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.

What sarcasm? I was seeing if you were aware that the child or adults social worker can’t just approach the courts.

Similarly @Supersee you have no idea what the ‘bad choices’ are that she apparently made. We don’t know - none of us.

what we DO know however is that a failing service with a history of gross incompetence struck again and a baby was murdered as a result. Is it so hard to imagine they were grossly incompetent towards the birth mother?

What strikes me as odd about these news reports is they say that social workers apparently had concerns about Leiland being with the Castles and wanted him removed but Laura Castle said “he’s not going anywhere”.

I’m sorry what?! Surely they wouldn’t throw their hands in the air and say “oh well we are powerless and he will remain here”. Not sure where that I go has come from but it implies Laura Castle refusing to hand him over meant they didn’t take him back.

Then I apologise, I clearly misread the tone.

There are two strands to this - three, possibly. Strand one is obviously that Leiland James was wrongly placed. I don’t think any of us disagree with that, but I do understand that no one could really have predicted such a horrendous outcome. I’m not actually blaming SS for that.

The second strand, which is where I think we are all perhaps unconvinced, is whether Leiland James should have been removed at all.

Some of us believe that removing a child from a woman because she has had a number of violent relationships in the past is wrong. Others seem pretty convinced that this wasn’t the only reason.

I think it is reasonable to ask for transparency here, to consider the circumstances in which a child should be removed and to bear in mind removal of a child doesn’t need to equate to adoption.

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

I’m know there is but the single woman Laura Corkhill was not one of those women. She was no longer in an abusive relationship. She was not in any relationship. I’m not sure what more she could’ve done to demonstrate her commitment to be a good mum this time around.

Remember, Cumbria county council has a history of classism against working class parents and it’s clear that perhaps Laura Corkhill wasn’t the cleverest, fanciest or poshest of mums and I truly believe she will have been discriminated against on these grounds.

Similarly @Supersee you have no idea what the ‘bad choices’ are that she apparently made. We don’t know - none of us.

No I obviously don't know the specifics. What I confidently assume though is the bad choices she made were bad enough for multi agencies to recommend the removal of her child, due to her own actions, or lack of.

The separate issue is the placement with the couple, for which they absolutely should be held accountable.

What a devastating report. Poor little boy. I found the bit about how he had been used to being held all the time during his foster placement and wanting the same physical contact in his new home really sad.

It is a worry though @Supersee , that as already said, she was single and engaging with support to help her stay this way (or at any rate, avoid the same mistakes) yet it wasn’t enough.

Honestly, and this is of course speculation, I think lockdown meant it was just easier to place Leiland James for adoption, without trying to support Laura Corkhill. The eulogy they wrote for her does indicate they didn’t have her interests at heart.

I’m know there is but the single woman Laura Corkhill was not one of those women. She was no longer in an abusive relationship. She was not in any relationship. I’m not sure what more she could’ve done to demonstrate her commitment to be a good mum this time around.

I don't think anyone can 100% say this as fact unless you were directly involved in the case. I've worked in this line of work and bottom line, the child/ren were removed for a reason.

The mother stated herself in Article that she in an abusive relationships after her other children were removed, so history repeating itself.

Thanks for this.

So the foster carers were already abusing their existing children.

I didn’t actually realise they already had kids. I haven’t read the full report yet but Jesus what an enormous fuck up this all is. I hope their children are safe and well.

Three strands, not two, you admit the baby was wrongly placed with the adoptive parents, but you do not consider the failure to remove the baby to a place of safety once it was obvious the placement wasn't working.
The report states -
Leiland-James died while being cared for by a couple who had been successfully assessed and who were being supported by professionals and their own network. Following his move, indicators emerged that it might not progress to be the right placement for Leiland-James, and that his longer-term emotional needs may not be met. There were no known indicators thatLeiland-James was at risk of physical harm from his carers, however. What was not known at the
time was that the prospective adopters had not been honest about their debt, their mental and physical health, their alcohol consumption and use of physical chastisement during the assessment, at the time of Leiland-James being matched with them or during his time living with the family. Learning has been identified that information in these areas should be robustly sought, shared, and considered.
It seems from this that the social workers knew precious little about the family of adopters. Leiland should have been removed at the first indications that there was abuse and the child was being fostered out to the wider family.
It appears easy for social workers to ignore concerns about a white , married couple in comparison to a single mother. I am sure there are concerns about the biological mother but that should not in any way excuse their disregard for hugely unsuitable adoptive parents because they were married and presented well.
This case again casts great doubt on the ability of social workers to put the well being of the child first,over and above the adoptive family. Shame on them.

Child not children.

The report concludes,

That there is an appropriately timely and robust response in cases where there are concerns about bonding with a child placed for adoption.

Rather than simply ignoring concerns about an adoption placement and relying on self reporting from the adoptive parents.
Shame on the social workers involved

I know that in recent times the wait time to become adopters has reduced because it once took 2 years or so. Maybe we need to go back to that - that’s a long list of things social workers missed about the foster parents. Why? Why did they miss these things? Is lack of time/pressure to place a child quickly related to this?

And so ultimately, social workers removed a baby from his birth mother because of some potential safeguarding concerns but did not remove the same baby from his adoptive parents using 'a robust and timely response' for actual safeguarding concerns.
I really don't know how any social workers on here can defend themselves for their appalling error of judgement or their readiness to believe the adoptive parents because it was more convenient to do so.

And so ultimately, social workers removed a baby from his birth mother because of some potential safeguarding concerns but did not remove the same baby from his adoptive parents using 'a robust and timely response' for actual safeguarding concerns.

People can think the former may well have been right and the latter was definitely wrong.

No social worker has defended this there is obvious errors here regarding the adoption process. It also seems the Gp failed on many occasions to inform Social services of a few potential issues and did not complete the medical form correctly missing important information.

This may be an entirely justified case of removal but I read these threads and shake my head at the confident and definitive assertions that mistakes are never made. So naive and trusting in a repeatedly proved to be untrustworthy and unfit for purpose system.

Look at the often reported disgusting behaviour of others in authority - police, local authority seniors, priests, teachers etc etc. Do you honestly believe that social workers don't make mistakes or that personality disordered individuals who are incapable of admitting that they're wrong don't make their way into the profession? I know for an absolute fact that they do. Not my own personal experience but watching from within a work situation.

@LondonWolf

This may be an entirely justified case of removal but I read these threads and shake my head at the confident and definitive assertions that mistakes are never made.

Has anyone on this thread said confidently and definitively that "mistakes are never made"?

But the comparison between the treatment of the biological mother and the adoptive mother is so different that it sends out a clear message about discriminatory attitudes within social services in Cumbria.
This will rightly stick in people's minds about yet another example of social workers getting it wrong. They have only themselves to blame for not acting to prevent the death of that little baby.

All social workers dealing with child protection should have
'Robust and Timely' on the wall of every office. Not just ignore the situation and see how things progress.
Same scrutiny to apply to adoptive parents as to single pregnant mothers.

There is a lot more abuse in adoptive families than people like to think.

Have you read the whole review @Parkperson00 or just skipped to the conclusions? Because it’s clear the issues were not just in social care: the prospective adopters lied, about their alcohol consumption, mental health and finances. Their families and referrees lied about their use of smacking as a punishment. Other agencies knew about the alcohol consumption, mental health issues, physical health problems and parenting concerns with the older child and failed to share the information with social workers. Social workers do appear to have pulled the family up on sending the baby to stay with relatives when he should have been at home, and involved therapeutic adoptive services once it became clear there were concerns about the bond. But that lack of bond is not unusual in any adoptive situation, and social workers couldn’t see the text messages between the couple which would have revealed the extent of their treatment of the baby.

Had the information about the smacking the older child, debt, drinking and counselling been disclosed I think it’s very unlikely they would have been approved for adoption. Yet again it’s the lack of information sharing that has contributed to the failings and a baby dying tragically.

As an aside, the reference in the report to potential heath problems for LJ plus developmental delay does make me wonder whether birth mum used alcohol or drugs in pregnancy.

I agree speaking as a teacher. I am sure there are some wonderful adoptive parents out there but there are a lot of unhappy children struggling and at odds with the hugely differing expectations of adoptive parents. Wherever possible keeping children in the extended family has better outcomes for the child.

I do find it a bit odd that the review doesn’t comment on the meeting that took place where the council decided they would not endorse an adoption order for the couple - wasn’t that discussed in court or did I imagine it? Seems like a missed opportunity to explore whether sufficient action was taken based on the information available at that point.