Leiland James Corkhill - heartbreaking interview with his birth mum. Obviously upsetting content relating to physical abuse of a baby.

[LastThursdayInJuly]

I can’t post the link but if you Google Leiland James and BBC news the interview will come up.

Of course, some children can’t stay safely with their parents but this case really doesn’t seem one of them. I’m not commenting on what happened to Leiland James afterwards because it’s obviously practically unheard of for adoptive parents to murder their children.

But I am concerned that people like Laura Corkhill are not treated fairly by SS and are not really able to navigate the system properly. I also agree with the woman who observed that it further punished women suffering domestic abuse by taking their children from them.

What have I said that’s personal and nasty?

I never said you were wrong to judge on your own experience thats entirely up to you, just that I disagree with that judgement based on one side of the story. I never said they were excellent at any point clearly there have been awful tragic mistakes made, I just dont believe that removing leiland was one of them.

@Wellthatsachangeforthebetter
You write

'I just wont leap to attack based on one side of the story.'

So, you are ignoring the finding of the case study review? It very definitely found fault with Cumbria Social Services' handling of this case which led to the death of a child in its care. Yet, you don't want to leap to attack in spite of the case Study Review findings. I am shocked by a response that ignores the findings of a proper review just to preserve your apparent desire to protect social workers in this case.
Perhaps you can explain what parts of the Review pertaining to Cumbria Social Services that you feel is one sided?

'Honestly SWs and those who defend them to the hilt even when they’ve proven to have failed on a catastrophic scale are on another fucking planet.'
This is quite rude especially when its not truecno one has done that.

Hang on, clearly the adoption was a catastrophic mistake and failing undoubtedly.
The report doesn't say that the intial removal was mishandled.
I am saying the one side is lauras story, it is one sided we have only heard her side as to why the baby was removed. This is a fact.
It may have been wrong we dont know that though based on a BBC interview.

The report doesn't say that the intial removal was mishandled

The review is nothing to do with the initial removal. I doubt a public review on that will be come about or be published. A lack of review doesn’t mean it wasn’t a mistake or that procedures were followed correctly

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet you are being utterly ridiculous now. Its embarrassing seriously catch on to yourself.
Are you seriously claiming that me not wanting you to be rude means I dont care about vulnerable children being hurt is that what you are genuinely accusing me of?
No im not a SW.

Yeah, the parameters of the review were the adoption assessment and placement, nothing about the original decision to remove (likely because that would be seen as a court-endorsed decision).

This thread has jogged my memory that out of the probably hundreds of cases I’ve seen over the years, the only one where I struggled to see the justification for a child being removed (eventually returned) was Cumbria, though some years before the events in this case. But if I recall correctly that was a section 20 and didn’t go to court so didn’t have that external scrutiny.

@Wellthatsachangeforthebetter I think everyone would like you to acknowledge the mistakes that were made by Cumbria Social Services which led to the death of a baby in it's care. To acknowledge the findings of the case study review and most of all, acknowledge the importance of implementing the Case Study Review recommendation
That there is an appropriately timely and robust response in cases where there are concerns about bonding with a child placed for adoption
And not minimise the findings by trying to shift the blame to other agencies. Cumbria Social Services has to accept the part they played in the murder of a child in their care and make significant changes and take to the heart the findings of the review.

Is there any indication Cumbria hasn’t accepted the findings of the review?

No, what a weird claim. I’m saying you refuse to see what a damaging organisation Cumbria Council is and how they have let families down again and again, but a comment from me is what offends you. I can’t get w head around people who think like that.

TBH I’m inclined to believe it’s all lip service. It’s been less than a decade since Poppi Worthington died and not much seems to have changed in Cumbria.

This is exactly what happens though. Threshold for removal is based on RISK of signifcant harm. If Social Care waited until harm had happened there would be 100s more deaths. The public can't have it both ways, outraged when children aren't removed and there's a death, leading to politicians who know nothing about social care saying statements such as 'children should be removed when there is an inkling of harm'. Quote from Nadhim Zahawi. Yet then be equally outraged when children are removed.

As an experienced social worker whose reality day in day out is exactly this work, the type of article published today by the BBC about mother today is very naive, biased and extremely poor journalism. Sadly its articles like this that do untold damage to our reputation and make building open, supportive relationships with families even harder. I know this article didn't even scrape the surface of the complexities of such decisions.

Absolutely tragic for the mother in regards to what happened afterwards but that doesn't mean it wasn't the right decision to remove him sadly.

And I have no doubt that in Cumbria, there are some good social workers who will be used as scape goats because shit rolls downhill. I believe one pressed for LJ’s removal from the Castle household but they weren’t listened to. The system is against these ones as well. Is it any wonder so many are leaving the profession.

You don’t think it’s SWs themselves and the shit house authorities they work for that damage the reputation? What do you think of the two murders in Cumbria within 7 years of each other which could have been prevented had SS done their jobs properly?

I was directing my comments to the posters who are trying to minimise the mistakes made by Cumbria Social services which led to the murder of a child in its care.
In particular to the poster who wrote
'I just wont leap to attack based on one side of the story.'
If Cumbria Social services do not accept the findings of the Review which led to the murder of a child in its care, Ofsted would remove the senior team but I think they will accept the findings and there will have to be a public apology and training of its staff to take on board the findings and to act on the recommendations made in the Review.
I think a lot of posters are shocked by others trying to defend the indefensible, ie, the murder of a little boy whilst in the care of Cumbria Social Services.

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet luckily i dont need you to understand me.
@Parkperson00 i absolutely have acknowledged the mistakes they made at no point have I defended them and the part they played in that poor childs death. That a child could have been placed with abusers is so awful it is beyond comprehension, but other agencies did play a part why does accepting that truth mean I am saying social services were not to blame I never said that nor do I think it.

I guess I just don’t I’d understand how people are happy to accept Cumbria were so catastrophically wrong in one instance but absolutely 100% correct in the other. It’s unlikely that one department acts perfectly and the other misses major concerns. This is a culture problem that isn’t being addressed in Cumbria and the worst thing is - we knew this already. And yet it’s happened again.

Can someone link me the full review please, as there are very many comments here talking about the catastrophic failure of social workers and how they could have prevented this death, but from the news reports I am getting the picture that the failure to share information from health was the biggest contributing factor, so I’d like to read this full report to get the overall picture of findings, but am struggling to find it.

@Parkperson00 you have totally misunderstood what i was referring to, the one side of the story is Lauras side of the story its a fact we only have one side of the story.
The adoption side is completely different clearly ss made dreadful mistakes. There has been an unbiased case review looking at all sides. Completely different to an understandingly devastated mothers story on the BBC.

www.cumbria.gov.uk/eLibrary/Content/Internet/537/6683/6687/38391/38392/4476910925.pdf

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet The article paints a picture of social workers being able to whip children into care on a whim, as if there's not a huge chain of decision making and paperwork involved, nevermind a judge not a social worker who grants the order and children's guardians, evidence of threshold and everything else put before the Judge .
Believe me social workers don't go around removing new born babies without VERY good reason.

The article is along similar lines to how inaccurately social workers are portrayed in soaps. Its incredibly unhelpful and wildly inaccurate.

That's my issue with the article. I'm not commenting on the review and issues with the adoption element.

@Happyhouse89 i personally don’t think it does that - it would be pretty dull if it went through the full process of removal, but it is an article that has given the council a right of reply and the BBC published their replies.

And many people have had horrific experience with social workers and it’s about time that their experiences are validated not doubted especially given the appalling track record. We believe people who’ve had a shit time with the police, why not people who’ve had a shit time with social workers

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet The article could still give an accurate representation of the process without supporting the idea that social workers can walk in to hospitals and remove babies with no paperwork on a whim. Which is what this article does.