Any social workers out there that could explain WHY? Re Dreadful case reagarding 17 month old

[Doobydoo]

Are there any social workers out there that can explain how something like this can happen?
How does the system operate?
What can be done to make it better?

they didnt actually know boyfriend lived there. the case is absolutely terrible and i cannot understand this blame the social workers culture.
the bastards who did this to the baby are solely to blame, the social workers are mired in red tape and overwork. 20 to 30 children on their case list when it shoudl be 10. who would be a social worker>?

and and
mumsnet of all places - there are plenty of posters here who seem to think that social services will leap in and take children, when it just don't happen.

You don't need to be a miracle worker to see that a toddler with a collection of 50 injuries is being abused.

I get that some SWs in some areas are overworked and suffer from crap management. But I would like someone to explain to me how exactly you miss something so obvious when you have eight months and 60 opportunities to spot it.

It's the amount of visits that is damning.

Overstretched etc a couple of times, perhaps. But how many times was this child seen?

"They have limited resources, an overwhelming caseload"

Then it needs sorting out, asap, with a fuck load of money and proper resources. It needs to be top priority, always, top of the list in budget spending.

And a child with a ripped ear, a missing fingernail and however many other plus injuries should always be removed from the carer. Who could argue with that?

first article seems interesting.

Yeah, I read Camilla Cavendish's pieces, but I'd like a SW to explain this to me.

I happen to agree with Cavendish that this is not a good/bad duality of 'SWs MUST remove every child they ever see' or 'SWs must ALWAYS strive to keep children with their parents'. But a systemic problem about the way SS thinks.

I realise that people on Mumsnet don't want to get involved in denouncing professionals and apportioning misdirected blame in individual cases.

But what would be wrong with using the might of Mumsnet to lobby for proper spending on this, the most crucial of public services? If the cry is always of stretched resources and overworked social workers, then why can't we push for this area to be of the highest priority, subject to urgent review?

Just wanted to say that I used the terms officials/social workers etc and would like to clarify that I am not seeking a social worker witch hunt. The SW that whisteblew said that the recommendations made after Victoria Climbies investigation were not being actioned so if changes are made then their needs to be systems in place to ensure that these recommendations are carried out.

Everyone who has been expressing concerns about the MSBP/FII hysteria has been saying there are systemic failings in SS that cut both ways - groupthink means children who do need to be protected aren't, just as much as it means children are taken from their families unjustly.

And I think that the fact that the Rochdale SWs are still working proves that something is very wrong with the whole system/profession.

Mind you, Margaret Hodge has never been held to account, either.

I am a social worker but work with adults with mental health problems.
You could not pay me enough money to work in children services. Its difficult work and you rely very much on partner agencies such as the NHS and police to do your job properly-a fact thats lost on most people. Child Protection is a multi agency responsibility although social services are the co-ordinating agency.
I notice as usual its social workers who get a kicking not the doctor who examined this poor child 2 days before he died.

In this case social workers were advised by their legal department that they had insufficient evidence to start care proceedings the month before he died. Social Workers have to work within a framework of law and rely on their legal departments for good advice. Neither can social workers make unilateral decisions about taking children into care-the courts do that and the balance of evidence is high

I think mistakes were made by social services in this case but they were not the only ones at fault.
Sadly we do not have crystal balls to assist us in our work and its seems that on the surface the mother of Baby P was adept at manipulating workers.
No excuses though as clearly this innocent, beautiful child was failed by many.

IRL I manage a child protection team. I've read the exec. summary on the Haringey website and without more details it looks to me as if they were doing most of the right things.

I'm sure when the full report is revealed mistakes will be obvious, but in all honesty we are never going to be able to prevent this kind of horrific abuse from happening again.

I think that we have some of the best processes and results in the world. What we don't have is a perfect workforce.

i have also been told that the particular social worker assigned to this case was very good and was doing everything right. We don't really have the full details of the timescale of different injuries - some may have been easier for the mother to pass of as accidental - obviously not the finger nails and the broken back but the broken back was right at the end of his life and should have been picked up by the paed at St Ann's without a doubt....

it's cases like this that remind me just why i never wanted to work in a CPT.
It's hard enough when we get kids in who have been abused, but at least we get to leave the difficult decision making to other people.

It is very easy to sit and say "take the child into care" about every child that doesn't have a great homelife, but sometimes that can be just as traumatic for the child. It really isn't always as clear cut as some people believe.

Thanks to the SWs who have replied - you must have felt like you were entering the lion's den!
So it would seem from what you've said that poor communication in inter-agency working (I work for the NHS) and a lack of power (presumably as SWs have a reputation for wading in and removing children from caring families ) are major factors.
Why can't this be the starting point for a major organisation shake up? Not sack a few scapegoats and claim lessons have been learnt but a major overhaul of how the system works. I don't have all the answers but I can't believe it isn't possible - and I'm not just talking about the LA here but all of the relevant agencies.
I have deliberately not read the news articles and avoided the hysteria threads on here but I think this is one of the more thought provoking ones - if you want it to be of course.

social workers do not work in isolation they rly on the opinions of colleagues from health education andthe polic in presenting cases, a social worker can not remove a child without the agreement of the court and it must be demonstrated that everything has been done to keep the family together, for example parenting classes the provision of support to parents and the children. This all takes time and resources..
It is also important to remember that child protection is eveeryone's responsibilty whether that be as a agency representative or as a concerned neighbour, often it is the piecing together of small pieces of information that may be insignificant on there own that gives a clear picture and allows the appropriate action to be approved and taken

Mamazon:
It is very easy to sit and say "take the child into care"
But there are as many or more cases of "SWs get it wrong, take loved child into care" as there are of these. It's a fine line to tread to get it right and the consequcnes of getting it wrong either way are awful.

social workers can't really win can they?

either they are child snatching bitches who'll take a child away at the drop of a hat

OR

they are neglectful shits who ignore children being tortured.

neither is true. patently.

I was speaking to a friend of mine who is a social worker and her DH is an on duty social worker.

It should be kept in mind that about 1 - 2 children are killed by their parents in the UK every week (appoximately).

This case is absolutely tragic, but am not sure how it could have been prevented?

Also, Baby P's father, saw him a few days prior to his death, so perhaps his injuries at the time were not obvious?

It is true though that there is emphasis on children staying with their parents and social services. It would be a shame if suddenly the emphasis was to remove children based solely on this case....

but sometimes a child that is loved isn't necessarily getting the right care.
Ihave known families that adore each other and woudl do anything for each other, but the bottom line is that they just couldn't care for the children properly. it isn't always about deliberate abuse or neglect, some people just aren't able to be parents, even with support.

goticmama - in a case like this where it's clear the child is being abused (i know I'm making an assumption without knowing the facts) even then - can they not? Kind of on an emergency basis?

Yes, truw mamazon, badly worded sorry. I meant "adequately looked after and card for" I suppose.
sophable - that's exactly what I mean - the few SWs I have known who work in CP take their jobs very seriously and really care about getting it right. Maybe a huge campaign to get the public on the side of SWs and on CP in particular would be a step in the right direction