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.

This ^
I have no doubt there have been failings and what happened to this child is horrendous but this could not have gone to court without her knowledge and the only way that baby was removed from hospital was with police powers, a court order or the mother signing an agreement.

There are some circumstances where the social work team might not tell the mother before birth they plan to go to court but this would be unusual and would be where they assessed there would be significant risks associated with doing so.

Also, she claims she also knew nothing about the adoption order but if she was party to the court proceedings that just isn't possible.

@midairchallenger that's such an odd post why do you think that @Supersee is saying SW never make mistakes? It's really obvious that SW (and other agencies) made terrible mistakes in relation to the adoptive mother. I don't think that anybody at all on this thread is saying the system is perfect.

However, we can't be sure that the removal of the baby from the birth mother was a SW mistake. Many, many people here have given factual information about the process of removing a baby from a family. It's a simple fact that social workers cannot and do not remove children from families it's a complex process involving many different agencies and there is nothing to be gained by anyone doing it willy nilly.

Yes, it’s quite obvious that this local authority SS department has made a complete pig’s ear of at least two cases and children have died because of their cock ups.

That being the case, it’s perverse for posters to blithely insist “there must be more to it”. I really feel for the minority of birth parents who don’t get a fair shake. It must be the very definition of a Kafkaesque nightmare.

As far as I’m aware a credit check isn’t required by law or guidance (there’s probably a strong case for it being so, though that may put off prospective adopters who are thin on the ground anyway) though the review clearly highlights they should have enquired about the size of the debts and not looked simply at incoming/expenditure.

I think it would blow people's minds if they had access to court processes and hearings and see the allowances made for more and more support/assessments/observations/extensions, more and more hearings, all to ensure that the child is given every single opportunity to be able to be cared for safely within the birth family.
The courts simply wont allow hearings or progression if they think that a parent hasnt been involved/supported/informed, given more time etc etc

Hearings are often adjourned because parents counsel arrive without instructions because their client wont make contact, DWP searches and process servers are often employed to ensure that papers are served on parents to ensure that they are supported to engage with their solicitors and hearings.

Local Authorities spend millions per year on proceedings, thats without the cost of legal aid to the parent and court costs. Much of that is due to ensuring that every last stone is turned in seeing what support a parent could obtain in order for a child to remain with its birth family.

Plenty of social workers saying on here, 'Nobody is saying mistakes were not made'. I haven't heard from a single social worker yet saying, 'Yes, mistakes were made and social workers will learn from this'. It's all about other agencies getting it wrong. I do hope News Agencies are picking upon the arrogance and minimising on here from some social workers.
Social workers need a banner for each office reminding them to,
Act Robustly and Promptly to Concerns
It is unforgivable to pass the blame to other agencies without acknowledging the life ending faults made by the social workers involved in the care of this little boy.

OP you keep going on about LJ's mother now being single. Your only evidence of that is that she claims this in the article. It's very very common for victims of DV to claim they have separated from an abuser but continue the relationship discreetly. She did not make LJ on her own. Does it ever occur to you that during numerous visits to her, SS potentially observed evidence that she was in fact still in contact with a potential /past abuser, and not being honest about it either to SS or the charity helping her? Who are by the way only a support group who as PP have mentioned would not have had access to full information, only what mum told them.
Sadly lots of people unable to care for their children themselves are not honest with themselves or others. They cannot resist still seeing their abuser.

This is what people mean when they say they think there is more to the story.

It isn’t the only evidence, @KweenieBeanz , she was being supported by a local charity.

At any rate, it’s depressingly clear why nothing changes, isn’t it? The second someone suggests SS may not have got it right, there are numerous social workers defending the indefensible quite literally to the death

I’m not a social worker, I’ve just tried to draw attention to what’s in the independent review, the same as in every review when something like this happens - people didn’t talk to each other. Change won’t happen while the entire focus is on what social workers did/didn’t do - they are one part of the whole system, and various parts of that system were involved in letting this baby down.

You know that isn't what's happening here. I haven't seen a single post where it's been claimed social services never make mistakes and if there is one, it would be wrong.

You aren't willing to really listen to people here that might know more about the processes than you and you come across as really uneducated on the subject. Of course that's fine, no one is expecting you to be an expert but you also need to recognize that you may not know what you're talking about.

@TemperTrap and @ChuckBerrysBoots
So what do you take from the case study review? I keep making reference to 'Robust and Prompt response to Concerns. The final recommendation to Cumbria Social Services. Will social services act on this or dismiss it?
I think this case will have a high profile amongst the general public as an example of Social Services getting things very very wrong

People haven't said no mistakes were made.

Everyone has said the system failed him by returning him to an adoptive family that were unsuitable and a risk to him.

That doesn't mean they think he would definitely have been safe if he hadn't been removed from his birth family due to concerns over safeguarding due to previous decisions made by his mum.

I have every sympathy for her but as someone adopted, I am more aware than most that sometimes staying with a birth family isn't best for the child.

In this case, placing and keeping him with an unsuitable adoptive family was entirely wrong. He should have been with a safe, loving family. The system failed him.

That doesn't change the fact that there were serious risk factors meeting there threshold for removal, leading to him being removed from his birth family to start with.

It’s up to children’s services to lead on adoption, the buck stops with them completely. The review states clearly SWs didn’t challenge or ask for more information enough.

many of us think the support should be for the DV victim mother AND the child.

But as usual mothers are just treated like inconvenient vessels.

Even in their pathetic apology, Cumbria county council didn’t address the mother directly and her loss. Disgraceful.

There are people whose children are found to be abused, not by the mother, and on reporting are still removed from their home and placed in care. Many women on MN have even shared their experiences. It could absolutely happen to anyone.

People lie, all the time. Honestly, you have no idea the lengths that people will go to to cover up stuff and conceal. Then if/when they're caught in a lie, they still bluff, lie more, kick off to distract, blame someone else.

It's human nature and when you feel backed into a corner it's easier to keep lying than to have to backtrack. This isn't a judgment, it's a fact.

I'm not in a relationship. That person you saw sneaking out was here to fix the boiler. We're not together, they're just visiting the kids.

I'm not drinking, those bottles aren't mine, I'm not hungover, I've got a bug. The breathalyzer has picked up the sanitizer on my hands.

I'm not using, the drug tests have been faked so you can take my baby away.
Those aren't track marks.

There's no food because today's my shopping day.

They fell off the sofa, they're really clumsy, I've never smacked my children, I don't know where that bruise came from.

Then there's the potential adopters. They clearly lied through their teeth too, as did their support network.

Money issues, mental health, alcohol use, use of smacking. Loads and loads of red flags there that weren't disclosed or not disclosed fully.

The issue is, as an assessor you will ask for references and information from the core people then do additional checks if the need arises.

So they wouldn't contact adult MH services unless there was a reason to do so, like a disclosure from the GP. Her medical records will clearly have shown she had an open referral to MH support.

It's all a horrible mess frankly and of course there needs to be full reviews of all processes that led to that poor boy dying.

That doesn't mean that the original decision to remove him was wrong.

Perhaps read the SCR. Cumbria County Council ignored significant failings, judged the family based on their class and then tried to cover up their failings. Yes they are ABSOLUTELY one of the agencies who made so many fuck ups it’s impossible to ever convict Poppi’s killer

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet I agree that there should be support for the mother absolutely, the state of support services in this country are a disgrace.
I dont think that a child should be put at risk though.
And a child protection social workers first priority should be the childs safety always. If the childs safety and wellbeing is able to be guaranteed (as best as anything can be guaranteed) while being with mum or mums family that is clearly the best result. But if it cant does anyone really think a child should be left with her in possible danger just because she is also a victim?

It’s more that people are saying it’s always the right decision if a child is removed.

I read the SCR, I read all of them.

The report was quite clear that there were oversights in the police investigation which led to a lack of conviction.

@LydiaBennetsUglyBonnet I don't think anyone has said it's always the right decision to remove a child either. Sometimes it isn't the right decision I'm sure.

I think people are more saying the decision isn't made in isolation. Social workers, managers, a legal panel, solicitors, a judge, court guardians, expert witnesses like psychologists, medical experts.

All involved, all with a view.

Well we can’t ever see socials service’s side of the story but given that the eulogy they wrote stated his mum should say “I wish I could have been a better mother to you” that tells me at least two things:

1. Laura Corkhill’s social worker is either cruel and nasty or so unbelievably unempathetic that they thought that inappropriate statement was acceptable to a grieving mother.


2. She was judged at being a failure and children’s services thought it was appropriate that she publically point this out about herself.

And both those facts tell me that Cumbria County Council acted with judgement and emotion towards this woman and that they personally disliked her and didn’t mind her knowing even in her moments of grief.

So is it really that hard to believe they had skewed judgement when it came to the birth mother?

It’s more that people are saying it’s always the right decision if a child is removed.

Again, who has said it's "always the right decision if a child is removed"?!

I think provisions should be made for women to be in a safe place with their children. Not just removed the children and leave the mother in that dangerous situation.