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'm not speaking 'for' anyone. As someone who lives in Cumbria I'm adding my personal observations of what the Barrow in Furness area is like to an online discussion about it.

the area IS deprived. It DOES struggle to recruit staff in all employment sectors for that amongst many other reasons.

They are the facts. I have drawn my own conclusions about the likelihood of those two facts having an impact on social work caseloads and social work recruitment in the area. My view is that it's highly likely it contributes to a failure to be able to respond promptly in those situations.

you are welcome to draw your own conclusions.

@ChuckBerrysBoots v interesting about PAD.

Many, many years ago (in Cumbria in fact) I worked with a man who had struggled to conceive a child with his wife, they spent life savings on 5 failed rounds of IVF (plus 3 NHS rounds) and aged about 43/44 finally adopted a little six month old girl. They had everything they ever wanted, in theory. But he came back from adoption leave no longer a father. after just 3 weeks they called the social worker and said they wished to hand her back. Many people at work were extremely judgmental about it, but he later told me and another colleague that basically the day she came to live with them they both fell into a crippling depression and didn’t enjoy a second of it. He said they couldn’t see themselves forming a bond and had the foresight to recognise this could quickly turn into resentment. They were astute enough to recognise their mistake and how if they didn’t hand her back it could be a bad outcome for everyone. Children’s services weren’t a barrier in returning her. I think they appreciates their honesty.

I actually think that’s one of the bravest things I’ve known a person to do. It must have been so tough but far better to do that than risk any harm, emotional or otherwise, to everyone.

They didn’t adopt after that, they completely pulled out the process and I haven’t seen them in years but I hope they’re happy and confident they made the right choice!

I just see these responses as attempts to defend social services. The fact that the review directs social services to act robustly in a timely manner suggests that the people carrying out the review felt that social workers failed to act promptly and effectively to protect the baby.
I feel that any attempt to minimise or explain away using poverty etc as an excuse is failing Leiland and failing future children in care.
It can be compared to rape apologists or racists who attempt to minimise their crimes.
The only response is to condemn the actions of Social Services and make it abundantly clear that this will never happen again to any child in the care of a local authority.
In the meantime, social workers must always be accountable. No exceptions, no excuses

I agree, that was a very difficult but honest thing to do. I also know someone who adopted but a few months on there was no further mention of the child and I can only assume it quickly broke down. I think we probably need to be able to speak more openly about the complexities of adoption for adopters, children and birth families. Many countries don’t allow adoption from state care, or promote regular contact with birth families after adoption. I don’t know whether outcomes are better in those cases or not.

I suppose it’s like with parenting, there’s an expectation of new mums to adore their babies when actually PND is very raw and very common and many women struggle to find a bond with their baby. There’s no reason adoption would be different - in fact it may be harder because of surrounding circumstances? Can any social workers confirm is PAD is discussed throughout the assessment process with potential adopters?

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

this is the essence of what I was trying to describe. Unless you are familiar with the geography of where Barrow is located it's difficult to understand.

Barrow is on a peninsula and used to be part of Lancashire. It's difficult to get to - look at it on a map and see how long it takes to get there from e.g Carlisle, Penrith, Lancaster or Kendal by road.

Now factor in that it's primarily accessed by the A590 and there is no other easy way in from anywhere but higher up the west coast of Cumbria.

the A590 is frequently blocked due to accidents, almost daily at the moment it seems.

it's a commute that in Cumbria people try and avoid - for e.g doctors and nurses if it's a choice between the snail trail to Furness General Hospital in Barrow or wizzing up or down the motorway to Royal Lancaster Infirmary or Cumberland Infirmary people from outside Barrow will generally seek employment outside of Barrow.

this leaves Barrow having to fend for itself and largely draw on people who already live in the area as it's virtually impossible to get people from outside the area to do that commute long term.

does that mean that there's a certain level of acceptance of you've got to do the best with what you've got? I don't know.

I think you have entirely misunderstood what I was saying Parkperson00 I wasn't blaming poverty I was trying to paint a picture of why Barrow as a deprived area also has significant issues recruiting sufficient professional staff to work in its services.

It's incredibly rural in the area surrounding Barrow and very sparsely populated, it is not inner city London with millions of people and lots of population movement. The population of Barrow is 67k and from that population they have to recruit nearly all of their own health and social care staff because it's so difficult to recruit people into Barrow from outside.

@TheCumbrian i know exactly what you mean about Barrow.

I used to go there frequently when I worked in the media and the place always gave me the creeps - it was like going through a long portal of roads to a place where time stood still in about 1975. I did a few interview in people’s homes, for various reasons and it was always the same - homes chocca full of people, a strange atmosphere and everyone was suspicious of outsiders. I felt unsafe on a number of occasions. Whitehaven where Leiland James was from is not dissimilar and also kind of stuck on the end of the sea somewhere.

There’s no opportunities or reason for anyone to move to Barrow unless they get a good job with BAE systems I guess. It’s very, very insular, everyone’s knows everybody else and their business. Very Royston Vasey.

In those circumstances it isn’t easy to have a thriving social system, and no one seems to want to improve anything out that way. Which is why it makes one wonder, when there are so many instances of systematic failures in one area, what is the norm and the culture in that community?

Yes, from reading the review I can see that there are concerns raised appropriately about the adopters not bonding, not calling him by his name, struggling and needing respite, and that there were worries that the adoptive placement might break down. This is, I’m afraid, not entirely unusual, and would not have given rise to suspicion that they could do what they did in killing this poor child, and so the need for “rescue” would not be on their radar. It does seem that support was slow to be put into place and visits made at the statutory minimum, which was inappropriate given the fragility of the placement even aside from the unknowns, and I’m afraid this doesn’t surprise me either because I know only too well how these services are resourced.

The fact that the review directs social services to act robustly in a timely manner suggests that the people carrying out the review felt that social workers failed to act promptly and effectively to protect the baby.

I think the “robust and timely” comment relates to the slow response to the concerns that the carers were not bonding, which wouldn’t in itself be an indicator of immediate harm but of course the service needs to be there, but you cannot point the fingers of blame at individual social workers who, as the review said, are experienced and recognised the problems in the placement, but didn’t act as quickly as they could have, and I will say if you’ve ever worked in social care you’ll know the reason for this isn’t an individual social worker. It’s the failure of government to resource the service.

It also needs to be noted that the social workers did not have the full picture and if they had, they may well have responded very differently or indeed likely would not have approved them in the first place (6 bottles of wine a week and anger problems would certainly preclude them in my area, and in fact should have prompted a safeguarding referral in respect of the older child). But it’s impossible to undertake a thorough and accurate risk assessment if huge pieces of information like this are missing.

Perhaps future adopters may find that they are asked to fund expensive drug and alcohol screening tests and provide full credit checks, but even that doesn’t solve the issue of not sharing full medical records.

I may sound defensive but I am tired of blame being cast at social workers who are often doing their best in a broken and failing system, and often at a cost to their personal wellbeing, only to read diatribes aimed at them written by people who sound like they have an axe to grind or don’t understand the realities. The truth is that parents will always kill their children, and other people will kill children, and sometimes that could have been prevented because mistakes were made by social workers OR any number of other professionals working with children, or prevented if there had been enough funding and resources to provide the service to a level that would have picked up what was going on. But other times it couldn’t be prevented. To say no child should ever die at the hands of those who are supposed to care for them is an idealistic and hopeful view, but impossible to achieve. And ultimately those responsible are the killers.

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?

I read this in the local newspaper article linked by a pp. Apparently, in a phone conversation subsequent to Leiland James’ admission to hospital after the attack, in which turning off his life support was being discussed with his potential adopter, she admitted having hit him on a previous occasion. I think that’s correct.

Just come back to this thread because I found the story so upsetting with so many posters defending social workers for having a difficult job and allowing the status quo to continue.
It seems to me that people are explaining away the issues in this case by making reference to a poor isolated community lacking dynamic leadership in social care and health care. That might be a contributing factor but it should not be a reason to let children down in this way.
If the outcomes for children in care, and children with non biological parents (step parents) are so poor it makes sense to work with birth families wherever possible to achieve the best for children.
I think I am right in saying that there was a huge movement away from institutional care for children in the eighties and nineties because growing up in a family group was demonstrably better for the welfare of children in care. If growing up within a biological extended family is proven to be better for the child that is where the money and support should be directed.
So many adoptive placements break down so it seems to make sense to explore better ways of caring for children who cannot live with their parents.
Just accepting these tragic cases and excusing the social workers because they have a difficult job seems so wrong. There has to be a real initiative to identify the factors that are likely to be most successful in caring for looked after children and promoting policies which support these successful factors.
It feels so wrong to me to allow children to be murdered in care because that is what happens in a poor area that doesn't attract talented staff prepared to challenge current practices.
A baby was removed from the birth mother because there were concerns about possible future safeguarding concerns. Presumably this is standard practice and the baby was placed with a highly unsuitable adoptive family allowed to self certify as to their suitability.
The birth mother was not allowed to self certify with regard to her future ability to keep the child safe.
Social workers took a chance on the adoptive parents and recommended therapeutic counselling when the placement was clearly breaking down. Nobody interviewed the existing child in the adoptive family who was also being abused.
It seems to me that offering proper support and monitoring for the birth mother was far more likely to have successful outcomes for the child.

One would hope that this case would be a catalyst for change but based on all the posters defending social workers for having difficult jobs in a deprived area, nothing will change and that is truly shameful.

It is clear that there was discrimination in the treatment of the birth mother compared to the much more positive attitude shown towards the adoptive family. Allowing people applying to adopt to self certify as to their suitability is so wrong. Failing to consult an existing child in the adoptive family is so wrong. Knowing that there were significant concerns about the welfare of a baby in the care of the adoptive family ( fostering him out for overnight stays at other family members, changing his name, making very sporadic visits to check on his welfare) so wrong.
There us nothing positive or hopeful in this sad case, just an accepting of the status quo and a desire to protect the social workers and GPS who allowed this to happen.

Thé BBC story highlighting the murder of the little boy taken from his birth mother and given into the care of a highly unsuitable adoptive family will have been read by millions of people. It is a story that deserves to be told. It cannot be excused or explained away because the current narrative for children in care is that adoption is better than working with birth families.
The welfare of the child should always come first. Social workers should always look for the best outcome for the child and not just what current policy dictates.

If growing up within a biological extended family is proven to be better for the child that is where the money and support should be directed.

It already is, children are only adopted outside of the birth family in cases where no one in the birth family is either capable or willing.

I keep thinking about Mo Farah, rescued from slavery by a teacher at his school. A teacher who went above and beyond to help a student. Why was the existing child's school not contacted by social workers in the case of Leiland James?
So many social workers complaining about work load and not following through on welfare checks with other agencies.
It is hard to see social services in a positive light after this.
There has to be much more rigour and accountability if social workers are to be seen as a force for protecting children and not just going through the motions.

And just as the move away from orphanages and children's homes happened in the eighties and nineties, there now has to be a focus on alternative provision and support to ensure every child grows up in a living safe home.

Just in case you have not noticed Leiland was a toddler not a school age child. Toddlers who are fostered do not go to nurseries as foster mums are expected to devote their time to them and do not work while they are fostering.

Most of the things you are saying should be in place Parkperson00 are in place. But you can't magic social workers and resources out of thin air. The best procedures in the world still don't work if there are not the people on the ground to do the actual work within those procedures.

But if you know how it should be done I'm sure Cumbria County Council and Barrow-In-Furness will welcome you with open arms when you get your social work qualification.

it’s obviously practically unheard of for adoptive parents to murder their children.

Without wishing to derail the thread, I'm not sure it is. There was a little girl in South Wales (I want to say Cardiff) who was killed by her adoptive dad within the last ten years I'm sure. Given only a small proportion of children are adopted, two in ten years is actually a lot proportionally and may well mean that adoptive parents are as likely to kill their children as biological ones. This needs to be taken very seriously; if all the careful vetting that SS are supposed to do doesn't change the chance of a child being murdered then what's the point?

I am a teacher. I have worked with social workers professionally. There is a huge emphasis in schools on safeguarding and protecting children in our care.
I would hope that Cumbria Social Services (which is closing) has a full Ofsted inspection to identify their failings so that the can be paired with authorities that offer outstanding provision for looked after children and implement improved policies and practices. It doesn't need me to qualify as a social worker ( facetious suggestion) but to work in partnership with good authorities to learn and improve.
I hope the new authority takes on board the need for change and makes the best welfare of the child the clear focus going forward.

You and others don't seem to understand the difference between explaining and excusing.

Time after time posters here have explained some procedures, or in this case given some context to the area and the social issues which you have taken as excuses and defence.

You are also repeatedly saying that there were serious safeguarding concerns about the adopters and Leiland but haven't given any more information and I can't see where it was known that he was being hit prior to his hospital admission.

I know this is an emotive and upsetting subject but your reactions and arguments here aren't rational or factual and you're shouting down other people.

It is clear that there was discrimination in the treatment of the birth mother compared to the much more positive attitude shown towards the adoptive family.

I agree with this.

When I said earlier that going to Barrow was like stepping back to 1975 I didn’t mean in terms of infrastructure- there’s actually lots of shops, restaurants and facilities in Barrow. I’m talking about attitudes towards people. Apologies to the people of Barrow but speaking to residents and finding out about the area there seemed to be an undercurrent of disdain for women and POC. Enquiries into Poppi Worthington and the maternity scandal told us the same things about staff in public services in Barrow - they ignored red flags, don’t listen to vulnerable women, they fuck up then cover up the fuck-up. But they aren’t bright enough to cover up the fuck-ups properly. It seemed there is discrimination towards certain types of people - poor families, single families, women etc.

Just my opinion but knowing the area I strongly suspect that Laura Corkhill, a woman who had several children to different men, a single woman who was perhaps not terribly bright, never stood a chance to be judged by anything other than her social circumstances. And a married white couple with a child already would have been automatically respected due theirs.

Its not just Barrow of course, lots of places will have this attitude and like it or not it WILL seep into professions within the community, like it clearly has before. That kind of prejudice is dangerous and it keeps happening in this area, and nobody seems to want to join the dots.

But if you know how it should be done I'm sure Cumbria County Council and Barrow-In-Furness will welcome you with open arms when you get your social work qualification

Its comments like this that infuriate time. A child is dead, again. Murdered by someone he was placed with by Cumbria County Council. And you think these pissy, PA and overly-defensive comments are helpful? So sorry (not sorry) if social workers feels are hurt but maybe this could be a chance to learn and reflect rather than stamp your feet and cry about people being meanies.

@TemperTrap You are excusing the actions of Cumbria Social Services. Why is Cumbria County Council closing and reopening as a smaller unit? It must be in part that there is recognition that the current provision is not fit for purpose. There will have to be a real determination on the part of the new authority to work with outstanding providers and learn and implement new ways of working. We cannot accept the murder of a child while in the care of a local authority. Explaining the reasons for failures is not enough. There has to be a willingness to change and put child welfare firmly at the heart of all provision for looked after children.