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.

Loads of typos there!

You can of course contribute to the discussion, but you’re not reading or taking on board others’ contributions and you’re repeatedly posting the same things which have been explained by those who have knowledge of how things work. That isn’t discussion, it’s diatribe.

And yet Hackney in London -
Hackney has the highest proportion of areas within the most deprived 10 per cent nationally (11 per cent of its LSOAs).
Yet the numbers going to university are rising all the time

The BBC noted four years ago
A child on free school meals (FSM) living in Hackney, east London, is three times more likely to go to university than a child on FSM from Hartlepool.

So many posters telling me to keep quiet about my hopes for the future of looked after children in Cumbria. If it can be done in Hackney it can be done in Cumbria unless the will simply isn't there. Too many people explaining away poor outcomes for looked after children and little evidence that there is a will to change things for the better.

@Parkperson00 I am on your side. And have agreed with most of what you say.

Me saying “it’s just a talking point” is stating that absolutely nobody is blaming geography on these deaths. It’s just part of the discussions about the case, people trying to paint a picture of the area. That’s not being used an excuse and I don’t know why you can’t see that.

This is true. It also goes some way to explain the prejudices and small-town small-mind attitude many experience. Not everywhere is central London and a lot of people don’t realise that

People aren't "explaining it away", they're raising some of the very real stumbling blocks that lead to a poor service with sometimes tragic outcomes.

Hackney is commutable for anyone in London, so the 'talent' pool of potential SWs is larger than that of almost any area.

The overhaul there involved attracting that talent, in part by casting a wider net, to put in practice the much needed reforms to the work being done there.

People aren't saying it's right that it's harder to have a large talent pool in areas outside large cities with easy transport infrastructure, they're saying it's a reality that means it would need to be tackled in a different way.

And of course the high levels of poverty and depravity in Barrow are relevant. The Cumbria poster was just explaining perhaps how and why it’s so impoverished. That’s all

Me saying “it’s just a talking point” is stating that absolutely nobody is blaming geography on these deaths. It’s just part of the discussions about the case, people trying to paint a picture of the area. That’s not being used an excuse and I don’t know why you can’t see that.

Yes this.

Nobody is saying flippantly that it's a lost cause so why bother tackling it.

They're saying it needs to be tackled differently due to the location as it raises specific issues that are not present in larger cities with a larger potential 'talent' pool and fast transport links for example.

@Parkperson00
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

This is such an odd thing to say and shows how little you know about childrens' services.

For the last few DECADES this is exactly what has been going on. There has been a great deal of research, policies, initiatives, regulations, training and money aimed at doing exactly that. SS ALWAYS try to place within an extended family and devote their energies to support within the family first. Always. The whole system works around this principle.

Exactly this. Placement with biological family is the first port of call and most preferable outcome where at all possible. It is prioritised as an outcome. That doesn't mean it's always possible.

Literally no one is telling you to keep quiet about Cumbria’s children.

Hackney and Barrow are absolutely polar opposites. Barrow and Hartlepool however are not dissimilar in terms of social make up. Geography and depravity are relevant in these kinds of cases but they’re not an excuse. In fact they should be used as a tool on how to do better all Round

Yes exactly!

I don’t know what the solution is for Barrow. I know exactly why it doesn’t attract talent though from outside - I also know why Whitehaven doesn’t attract talent. Devices in these areas all round suffer because of the lack of attracting talent. It’s a relevant discussion as part of the social care improvements

Hackney has money, money equals resources.

We live in Hackney, right now, we have about 40 free summer schemes to choose from, there are countless youth clubs, youth outreach services, free university summer school places, a fantastic pool of staffing due to the large population and easy and cheap public transport.

How do you propose to provide Cumbria with the same level of funding? How do you propose to encourage staff to move to Cumbria? How many local universities are there to provide summer schemes? How many free or very cheap summer schemes are there for school age children? How many well used youth centres etc are there? Look at the ethnic mix, parents on a low income who are not white british are less likely to have other problems alongside poverty, such as alcohol, drug us etc. Education is more likely to be valued. I assume cumbria is majority white british.

Op I have read your replies only.

firstly where is your evidence to support your statement that she didn’t know social workers were going to come to the hospital and remove her child?

you don’t have it - that evidence will be on the database in the SW office. All contacts made with the mother will be recorded on there.

once this woman made it known to health she was pregnant that will have triggered a referral to SW given her previous children have been removed.

it is highly likely that this woman was given chance after chance to end her previous abusive relationships and did not do so hence the removal of her other children

it is v v v likely that the child’s father had a history of DV. Indicating a propensity to attract abusers

it is not good enough that a DV charity claimed she was a good enough parent. They can’t carry out parenting assessments and so they are not qualified to say whether she is fit or not.

you do not know how long she was interacting with this agency. Clearly not during her pregnancy as SW wasn’t involved then (according to mother)

you do not know what she allowed her other children to be subjected to in the past and whether this was the same father to all children. If it was then even more so is the danger.

don’t assume people don’t get multiple chances to keep their children safe as they absolutely do!!!

the threshold for removal is very high and there must be evidence, EVIDENCE.

you are defending this woman but you have not seen her record. You have no idea what she has done to her previous children!

she may well have been with this man throughout her pregnancy.

there’s a lot you do not know so how on earth can you come on here declaring that this was wrong and that was wrong blah blah

I am really sorry you have declined to read the whole thread. It is full of information, with links to various pieces of additional info that are relevant; there has been valuable and valid input from many posters with experience in many spheres touched upon by this case; some thoughts around aspirations and classism have been expressed. A shame you have decided to not bother.

And a shame you haven’t bothered to respond to any of my points!!

If you had read the thread you would see that your points were already covered. HTH

What there isn’t is any information which would support the OP’s claims, because nobody here has any access to this information. Nobody here can make pronouncements about whether the care order should or shouldn’t have been made, because there would have been masses of paperwork before the court and we can see none of it.

I haven’t got the time or the patience. I am very very familiar with the CP process. Even though all families are different most of the factors are very similar. Text book even.

abusers work in a similar way, the relationships go a similar way. The excuses are the same. The deceit is the same, sneaking him in and being caught and reported. Not reporting your beating because he’s not supposed to be there. and it goes on. It’s a pattern. Highly likely what went on here.

i will leave then as I definitely won’t be reading the thread

Exactly the crowening!! But the op is taking the mother at her word and that is just not going to cut it!

the court had evidence and the mother doesn’t tell us what this evidence is!! Of course she doesn’t but why is anyone surprised

oh that’s because they think SW rocked up and took her baby without good reason!

hmmmm

@Quitelikeit unfortunately a couple of posters verging on the hysterical (imo) refused to hear anything other than social workers are evil and that if you pointed out that children aren't removed lightly from mothers you were a fellow social worker which is akin to rape apologists.

Can I ask, do you then assume the same of all victims of DV? I feel like a lot of social workers believe humans are cookie cutter examples of each other. Can you believe there are some women who will leave and stay away from her violent ex? What if he comes to her house to intimidate her - do you penalise her for that?

A lot of us on this thread are just making the point that victims are demonised and mistrusted.

Of course all the people are different but domestic abuse follows a pattern.

of course there are women who leave and that’s why they still have their kids.

the women who protect their kids will keep them (and there are many that don’t that still keep them tbh)

this woman is now working with a DV charity? That doesn’t help her children now.

Indicating a propensity to attract abusers

I think this is an unfair statement. Abusers are masterful at choosing victims with vulnerabilities - whether that be learning disability, mental health issues, substance misuse, social isolation etc etc. “Propensity” makes it sound like repeat victims of domestic abuse go looking for partners to abuse them - it’s far more likely the other way - their status as a previous victIm of abuse makes them vulnerable to abuse by others and by future partners. Victims should be empowered through things like the Freedom Programme to spot the signs of abuse and also supported to tackle whatever it is that makes them more likely to be a victim. I agree with some of the posters here that such support is often lacking (and would be far more cost effective than removing children).

If he comes to her house she should call the police! If she doesn’t and he’s allowed in and the kids tell SW ‘daddy was at our house’ well then that’s on her!

they let them in because they think it’s ok, because they love them, because they think no one will find out

however we don’t know that was the case here but we know her child was removed because she was involved with DV.

we know that she couldn’t keep her other children safe and we know she went on to have a child with another abuser. Possibly the same abuser.