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 don't think anyone has said this.

I think it’s more the assumption that the mother is telling lies and social services ‘had their reasons’ when Cumbria children’s services have demonstrably (not for the first time in recent years) have shown they spectacularly failed a child. Yet again.

There have been a lot of posts denying that Laura Corkhill’s version of events are true thouhh, @Supersee , and these posts have been very insistent that ‘there must be more to it.’

Some posters don’t even seem to be considering that perhaps she is telling the truth and that the social workers were in the wrong.

It's a dreadful situation but if she's already had 2 children taken away from her (as I believe I read) then surely it shows that social services (who I don't believe to be infallible) have tried with her...without knowing the full story there it's very hard to make a judgement.

Or it shows that she was the victim of terrible abuse and then had the added trauma of having her children removed.

Im sure there was more however it's pretty cruel to allow contact if she's apparently so incompetent and never stood a chance of having him back.

I don't think this is a case of her mistreating her children, I bet she was a victim who maybe made poor decisions and that's there was interventions. Feel very sorry for her regardless.

And yes, if the DV abuser was in the picture, SS can remove children.

My first reaction to this was that there must be more to it. The article didn't go into detail about why the older children were removed or if the father was still in the picture and reading between the lines suspect there's more to that story. However, it doesn't remove the fact that even though she had legal support and a charity to advocate for her, she clearly wasn't able to navigate or understand the system. It's shocking that she wasn't aware the baby was to be removed at birth, that's really inexcusable.

I think only the enquiry will uncover the truth and I'm not sure the public would ever be told the reasons the baby was taken away. From what I've seen of SS is they try their hardest to keep children with unsuitable mothers. I've seen a young child with a burn injury sustained that morning at home, brought in via nursery, and the mother hadn't sought medical advice. She then left him alone in the hospital room to go and get her fix. The child was withdrawn and imo should never have been with that mother.

How many cases do we read of a child 'known to SS' or on an at risk register, murdered or injured by their parent or the mothers bf?

There is more to this than we are likely to learn so it's pointless speculating, but I very much take with a pinch of salt, reports of baby's taken without a lot of work behind the scenes.

My big question is why this woman who murdered him was allowed to adopt? What procedures were followed then as there must have been couples in a better position to adopt him?

I think there is plenty of evidence that the best outcomes for a child are to be brought up by family or extended family. Whatever MN might want people to think, children are much more likely to be harmed by non biological parent such as a step parent or adoptive parent.
I am a teacher and I have seen plenty of adopted children returned to the system. Something like a third of placements break down.
I have seen placements where a family of children have been adopted only for one to be returned because they didn't fit with the adoptive family. There is the recent heartbreaking memoir by Lemn Sissay about his experience of being adopted away from his biological family only to go into care when the placement broke down.
I think anyone who read the original case about Leiland James will find themselves wondering about the adoption process for him. Something went very wrong and I do wonder if adoptive parents receive the same level of scrutiny as birth parents. I do hope social workers lost their jobs over their misguided handling of this dear little boy.

So people are still very insistent that ‘there must be more to it’ and that the ‘truth’ is somehow hidden. Can I ask why the word of two women who work for a reputable charity is disbelieved?

And I agree with with @bluegardenflowers about why on earth his adoptive mother was allowed to adopt him when the social worker handling the case admitted that she had grave reservations about this woman's fitness to be an adoptive parent.

The charity would (almost certainly) not have been party to the PLO meetings or the court proceedings.

We have recently seen cases where women have let new partners into their lives and homes who have then killed their children.
In those cases thr children would have been better off removed. And people are calling social services a disgrace for not acting sooner.
Some women are unable to protect their children even after they leave DV situations.
This is what social services are trying so hard to avoid happening.
Of course in this situation what happened is devastating.

I'm on her side, she was treated unfairly, but there is more to it. I don't blame her for not wanting to air it all on the BBC tbh.

We cannot remove children on the basis of what ‘might’ happen.

This is what safeguarding is.

PLO meetings are not multi-agency meetings correct but the point is that the council did not communicate with them as stakeholders, as Laura’s support, they didn’t respond and seemingly ignored their advice and opinion

And plenty of women CAN protect their children. You never know if a new partner will murder your kids, and the vast majority won’t, but unless the suggestion is to remove all children from single mothers, just in case, what can be done that is not done now?

This woman had obviously been found, on multiple occasions, of being incapable of prioritising her children's safety over her choice(s) of partner. What happened to Leiland-James was horrendous, and I feel deeply for her that her child suffered this way. However, it's vanishingly unlikely that he'd have been 'safe' at home: it's far more likely he'd have ended up another Logan Mwangi, Star Hobson, Arthur Labinjo-Hughes. The poor child was never likely to have a happy, healthy childhood.

The women from the charity would not be privy to this Mothers complete background and all details from her previous child's removal as they are a voluntary organisation. They would only hear from the Mothers point of view unless consent was given for them to be brought in on meetings to discuss such past.

But if, and I know this is speculation because we don't know the details, if she has repeatedly gone back to an abusive partner, ignored or covered up the abuse of a child, or gone from one abusive home to the next..... where is the evidence the outcome for the next child will be better?
Sometimes, on the balance of evidence it seems highly unlikely some mothers are capable of protecting their kids.
Its not all single parents obviously (I am one by the way). That would be ridiculous.
But some do have a history that would make leaving a child in their care very risky.
Now we don't know the details of this case so I couldn't say if the mistake was removing the baby or not.
The mistake was certainly in placing Leiland-James in the care of the woman who murdered him, and I think that's where the serious case review should focus.

I'm sure there is a bit more to this story, but I have no doubt the Mother was failed here. So much took place over the pandemic and we all know how so many services absolutely fell apart during that time.

I understand what you are saying @PollyEsther but no one has still accounted for allowing a woman that the primary social worker had grave doubts about being suitable, being allowed to adopt a baby. Suely the dangers of a non biological parent should also apply to adoptive parents? Why did no one act to stop such an unsuitable adoptive mother?
I can't understand why all this talk of safeguarding a baby when it came to the baby's biological parent being disregarded when it came to an adoptive parents.
The social worker said she had already decided to speak out against the adoptive parents but left him in their care. She and others should lose their jobs over such an obvious breach of safeguarding.

PLO meetings are not multi-agency meetings correct but the point is that the council did not communicate with them as stakeholders, as Laura’s support, they didn’t respond and seemingly ignored their advice and opinion

Support to the mother or not, they are obviously not going to be privy to all the info, background history, any police involvement with the family etc etc etc being discussed at the vast majority of multi-agency meetings that would've taken place prior to removal.

Also not sure why posters are failing to understand why we think there's more to the story than just the mother's side. It's clear as day.

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet

In a Case Conference there is a vote that takes place and every person attending states if they agree or disagree with a plan for example to be placed on the Child protection register, it is not the Social Worker alone who decides this. Police may have been involved in this case if they perhaps attended any incidents prior to Leiland being conceived ie the birth father who is not mentioned anywhere or since the removal of her children to highlight any risk or incidents attended.

I don't think people realise how many agencies are involved in stuff like this. It's not just 'social work'. Of course Social Services make mistakes, but it's not a case of them going 'oh look, vulnerable mum has taken up with an unsavoury fella, let's take the child in case something bad happens'. That does not happen.