Elsie Scully-Hicks

[Elephantgrey]

How can you understand how someone can harm such a tiny baby. My husband knew Matthew Scully-Hicks and said you would never imagine he would be the sort of person to do something like this. When we first heard about it we imagined that he had just snapped but seeing the news report he inflicted so many injuries on her since the day she arrived. It's just heartbreaking.

www.itv.com/news/2017-11-07/murdered-elsie-scully-hicks-would-still-be-alive-if-social-services-had-not-taken-her/

This article reports the GM's statement. She says she was told she wouldn't be able to cope so I'm wondering if her age was a factor. Utterly heartbreaking and to not be told for 7 months is inexcusable.

"Able to cope" is a very subjective standard, isn't it? No wonder the wider birth family feel so raw. Some things are easier to reconcile to than others.

It sounds subjective but court reports would've indicated exactly why they thought she couldn't cope.

It could be that Elsie and perhaps her sibling had issues as a result of the bm's drug use which they felt the bgm may not have been able to handle or that her accommodation was not appropriate for small children. There are plenty of perfectly valid reasons for them to have turned her down.

I was putting myself in the DGM's shoes and surmising a bit. I can guess at the sub reasons but it's still a difficult thing for a grandmother to have to grief.

POSSIBLE sub reasons^
GRIEVE^

I think I read in one of the news reports that the birth grandmother already has custody of 2 children who are the older siblings of Shayla/Elsie.

The name change is very relevant imo. The maternal grandmother was having visits was she not?? Right up until the adoption? So clearly there was no deemed risk of anyone hunting her down & kidnapping her, therefore a name change was not necessary.
I know an RMP who adopted three very high risk siblings; the only reason the siblings were adopted together was because the RMP at the time was stationed abroad. Otherwise they would have been split up. No mention of name changes tho.

Kids learn their names very quickly. How often do/have any of called your LO as a small bub & received a glimmer of recognition, a smile, a gurgle? A name is not something you should be able to change based upon your want or desire for it to fit your lifestyle. In this area SS only suggest a name change if it is paramount to a child's safety.

@battleax

When did I say I was a social worker or that “my local authority” had a policy?

I spoke about having used to work in the system, earlier in the thread I said I used to work in child protection proceedings, and that my understanding was that a younger child would be treated differently to an older child. Are you saying my understanding is wrong?

I used to work for parents in child protection proceedings, sometimes representing the child via a guardian, usually trying to resist orders like the adoption order. My understanding comes from having read hundreds of reports in adoption cases (from several different local authorities). That’s why I called it an understanding rather then anything else. It’s what I’ve gleaned from my experience, as having read what local authorities have said on the matter in various cases. The view is a young child will adapt to a change far more easily than an older child. I think that sounds very plausible. Again, if I’m wrong, and this is not the accepted thinking, please let me know.

I also asked for evidence of a link between name change and poor parenting. I don’t think I was pointed. I think my post was far more polite than mrsdv’s.

Are you saying now that you didn't work in child protection and adoption McTufty? It certainly seemed to be what you were saying here;

Genuine question @mrsdv are you basing this opinion on direct experience of child protection and adoption? Because I used to work in the system and had a very different experience to the one you are outlining.

Were you pulling rank on MrsDV (an adopter) on no basis then?

Sorry misread the second part.

So you were saying that.

McTufty I am an adopter
I have also worked in and around social care for around 25 years.
HTH

I also asked for evidence of a link between name change and poor parenting
Why were you directing that question at me when I made no such link?

I said there were sometimes good reasons for changing a child's name.
Not liking it enough is not one of them.
Your comment about life story work belies your experience in the field.

You want to know what life story work was done with my DC?
A badly written cut and paste typed letter from a social worker who wouldn't be able to pick his birth mother out from a line up.

The view is a young child will adapt to a change far more easily than an older child
This is hardly a controversial view is it? But it does not apply to name changes.
This is about re-training a child to answer to a new name.
It is about a child's history, identity and personal property.

Not sure of the need to be sarcastic and rude with the “hth” etc. I’ve asked to be shown the basis for saying my understanding that the age of a child is relevant is wrong; there may well be evidence that changing a child aged 1’s name is harmful, but I’m not aware of it hence asking the question.

I assume when you say you work in social care you mean child protection/adoption, so why not just tell me what the guidance actually is on age and name change if I’ve understood it incorrectly?

Pretty much all decisions about children based on their best interests are fact specific and depend on the child and the circumstances, aren’t they? I don’t think there’s a one size fits all. I understood the considerations applied would include the age of the child. I also don’t know if any evidence of what the advice to the Scully-Hicks was or how old she was they started calling her Elsie.

I find it harder to believe, and am still waiting to see the evidence, that changing an adopted child’s name is linked to poorer care of that child.

I did work in the child protection system @battleax just within court proceedings (which pretty much all adoption procedures have to have) not as a social worker so not sure of your problem with what I said but it doesn’t matter to me really. This thread should actually be about the fact a little girl died rather than the fact a little girl had her name changed, like many other adopted children who grow up in loving homes.

My grandmother wanted to care for me. She was 44 when I was born and early fifties when I needed yet another home SS said too old as wouldn't cope with a teenager when she was in her 50-60s. She actually died when I was 33 and was perfectly well until I was 25. Instead I was sent to live with someone in their mid forties who abused me all ways.

Social services guidelines are shit and have been for at least 40 years. Nothing ever happens to them. No one ever had to take the rap. Kids still suffer and die.

Sorry @mrsDV cross post - yes I was asking you for that evidence because I thought you were making a link between them changing her name and the way they treated her when you said this about her name change in reacting angrily to me saying the name change was irrelevant to her death:

I suspect this was part of the issue that led to this little girls death

And the foster "career"wouldn't do a life story book with me as didn't see the point. No wonder dh says I should write a book, the failures of the SS are in double figures.

Changing a child’s name doesn’t always mean they’re twisted, I did write that upthread about my parents not changing my first name but changing my brother's. In this case I agree it was probably part of the image he wanted to project, but not everyone who changes an adopted child’s name is an egomaniacal scumbag.

I am not going to tell you what 'in and around social care' means because I work in a niche area.
I find it harder to believe, and am still waiting to see the evidence, that changing an adopted child’s name is linked to poorer care of that child
Are you being deliberately obtuse?

You have missed the point about name change again. This is not about a child getting confused because they have had their name changed. It is about someone deciding to remove something given to them by their birth family. Their name.

If it is to be done it has to be for a very good reason and in the child's best interests.
Guidance has changed in the last decade from 'don't do it, ever' but for safeguarding rather than aesthetic reasons.

notreally who said it was?

Changing an adopted child's name is acceptable if the name is distinctive and allows the child to be identified by the birth family.

Changing a child’s name doesn’t always mean they’re twisted,

No of course it doesn't, but it can show a lack of empathy whenniys done without good reason.

MrsDV's analysis (posted upthread)!of this particular family and what appears to have happened, based on known facts, seems very psychologically perceptive to me.

McTufty
Again.
In this case I don't think it was irrelevant and I fail to see how you can claim to know it was.
It may be part of the larger picture of a man who cared more about appearances than the safety of a child. Someone who refused to admit something was very wrong with his idealised fantasy of parenthood. Changing a child's name for non safeguarding reasons would certainly fit into this.

Unless you have information we don't have access to?

TheFirstMrsDV a lot has been made of them changing her name, as if that’s some kind of evidence of what was to come. Granted I’ve not been part of adoptions in over 30 years so my info is probably very outdated, but I was led to believe it was common at one time to change names for adopted children. My brother’s name change wasn’t to prevent identification (we lived in another part of the country) it was because my mother had always wanted to name her son the name she gave him. As any parent wants to.

I suppose what I mean is that the name change isn’t the biggest part of what should have raised red flags and I’m slightly confused as to why it’s become such a big issue.