell, are social workers the only people who work hard in the world? I don't think you'd find my job a bowl of cherries either and I certainly don't live in a ivory tower, so you can drop the patronising attitudes.

Nina - The frontline social workers involved in the Peter Connolly case have both been sacked www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11605453 and may well be struck off too. Shoesmith was happy for that to happen, but not to lose her own job. Hence my statement seems perfectly valid.

Just to clarify, I am not saying that child protection is not an extremely difficult field that is hideously understaffed and underfunded. What I am saying is that Sharon Shoesmith is completely lacking in integrity and I am baffled as to why any social worker would defend her.

Here's a question for you, would any of you be happy for her to run your department?

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-11605453

That link again.