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.

A birth parent is very unlikely to give the whole story.

Anyway, my childrens birth mother has appeared in a “social services stole my children” sob story in magazine. She failed to mention that SS involvement in some way had been present for almost three years before her birth children were taken into care, she failed to mention her drug us, alcohol misuse, the broken bones inflicted on a baby, the burns inflicted on her birth children, the malnutrition or the variety of men who were in and out of the home on a regular basis, most likely clients.

What she did however mention was what a wonderful mother she was and how she had never done anything wrong or anything that may put her birth children at risk of harm.

If a birth parent, or a family member of the birth parent is at all capable with support to care for the birth child/ren then SS will do anything in their power to enable that to happen. Completely removing children from the birth family is a complete last resort. Adoption outside of the birth family will mean that not a single adult in the birth family was either suitable/safe or willing to care for the child/ren.

No (and yes)

Safeguarding is what it says on the tin. Reasonable action to protect, yes. Removing a child from someone who has a proven record of violence because they night be violent in future, yes. Removing a child from someone with no record of violence in case they are violent in the future would be both wrong and preposterous.

Laura Corkhill falls more into the latter than the former. She has no record of violence or abuse. What she does have is a record of being the victim of violence and abuse. It is not safeguarding her or her children to remove them from their mother because of this.

Re the charity not being privy to all the information -at the very least, they should surely have known Leiland James was being removed at birth. The fact that they did not is what makes me think the rest is true. I also think the fact a lot of this happened during and between lockdowns is a factor.

It’s very uncomfortable reading, this.

We Don’t Believe You.

I still don't understand why all of the posters who are defending the social workers, explain just why the social workers did not remove Leiland when the adoptive mother admitted to physical abuse of the baby prior to her killing him.
www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/woman-admitted-smacking-leiland-james-23854184
The social workers chose to ignore this and left him in a dangerous situation which led to his murder. Does safeguarding not apply to adoptive parents?

What she does have is a record of being the victim of violence and abuse. It is not safeguarding her or her children to remove them from their mother because of this.

But isn't a history of being with abusive and violent men, despite having children, a massive safeguarding red flag that shows a history of not being able to protect the children from living in an abusive home?

That doesn't take away from her being a victim so please don't think that's what I'm trying to do.

I just think that if someone has a history of living with multiple violent men then that could be a huge predictor of future risk.

Of course we don't know the ins and outs but as an adopted child, I'm sensitive to the fact that past behaviour can often (not always of course) be a good indicator of future behaviour.

A lot of talk about social workers doing their best but they clearly did not have the best interests of the baby at heart.

What she does have is a record of being the victim of violence and abuse. It is not safeguarding her or her children to remove them from their mother because of this.

Of course it is! Unless you know the mother or the case personally, you don't have all the facts to make such a statement.

She was repeatedly putting the child, and the previous children as they had been taken off her, at serious risk of harm by her choices. Removal is always a last resort and isn't taken lightly.

@Parkperson00 don't think anyone has defended this action. This is definitely a failure on the part of social services and they should be held accountable.

Someone can think that a child being adopted could be the best option in principle but also think that the handling of the placement was entirely different thing.

Clearly the fact that this woman admitted to harming him means that he should never ever have been returned to her.

But if he had been placed in a safe and loving home from the start, the outcome would have been different.

Returning him to the care of someone who admitted harming him was of course 100% disgraceful.

Social workers cannot just remove children, if a placement order is granted by the courts the child stays in the placement until the case goes to court again, either raised by SS, or by the potential adopters (they remain potential adopters until an adoption order is granted) or the potential adopters decide to disrupt.

The only exception is like in any case where the child is deemed at risk of immediate harm, in which case the police can assist in removing the child there and then.

@wellhelloitsme I think removal of a child from its mother should only ever be made on the basis of what has happened. Someone who is single at the time of the birth, is engaging with supportive organisations and has shown willingness to change isn’t a safeguarding risk at that time.

If it changes in the future - if she takes up with someone unsuitable - then that’s when removal becomes a possibility. Not before. Otherwise it is punishing her for being a victim.

There is this story. There is Poppi. There are people on this thread. We still won’t accept it, will we? They got it wrong.

But isn't a history of being with abusive and violent men, despite having children, a massive safeguarding red flag that shows a history of not being able to protect the children from living in an abusive home?

Yes exactly this. Unfortunately, and one we as women don't like to think of, there are women who put abusive men and relationships above their children. It happens, a lot. And they would've been warned repeatedly that they risk having their children being removed.

Probably due to their own vulnerabilities and it becomes a cycle that they absolutely should receive help with with the limited resources around. However in the interim that can't be at the cost of a child's right to a harm free life.

Legal aid lawyers are the most experienced and knowledgeable lawyers, as they do this work every day, both privately paid and legally aided. They most certainly are not in cahoots with the local authority. If I were ever in this position, I’d go for lawyers who are highly experienced in care proceedings, which will be those who do legal aid work.

I think removal of a child from its mother should only ever be made on the basis of what has happened.

It is!!! With all due respect, I'm not sure you understand the concept of safeguarding.

And the patronising posts about ‘social workers can’t just …’ are getting really irritating. People here are not stupid. We know social workers can’t just walk in and take a child, any more than a member of the police can just throw you into a cell or your boss can just dismiss you without warning. Procedures and policies have to be followed, but ultimately, yes, they do have the power to do just that.

Exactly, and that is what will be remembered from this case. A lot of talk of safeguarding but not applying it when it was the adoptive mother who admitted the abuse prior to her murdering him. Social workers caring about possible danger from the birth mother's situation but completely ignoring safeguarding procedures with regard to the little boy. It can be dressed up and talked over but this case will leave a huge legacy of suspicion and doubt about social work practices. This is the important focus of this case.

No, @Supersee , I understand it fine, thanks. I understand that decisions are made on the basis of future harm. However, my belief is that not all of those decisions are correct.

@LastThursdayInJuly not sure future harm. Past serious harm. They work in tandem.

*just

They don't though. The court does.

Oh the basis of information given by social workers, @Supersee . Come on. You know this.

I do. And it's not just social work who decides this.

I take it you know that the child or adults social worker is unable to approach the courts.

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

Thats disingenuous in the extreme, @Simonjt , and it isn’t really a thread for attempts at withering sarcasm.

There will be many cases where removal is the right decision, but it isn’t a given. This is I suspect one of these cases.