I have started researching into looking at what was missed by the professionals involved with the tragic case of baby P, to try and get an understanding of how things could have been done differently. Without blaming or judging any one of the individuals and professionals involved I am questioning why the warning signs and clear signs of abuse were missed or overlooked.
The Mail Online reports:
“Social worker Maria Ward - Appointed as the allocated social worker for Baby P on February 2, 2007, making her first visit to the child 20 days later. Baby P’s mother reassured her that she was “back on track” and insisted that the child should not be on the at-risk register. When Ms Ward spotted bruising on the child’s face the mother told her that he had squabbled with an older child. Four days before Baby P died the caseworker said that she visited the house for a prearranged meeting. She found the boy in his pushchair, his bruises covered up with chocolate. “He had eaten a chocolate biscuit and there was chocolate over his face,” she told the court. “He had chocolate on his hands and face.” She said that she asked the mother to wipe his face before they went out and the mother started cleaning him. Miss Ward noted that the boy had an infected scalp, which was covered in white cream, and an ear infection.
The social worker failed to report and identify clear signs of abuse /neglect.
WHY was this not reported?
• Was the Social worker so overloaded with her volume of caseloads and administration that she overlooked this?
• Had she become so desensitized through the volume and pressure of cases she had in her care that she became on automatic pilot- and did not see the obvious abuse that is so clear to a majority of us.
In the second serious case review the report states Baby p was seen by the consultant paediatrician who saw him in A&E two days before he died and failed to notice his injuries and eight broken ribs; she fell short of expected standards and could face a "fitness to practise" hearing at the General Medical Council.
The Consultant Paediatrician who saw Baby P just two days before his death failed to pick up on fatal injuries – again why? Over worked/ long hours /volume of caseload? Inadequate Child protection training?
These are just two examples of missed opportunities to report incidents, the police also failed to take action and prosecute, along with other professionals. I am concerned this is just one family we have heard about- how many more do not hit the headlines but are just as serious and a cause for concern.
Through the subsequent reports and investigations we know WHAT happened and what mistakes have been made with baby P, as listed in an independent report by Ed Balls, but do we know WHY.
Children's Secretary Ed Balls said the shortcomings included:
• Failure to identify children at immediate risk of harm and to act on evidence. This included a failure to talk to children believed to be at risk
• Agencies acting in isolation from one another without effective co-ordination
• Poor gathering, recording and sharing of information
• Insufficient supervision by senior management
• Insufficient challenge by the Safeguarding Children Board to council members and frontline staff
• Over-dependence on performance data which was not always accurate
• Poor child protection plans
• Failure to implement the recommendations of the Victoria Climbie inquiry, which heavily criticised it five years ago.
My question is…WHAT NEEDS TO BE DONE DIFFERENTLY TO AVOID THIS HAPPENING AGAIN, AND HOW?
Finally, below is another extract from the second serious case review which states how Social workers found themselves facing increased administrative tasks – so, was all the admin. work that had to be completed at the expense of having direct contact with the children and families and being “hands on” and vigilant to the incidents such as what baby P experienced?
“There was a reorganisation of Haringey’s Children and Young People’s Service’s Children’s Teams in December 2006. Its overall aim was to move towards specialist teams. Social workers considered that the amount of administrative support to them had decreased over the years, and the introduction of the new case recording system, Framework I, had been responsible for many new Administrative tasks. The caseload of the social worker responsible for leading on the child protection plan for child A had almost doubled from January 2007 to July 2007 and was 50% above the caseload Recommended by Lord Laming in the Report of the Public Inquiry into The death of Victoria Climbie. The social worker described her caseload as made up of various ‘types of case and categories of registration’ and that ‘it was a lot of work’ and that she ‘never had time to do everything.’
Both social workers were regarded as well qualified to be the allocated social workers on a case like that of child A. Their social work knowledge, skills and experience were thought to be matched to the complexity of the case. “
In my research to improve the way services can be run I would like to hear from anyone who has had experience of our public services – have they let you down, and if so how? What happened – what do you think could or should have been done differently, how was it handled? Have you had a positive experience when a situation was handled well – if so what happened?
I would value your thoughts and would like to hear from you- my aim is to provide an efficient, thorough, safe service to protect and safeguard children and prevent the tragic loss of vulnerable children like Victoria Climbie and Baby P from happening again.
If Peter Connelly is to have any legacy at all it's that children are safer”