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.

I've read the report and the failings of health agencies to share that the adoptive carer was drinking to excess and in chronic pain were examples of risk factors not being taken into account.

Not enough action was taken when red flags were emerging, such as them refusing to use his real name, them sending him to sleep out with wider family and asking for respite. They were overly reassured by the fact that their older birth child was by all accounts well cared for.

It doesn't go into much detail about why Leiland James was removed from the care of his mother in the first place.

The Castles had a 4-5yo child when they fostered LJ. This child was being abused too

They also called Leiland-James by his middle name, despite being told not to. It’s a very odd case all round. They were abusing him significantly one day and then staunchly objecting to his removal another day. Why?!

As an aside; I can’t believe Scott Castle got away with accessory to murder when he was messaging his wife encouraging the violence

The Adoption 'side' of the terrible murder is the one that I am most concerned about. What I cannot get over is that the baby was removed at birth because of potential risks and yet when the baby was being actually physically abused and social services chose not to act. That is what I cannot understand. Somebody senior in social services chose to ignore what was going on. They supported the removal of the baby from the birth mother for potential future safeguarding reasons yet they chose to ignore real abuse. That is the part I cannot understand. Whoever made that decision needs to lose their job.
That fundamentally is the issue. The failure again of social services to save the life of a child in its care.

But they also did say the council claim they told her 3 times.

Ive already said I don’t believe she can’t have known he was going to be removed. BUT I can believe that she may not have fully understood the process. And I believe local authorities should ensure that parents are fully informed and equipped to defend themselves, not just left to their own devices in a vulnerable state.

Please will one of the social worker posters explain why someone in Cumbria Social Services decided not to act to rescue this little boy. It upsets me so very much that someone senior chose to ignore evidence, chose not to step in robustly and in a timely manner but just to ignore the huge red flags.

I am a teacher, I know through and through that every child matters, that safeguarding goes above everything else when it comes to children so why did someone senior paid a lot of money, bat away concerns about a child's welfare.
Why would anyone defend someone who chose to ignore the plight of a helpless baby?

It is this inaction that upsets me most about this case. Will this social worker have to justify what they chose to ignore? Will they lose their job or will it be glossed over and forgotten ?
I can't forgive them on behalf of this little boy. They had the opportunity to prevent murder and they chose to turn away.
The adoptive mother was wicked, her husband was wicked but so is someone who has the power to act and prevent murder and chose not to help.
How can this senior social worker for Cumbria Social Services live with themselves ?

It is unbelievable that obvious red flags were ignored. I wish we could actually hear a completely true no arse covering explanation by those involved as to how it happened. The thought processes the actual why and how so there could be a clearer understanding of what is going on.
I assume no thinks that social workers are shrugging their shoulders and not caring about children dying under their supervision, so what is happening?
We need to understand it properly without a witch hunt to change it and make improvements.

They absolutely do. They go through what’s called the “Public Law Outline” where legally the concerns have to be set out in writing and what needs to be done to address them, and at this point the parents can access legal aid to choose and instruct a solicitor, and this solicitor will help the parents to understand the process and advise them. There are very strict rules to be followed in care proceedings and it would be quite obvious in court if the social workers hadn’t followed them.

@Parkperson00 Who is defending them?

There has to be a thorough investigation, no holds barred. I don't understand the term witch hunt. It is not a professional term.
Whoever made the decision not to act, knowing the child was being physically abused, who, in effect, played Russian roulette with that baby's life, needs to be named and face the consequences of their lack of action.

@Wellthatsachangeforthebetter
People who call a formal investigation a 'witch hunt' are in effect protecting /defending the professional social workers who were in possession of information about child abuse and failed to act to remove that child to a place of safety

The question is what did social workers know and when? According to the review, there was a lot they didn’t know and it doesn’t do a great job of setting out the timeline. Some people have referred to social workers knowing the prospective adopter had smacked LJ but that’s not referenced in the review - anyone recall where that’s come from?

Is that really how social workers refer to formal investigations? As 'witch hunts'?
I cannot imagine that term being used in a safeguarding conference in a school. Does Cumbria Social Services accuse serious case study reviews of being ´witch hunts'?

Im not a professional so the use of witch hunt is appropriate for me to use.
My problem is we keep having reviews, investigations individuals lose their job, it keeps happening its not working. We need to do something different.
Not for one minute do I believe that all the individuals that failed that poor child didnt care if he was hurt.
So why and how do these awful tragic deaths keep occurring, lets look at the processes etc in all the different agencies that failed and see what went wrong. Rather than blame individual sw's unless of course it was down to gross negligence by an individual.

@Parkperson00 I am not a social worker.

The area in Cumbria that both PW and LJ were in is frequently listed as one of the most deprived parts of the whole country. Most of the people working in that area in social services will have been born and bred within a few miles of the area or will be agency staff working remotely from other parts of the country most of the week.

it's not an area where people 'settle' post university etc or naturally migrate to. It's run down, has a poor reputation for social issues such as drugs and despite the council offering golden handshakes to try and recruit social workers it really struggles because frankly Barrow isn't that an enticing place to live for a lot of people and it's not commutable to from anywhere remotely affordable. It sticks out into the sea one one side and joins on to the lake district with its million pound houses on the other.

its (currently) a vast county with all the power and most of the services being held 85 miles away from Barrow in Carlisle.

The NHS services in the area are incredibly disjointed as the come under University Hospitals of Morecambe Bay which is heavily Lancashire based. The GP and health services are massively over subscribed and have a disproportionate of drug, alcohol and mental health issues.

the social workers in that area will have caseloads bulging at the seams with mothers like Laura and less than ideal adoption and fostering placements.

From what I've witnessed from a peripheral position it's basically just firefighting on a daily basis.

Cumbria County council actually ceases to exist next April and Barrow will instead be in a much small local authority called Westmorland and Furness. Hopefully that might give opportunity for the needed changes.

Again, what is the evidence social workers knew she had previously hurt the child? This article suggests that only came to light after he was hospitalised.

Thé BBC reports that

The social worker, Penny Hindle, said that she felt the youngster did not like the couple, and a 'looked after child' review followed, which resulted in Mrs Hindle saying she could not support a permanent adoption application.'
So why was the child left with the adoptive family? Social Services were aware of poor parenting, fostering the child out to extended family. Social Services left the child to be murdered. The worst defence would be that it is a poor area so Social Sévices just didn't bother.
I am proud that London Schools in some of the most deprived boroughs are achieving amazing results, some of the best in the country. The school leaders don't try and use poverty as an excuse.

@TheCumbrian . Are you speaking for Cumbria Social Services in using poverty in the area as an excuse for failing children in their care?

I am pleased to hear Cumbria County Council will no longer exist. However, there can never be excuses made for failing children in this way. Some senior social worker made the decision to leave the baby in the adoptive home in spite of serious safeguarding concerns.
They need to be held accountable for their actions. I very much hope that they think about the death of a baby in their care every day so that they never again choose the easy option of ignoring worrying reports about the welfare of a child in their care.

So why was the child left with the adoptive family?

As far as I can work out, it was because the concern at that time was the lack of a bond, not about abuse. The bit about “not liking them” is reported slightly differently in the article I linked to: “The defendant had told Mrs Hindle that she felt the youngster did not like the couple”.

Also, the review itself says:
The social worker who visited reflected, with hindsight, that ‘post adoption depression’ (PAD) may have been an issue. Post Adoption Depression Syndrome was first written about by June Bond in 1995. It describes the stress, anxiety, and depression that many parents experience following adopting a child. Estimates suggest that up to 65% of adopters experience it at some point after having a child placed with them. It describes a mental health impact which may be from ‘the stress inherent in parenting, attachment/bonding challenges and when the needs of the child are more significant than expected’. It can also be due to unresolved grief and loss due to any infertility issues that resulted in the application to become adopters. All adoptive parents and professionals need to know and understand that low mood following a child being placed is normal and to be expected, and that support is available and will help. In Leiland- James’s case this may have been an issue that would have impacted on his lived experience. The female prospective adopter’s known and admitted history of low mood and anxiety may have made her more susceptible to PAD. The adoption social workers in Cumbria are experienced in guiding adopters through the possible responses to what can be the overwhelming experience of caring for an adopted child. The review has found that there are benefits if this support is multi-agency however and that it is essential to ensure that the second carer in the family is made aware of any concerns. It is acknowledged that the extent of the carer’s mental health issues and her negative feelings about her own child, told to First Steps in 2018, were not known or shared at the time.

4.37 Those involved reflected, that concerns about bonding do emerge as an issue in an adoption placement, and that resources are available to work on this. In this case, when their social worker spoke to them on the telephone after the November visit described above, the female carer was more positive and accepted the work proposed. The social workers formulated a plan to provide support from the therapeutic service which they hoped would address the concerns about an absence of bonding / attachment. An initial appointment was arranged and held on 16 December 2020, around 6 weeks after the duty social workers visit. This meeting was held at the time of the statutory visit to Leiland-James undertaken by the adoption social worker, and this was the first time that Leiland-James had been seen in person by CSC since the previous statutory visit early in November by a social worker from the child’s team. A plan was made for more work to be undertaken in the New Year. This perceived delay was due to the expectation that this is a longer-term piece of work rather than an emergency response. It was not due to capacity issues or limited resources within the therapeutic service. The review identifies learning for the service regarding the lack of a timelier response.

I think in this context ‘witch hunt’ usually means “who is the lowest person on the rung we can pin this on”. Because I can bet my bottom dollar no one senior loses their job over this

I think @TheCumbrian is just going contact to what the area is like because it’s depravity is relevant.

There is something about that place though with continued failings - look at the Barrow maternity scandal. Lots of women and babies died at the hands of incompetent midwives. It does beg the question - is it a culture problem in the area? Public services continue consistently to epically fail in Barrow.

the people will still exist, the name will just change. Painting over the cracks so to speak.