Baby P

[GeraldineMumsnet]

Hi, to make it easier for people who are finding this subject very distressing, we're going to keep all Baby P posts in one thread. If you'd like to discuss this subject, then here is the thread to do so. We'll go on the other threads and link to this one. Thanks very much.

But it is not just Haringey.

There was a case near where I lived many years ago, 3 children (2 sibs and a cousin that lived with them) died of 'SIDS' in the same household/family and was only flagged up by the recorder for biths, deaths and marriages.

It then came to light, after much investigation, that they had been investigated by SS. A GP that lived opposite them had repeatedly reported them for the way the children were obviously not cared for, but was basically told to stop being a snob about it and that not all families held the same values.

When the DC were taken away the youngest had been in the same nappy so long fly eggs had hatched into maggots in it.

So, historically, SS have a non judgemental stance on different parenting styles and seem unable to differentiate between benign neglect and downright abuse.

'So, historically, SS have a non judgemental stance on different parenting styles and seem unable to differentiate between benign neglect and downright abuse.'

I am not trying to devalue your point but it's not as simplistic as that. There has been a trend in social work training to ensue that there is no inequality in treatment based upon class or economic status, so that while a family may be scruffy or whatever, it is their level of care of the children which is to be judged etc. In principle this is fine if applied properly but what gets lost is what is an acceptable level of care and when does 'scruffyness' equate with neglect.

I think social work has lost its way and have banged on about this on this thread so excuse me if I am repeating myself....but it has not moved with the times. Social services are not really dealing with families in the truest sense of the word now, they are dealing with mothers in relationships with any number of men, none of whom are the father to all the children. They are scared of making a value judgement because their training tells them they shouldn't. However they SHOULD make a judgement and that judgement should be about what is an acceptable level of parenting.

The thresholds for intervention into families are set too high. I also think social workers don't have the training to assess risk sufficiently well. This is a key part of training probation officers now who assess and manage very high risk of offenders. This has created a very skilled set of professionals (yes they also make mistakes too but the service is much more modernised in outlook.)

SW should take a lead from probation and modernise it's outlook. Train the staff to spot and assess and reassess risk, to spot changes in risk factors such as the news a new boyfriend is on the scene. Who is he? What is his criminal record etc.

I could go on but I disagree with Laming who essentially thinks social work is set up correctly. It's not. There are not enough specialists trained in child protection and too many staff juggling caseloads where there may be mild neglect right up to sexual abuse in different cases. Procedures aren't clear and the focus on always keeping the family together is a flawed one.

Anyway forgive my blathering, I could write a bloody thesis on this if I put my mind to it! Have so much anger and outrage at the crap social workers in this case. And Yes I have been one and so I know.

' In principle this is fine if applied properly but what gets lost is what is an acceptable level of care and when does 'scruffyness' equate with neglect'

I agreee with your post, I realise I had oversimplified the statement.

I think in many ways they are caught between a rock and a hard place.

SW were always seen as middleclass 'do-gooders' (and from comments on these threads I think that is still general opinion) but I think now they are so desperate to be seen not to judge someones lifestyle choice that the thresholds are way too high.

If they remove a child they are interfering do-gooders and if they leave one (to the detriment of the child) they are pc do-gooders.

I wouldn't want to do the job with such inadequate support structure and specialist training.

Excellent post fifitot.

I agree fully about the scruffiness/dirt thing.

Everyone commented that Baby P's mother and her lover lived in absolute squalor. Little P was also always filthy - of course toddlers get dirty and mucky but weeks of caked on dirt means neglect.

People with kids have messy houses - they don't have animal excrement on the floor and rotting foot on plates in every room.

Having dealt with social workers a great deal (adoption) I have to say that I never encountered one I had any faith in. I'm sure they are out there - but they take some looking for.

I think the whole system needs dismantling and starting from scratch - and it's got to be steered away from the wishy washy/dirty hair/no make up/dangly earring brigade.

obviously that should be 'rotting food' - rotting feet really would be worrying.

Nancy out of interest what was it about the social workers that you met that led you to have little faith in them.

TBH I don't know and have never met anyone in this line of work.

All very much of a type: Wooly, left wing, dripping in diplomas but no common sense, politically correct to the point of insanity, disorganised (in fairness prob due to over work) but just seemed to govern by chaos - lost files, missed meetings, mislaid reports, unreturned phone calls and emails etc etc.

Also became apparent that nobody seemed to stay in their job more than 6 months. In 16 months I had 4 social workers.

As a social worker myself, i do completely agree with fifitots post. I think if the approach swings too much one way - currently working with and keeping the family together then cases that are more on the child protection line than the mild neglect or need cases, arent going to benefit at all. Most of the families i deal with consist of mother and children and assorted boyfriends. Common sense (i know flame me for using this) needs to come back to some social workers, a basic standard that a child is fed, clean and safe, and the need to make judgements on this regardless of class, level of education etc. I also think we as social workers get so used to seeing crap risky parenting that it can rub off on standards, and then risk is not assessed properly, and you need to constantly remind yourself (well i dont, but my collegues do . To be honest the job is frustrating, management seem hellbent on putting plans in place to keep 'families' together, even when its not appropriate. Im not sure of the solution but the system as it is doesnt work.

One thing thats been playing on my mind and i didnt put in, is that i just wish baby p would have got the same attention in life that hes getting now. Theres so many that failed him on every level, parents, professionals - it just makes me feel hopelessly depressed, how anyone involved in the case could live with themselves after this is beyond me. I hope his brothers or sisters find happiness in life.

I agree with a lot of what has been said.

I too think things have strayed too far away from "old fashiloned" values for want of a better word.

I would say this though, as a social worker would you have wanted to eat in that house? would you have felt happy leaving your child alone with the mother/boyfriend or whoever happened to stroll in through the front door?
If the answer is no then surely there is cause for concern and why were alarm bells not ringing?

i am desparing over this case. ever since i read abput it i seem to be in a cloud of depression. what really gets to me is seeing and hearing those snipets of normality. his friends comments, his little clothes. it brings home tha fact that little p was not a child kept in a cellar. he was living a 'normal' life. people, othr than soc workers, were coming into the house, he had family members and yet he got murdered. not over night but over the course of several months! i know that the mother informed the police when the father tried to keep the little boy, but - what's up with people. if i thought my child was abused i would chain myself to them regardless of who has custody, an, yes, ss have made some unfogivable mistakes but they are not the only unit of society. we are all responsible. what would we do if we saw our neighbour;s baby eat dirt and scream for, as newspapers have been reporting, hours on end? i really hope we would do everything but look away and leave it to the 'officials'.

They get sentenced tomorrow. The mother has written to the judge apologising...

the mother claims she cries every day

I was just reading that too on the bbc edam. It doesn't wash though. She is clutching at straws.

And as for the boyfriend - As a rule I am wholly against the death penalty but this case has revolted me to the core - the fact that he raped the two year old sister as well. What is to be done with such a vile degraded specimin of life? I despair of it.

She is trying to get a lesser sentence by showing remorse. Her legal counsel will have suggested this. It leaves me cold and so, so horrified, all of it.

Yes she is merely trying to save her sorry a**e with that 'apology' and get a reduced sentence. I think she is only sorry for herself. Who is more guilty in a case like this do you think - the one who tortured and broke a back etc. or the one who enabled it, neglected him and obviously didn't give a shit about her child/ren, except for when it finally got her into trouble? Just venting really - every time I read something about this case it still stirs me up. I assume that even twisted, damaged imbeciles like these people must have some twinge of genuine remorse if they've hurt people (like their own children) this badly and indeed fatally, unless they are total psychopaths (and the boyfriend might come under that category). But I wonder...

cries for herself more like, she didnt seem to give a toss when her baby was screaming the evil bitch.

I know! To come out with a load of 'Poor me, I am so sorry and suffering so terribly from remorse' crap the day before the sentencing! Could she be any more obvious? Will she bung an onion up her sleeve so that she can shed a few crocodile tears at the same time? If she had ONE OUNCE of genuine remorse she would be too ashamed to even think of trying to get her sentence reduced! And as for the social workers appealing against their dismissals ... have they no shame?!

From what I have read (also in that article) her son wasn't the only one she failed to protect. Hopefully the judge will see her statement for the self-serving rubbish it is.

'I punish myself on a daily basis'

I hope the women in prison do to

What's telling in her letter is how the mother thinks her son 'was hurt' as a direct result of her 'not being open to social workers', rather than as a result of her direct actions or in-actions, which is trying to imply that she was just a helpless bystander and all blame should go to her boyfriend and/or the other man. So why, when Peter's natural father handed him back to her on the last occasion he saw him alive, did Peter literally scream, and cry 'Daddy, daddy!'? (I mean, I also find it mighty weird that his father didn't notice signs of abuse, but maybe he can legitimately plead ignorance). I mean, the fact is Peter wanted protecting and saving from the house of his mother. Even if it does turn out to be true that she did not actually inflict the injuries she certainly knew about them, witnessed them, she allowed it, colluded with very single bit of abuse. It all beggars belief.

How could you live with yourself if you had been responsible in any way for any of poor Peter's suffering, and truly repented of it?

Crocodile tears.

once the sentences are passed the whole case will be unravelled in its disgusting entirety - the man's name, his history etc. I am willing to bet he has a string of previous convictions for assaults and other crimes, and I bet the mother does too. The papers are only waiting for the go ahead which is the sentencing.

If the 'boyfriend' doesn't get a life sentence then there will be an outcry.

I am dreading the sentencing and the inevitable press coverage - only because the press will be so salacious about it.

I have no doubt that there will be an outcry about the sentences too. He might get life for the rape (and he shouuld) but for the charges for Peter it will be much less and because the 'mother' pleaded guilty she can get up to a third off the sentence.

If either of them developed a conscience - that might be another punishment........