The poor 17 month old -died of broken back

[skydancer1]

I just find these kind of stories of extreme abuse so very upsetting and wish we had better safeguards in place to stop such hideous harm happening or at least continuing (when it's pretty obvious!) to helpless children. Why on earth did the doctor not examine a child because he was already on an at risk register and was 'cranky and miserable' at an appointment and hence he/she failed to notice broken back and ribs? It beggars belief. I'm not a punitive 'hang them flog them' type (in fact I'm strongly against corporal punishment) but in this instance I think the mother should be forcibly sterilised to prevent her ever hurting or 'allowing' such hurt to any other child.

What needs to happen is a review of the system to find out what is causing all the wrong decisions.

I have my own view - which relates to things like the Integrated Childrens System which drives practitioners into making early decisions before all the evidence is available and then sticking to them.

I have tabled a commons Early Day Motion about this (I don't have the number yet) if people wish to encourage their MPs to support it.

Are you John Hemmings the MP?

Mercy, yes he is. He has posted before, mostly iirc in support of Fran Lyon.

I will also be contacting my MP to support your EDM.

Interesting to hear you johnhemming and glad to hear about your EDM. Interesting too to read Camilla Cavendish. I don't know anything about the systems of social work but from work in other organisations can well imagine it's true that first impressions of a family/risk to a child by SS become set in stone and hard to reframe with sometimes awful consequences either way (e.g a harmless family having a child taken away and abusers keeping their children).

It has now emerged that the Haringey social workers "responsible for the care of Baby P tried to prevent his mother?s newborn child being taken into care against the advice of police, despite the fact it was born in jail"
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article5149549.ece

"Council officials did not want the new baby ? a girl ? to be taken into care as they said it was "against the human rights" of the mother, even though she was on remand over the death of Baby P.

A social worker told police: "We need to let her bond," but Scotland Yard officers eventually over-ruled Haringey on the issue. A source involved in the investigation said: ?There was no way that police were going to allow this baby to be looked after by the mother.?

Today the council finally apologised over the death of Baby P, who suffered months of abuse despite being on the ?at-risk? register, and 60 visits from health and social workers in the last nine months of his life.

However, it has also emerged that the day before he died, the council?s social workers offered to pay for his mother to go on a trip to the seaside as a ?treat?. "

Oh Upwind - Haringey thought she should bond with her new child after killing her last one?

Why is he called Baby P? Why can't the poor little boy be given his real name?
The head of Haringey social services must go.
The childminder paid for by SS said he was neglected. It must have been so obvious. I tried to read some of the details today but it's so unbearable.

mabanana - the reports on this case used the real names until his sister was born in March - the baby's name was Peter

I guess it means that custody of the baby girl has not yet been formally decided

No idea why the poor darling is known just as baby P now

No idea why the poor darling is known just as baby P now

I find it so odd. The little girl is too young to read this, and let's face it, the names of the adults are much more of a giveaway to her identity that than of her poor brother. I feel it's as if he has been completely obliterated as a person somehow.

JohnH - you make it sound like the ss are just realizing that a first impression might not be the true. There is no excuse - all those responsible should be sacked & face the courts.

I read the papers on this yesterday and I went to bed crying and woke up feeling low.When I picked my baby son up I just started again.

I went into a meeting today where someone defended SS saying people just dont know how hard it is for them and I lost it and vented off.

Those involved in this case should not only loose thier jobs but faced prosecution as they signed poor peters death warrant.The doctor should be struck off and sent back to whatever country she came from.Useless and beyond belief that she did not examine him as he was upset and crying

I think the article highlights just how skilled social workers need to be. They need to be continuously vigilant, with sound ethics but also be able to spot changes in behaviours and environments that could dictate a need for effective action.

They have to be skilled at inter-agency work and negotiation and not be phased by aggressive or duplicitous behaviour.

They are damned if they act too quickly to remove a child but if they don't the result is horrendous as in this case.

It is paramount that a really thorough investigation is done into the case and that Child Protection services nationwide are also reviewed. Sacking a few child protection professionals and making them stand trial will not guarantee this does not happen again.

MarmadukeScarlet - I have also made enquiries ref qualifications in SW. From what I have read it will take 4 years for me. Although, I feel so angry and distressed about baby p that maybe I am on a knee jerk reaction mission and not really suitable for SW given my childhood background.

FWIW - I can remember the many nights being left alone with my younger siblings whilst my parents went out on the lash.

zahrah, thats why i turned the job down. given my childhood.

i do believe however that life experience is vital in working with vulnerable people and families.
you can not learn everything from text books.

sometimes if you have experienced similar things, you are very perceptive to certain 'cover ups' that others might simply overlook.

its obvious that so much needs to change, and fast.

izyboy- many thanks for your measured and wise posts on here.

Mabana, I agree totally. After such an unspeakable life he is being denied his identity in death.

He was not an initial. He was a person and deserves to be remembered as one, not shuffled away anonymously.

The legislation preventing his identification is too often misused. It is meant to be used to protect children involved in court cases, if needed. It does not have to be imposed.

In this case, I can't see any reason why it is needed. An order directing any living children involved in the case should not be named in press reports would have been quite sufficient.

I can't sleep for thinking of him. We've said 'never again' over so many dead children, and it goes on happening.

RIGHT - lets organise a Mumsnet march/protest about this.

Clearly we're all very upset and angry about what happened to this poor baby.

If the UK can march through central London about fox hunting - surely, we could do something for Baby P?!?

Who is up for it?

what about sunday 30th November?

Or, alternatively:

20TH DECEMBER is world children's day.

meet at embankment station at 12 and walk to westminster