SHARON SHOESMITH ON RADIO 4 NOW

[NAB09]

.

From what I gather, there was no evidence of the mother's boyfriend or the lodger on any occasion that social workers visited the house (and there were dozens of visits).

Although the child had suffered injuries on a number of occasions, there was no sign until the day he was given the fatal punch that he was being systematically abused. He had spent the weekend a couple of days before he dies at his natural father, who raised no concerns. In fact, didn't the natural father say at the time that he didn't feel SS or the police were in any way to blame.

The one thing that's very clear is that the mother was exceptionally duplicitous. She must have gone to extreme lengths to hide not only any injuries, but also the fact that there were two other abusers living under her roof.

There may well have been failings in the system at some points (and certainly the doctor failing to examine a child properly is inexcusable). But I have very mixed feelings about all this. I think social workers are put in an impossible situation when a parent goes to extreme lengths to hurt, and cover up the hurt, of their child. From what I remember, the mother had several other children, all living in the house, and no one, not even neighbours next door, had any idea that one child was being singled out for abuse. How then, can a social worker, operating within all the constaints of 'human rights' etc be expected to predict what is going to happen?

violethill, if social workers choose not to see what is right before their eyes, then of course they will not see it. The full report on this case has been kept hidden (I expect because it would be so damning), but are we seriously expected to believe that 2 adult males (including one convicted animal abuser), a 15 year old girl and their children and various dogs left no trace of their presence at any time?

As I understand it the older siblings of baby P were already known to have been abused, and their were repeated signs of physical abuse and neglect almost from the word go which at least one GP picked up on and made a referral. This case is about as clear a case of negligence and dereliction of duty by the state as we are ever likely to come across, and as such it was completely correct that Sharon Shoesmith should have taken final responsibility. Obviously, there are much wider issues which we can only hope will be examined and addressed in the ongoing investigations.

I agree with edam

I think I broadly agree that Shoesmith needed to take formal responsibility, given her position. It would have been honourable of her to resign. As it was, she was sacked and it seems she might have a case for unjust dismissal. Whether you think she should have resigned or not, she is as entitled as anyone else to pursue her employment rights - particularly as it will probably be a while before she is employed again, given the tabloid campaign that would inevitably follow against her new employers.

I can't get the Guardian interview to load at the moment, but it's my recollection that the police and CPS advised social workers that there was not enough evidence to pursue abuse claims against the mother. However you slice it, that's not the social workers' fault.

I'm not sure what you mean about the 15 year old girl and the dogs and the children - were they supposed to be hiding in the house too? I thought it was only the two men who were hiding?

I don't think anyone is arguing that, in retrospect, the case was conduced well. Plainly it was not. What we're arguing is that it was a multi-agency failing, up to and including the government (who have failed to put sufficient resources into social services), and that this vicious public hatred of Shoesmith, and the demands that she bear full responsiblity, are unreasonable.

BTW, which restricted report is being referred to here - the OFSTED one or another one? You only have to see how OFSTED changed its tune after the public outcry to see how reports can be written to fit the times.

Now is exactly the right time to expect Shoesmith to take some responsibility for the terrible failings on her watch.

And now is exactly the right time for ministers and senior figures in SW and councils to stop and think about WTF they are doing, tying SWs up in form filling and stopping them actually working with families. Needs a completely shake-up of training, culture and practice IMO. SWs should be expected to weigh up the evidence and make intelligent judgments, not be left to struggle with impossible caseloads or allowed to get away with operating on prejudice and ignorance, or to threaten other professionals who dare to question their approach.

I have no idea what was 'right before their eyes', LadyArden, as I wasn't there. Neither have I read the full report. Neither have you.

I suspect, however, that a mother who is so duplicitous as to physically disguise injuries, and who at best allows abuse of her own child to be carried out under her roof, and at worse, is responsible for abusing the child herself, is more than capable of hiding the evidence of other adults in the house.

The natural father himself, who had regular contact with his child, did not have a clue what was going on (and presumably, as one of the few relatives who actually loved and cared about this child, he would have taken steps if he had suspected anything).
It is far too easy to heap blame on the social workers involved when the blame lies fairly and squarely with the abusers and those who deliberately covered up the abuse.

I agree with that point edam.

Apart from anything else, this public focus on Shoesmith does nothing to improve child protection. All the troglodytes who made death threats against Shoesmith are convinced that justice has been served and nothing more needs to be done now. Ed Balls can continue to ignore the awful mess of chaotic and/or abusive families and underperforming/under-resourced social services. The entire structure that allowed this awful thing to happen is still in place, but the boil has been lanced and the public have moved on.

Any tragedy leaves the headlines eventually, but I don't think this case will ever be forgotten. Let's wait and see what the reaction is when the sentences are announced this spring.

Ed Balls did not release the full serious case review to MPs, let alone the public. I believe that it's now being repeated because a lot of the evidence provided by Sharon Shoesmith in her first report, and by Ofsted which relied on unreliable evidence provided by Sharon Shoesmith, was flawed.

As for new children and animals "hiding" in the house, I understand there were simply living there- surely social workers could have asked what they were doing there? Aren't they supposed to inspect houses as well?

I think my godmother (a SW way back when) said she used to tell parents she needed to see where the child slept so she had an excuse to have a good look round the house.

Is this the serious case review that was chaired by Shoesmith herself? (Sorry to pick away at this, I'm just not sure what's being referred to. In fact the plethora of 'reviews' of this case is one symptom of the bloody awful mess that the system is in, surely?)

The kind of public outcry that was mobilised against Shoesmith is a very powerful thing. If it could have been redirected at Balls, in an effort to force a full independent commission on social work, say, with a promise that its recommendations would be implemented, some real good could have come of this.

Who has suggested they were 'hiding in the house'? Perhaps they were out. Perhaps they did hide, who knows? One thing is clear - the mother lied about who lived in the house because protecting the people who were harming her child was more important to her than protecting a defenceless baby.

policywonk, I don't think many people have focused their energy on Sharon Shoesmith. I personally wrote to Ed Balls and a number of MPs asking for a full indepedent commission/review into social work generally. As to your query re the report, I recall that Shoesmith conducted the first serious case review which was seriously flawed.

I think SW can be too trusting.

I think they can be lacking in common sense.

I think they could do with spending a lot of time with adults who have been in the care system as children.

Sharon Shoesmith is just a sideshow.

I question whether it is productive to go into the specific facts of Baby P on this forum (ie who was hiding, how many people and dogs were living in the house, why the doctor who examined Baby P was not informed that she was examining an at risk child, were Baby P's injuries in his final days obvious to a non-medically trained eye, etc etc) because we will never know the true facts of the case if the second serious case review commissioned by Ed Balls is not made public. Seeing that the first was not despite overwhelming public opinion, I cannot imagine the second will be once it is finished - the reason ostensibily being the need to protect the identity of persons who contributed to the review to not put them off from coming forward

The bigger picture is the appalling shambles that social services and child protection in the UK is currently in.

On one hand, the Baby P case in which the authorities did not intervene. On the other hand, high handed social workers are arbitrarily removing children from their families on flimsy pretexts of 'emotional abuse' because the system does not offer adequate checks and balances against a petty and overzealous social worker. There are horrific real life stories described in threads on mn about women in violent and abusive relationships who have had to suffer the double whammy of their children forcibly removed from them, prompting one mother to go on the run with her baby.

There is so much work to do to improve child protection. It is an unforgiveable crime that so many children are being failed in a catastrophic way. I hope Ed Balls is up to the task and has not lost valuable momentum from Baby P - lord knows Victoria Climbie already died in vain in Haringey.

LadyArden, I too wrote to Ed Balls and my MP post-Baby P. His department replied that Lord Laming (who wrote the original report on how to improve things post-Victoria Climbie) will prepare an independent report of how safeguarding reforms have been implemented in the UK in response to his original proposals. The findings are due early this year. I am still waiting for this to come out.

Very intelligent, thoughtful post blueshoes

violethill, thank you. I just wonder how and when will this change come about?

I am not a social worker, but I feel there is so much that can be done to improve training on the ground. New social workers are being lumbered with impossible caseloads and swamped with inputting data into box-ticking computer systems that force them to come to premature judgments about a family and statutory deadlines that prevent them from getting to know a family before pigeonholing them.

I wonder what has happened to the human face of social work. Families are wily but so can social workers. Edam has already mentioned the tip about seeing where the baby sleeps as a pretext to examine the house. What about remarking that the baby's nappy is full and offering to help the mother change the nappy as a pretext for examining the baby. Unannounced visits. Chatting to neighbours - that might have revealed the comings and goings of random men and dogs. It is not about box-ticking or form filling. This is social work in action.

Lord Laming's original report highlighted that social workers weren't even talking to at risk children alone without their parents present! I mean, how do you get the child's story if you don't even talk to them in a safe environment? It beggars belief what sometimes passes for social work.

It seems so far from reality that a social worker should be properly supervised on the job, given manageable caseloads and support by management (aka the Sharon Shoesmiths of the world) and satisfaction that they are making a difference in what is a difficult and sensitive profession.

Perhaps when that happens, it will become easier to recruit and retain good social workers.

Yes, Sharon Shoesmith is a sideshow, but the fact of the matter is that the mother of Baby P was cooperating with social services, bringing him to appointed medical appointments and agreeing to visits and generally meeting agreed plans of care. Unannounced visits were being done from what I understand.

It's all very well saying that Haringey Social Services were duped by Baby P's mother but these are the same people who failed to protect Victoria Climbie. How is anything going to change unless people at the top take responsibility for the failings of their departments?
Sharon Shoesmith was very keen to comment on the support she had from 'her' staff (did anyone else think that she made it sound like her own personal fiefdom?) so she should also have the humility to take the blame for their mistakes.
She did herself no favours in that interview - she sounded more like a weasly politician than someone who is concerned about other human beings' welfare.

I think it is good that Sharon Shoesmith got her 50 minutes. She has put the final nail in her coffin. If she intended it to be a Princess Diana/Martin Bashir public relations coup, it has achieved the opposite effect. How many of us are convinced by that interview?

Highlighting the problems in social services is all well and good. But when she was concentrating on providing whitewashed information to Ofsted to get Haringey's star rating and then airbrushed the first serious case review to clear her name, she was waist-deep in the shit that is paralysing social services. The whistleblower who tried to expose the failings of Haringey before the Baby P scandal not only got sacked but also had the machinery of Haringey social services turned against her as they tried to remove her teenage daughter from her. All under the 'leadership' of SS.

Funny how is Sharon is now hiding behind the petticoats of the failed system to convince people that she should somehow be vindicated. Shameless.

Agree blueshoes and also Dittany's point about Laming not being the right person for the new review.

Another good point is the lack of speaking alone to older children if they are in such households. I understand that there were abused elder siblings in the Baby P case, and their voices should have been heard.

violethill - just to clarify a couple of points in your posts (I don't think you listened to the interview) but Shoesmith said:

• Baby P's mother was charged with abuse but not prosecuted before he died and yet he was returned to her. That seems to me to be absolutely reprehensible
• she alleged the boyfriend and other bloke were hiding in a wardrobe and in a trench in the garden when SS visited.

Seems very odd but that's what she said.

I agree that she is just a sideshow. What is absolutely tragic is that the whole review of SS after Victoria Climbie was supposed to have addressed all this poor communication, lack of continuity etc and clearly has had no effect.

Executives like Shoesmith are paid large salaries - one of the reasons for this is so that they can carry the can when something goes wrong. It's part of the role.

Don't get me wrong - I trained as a social worker (not one now though) and have sympathy with them as it's a hard hard job. However there is evidence that some of the info given to OFSTED for their 'good' inspection was bodged and untrue - HER responsibility.

The findings of the case review will reveal alot of the usual problems - lack of communication between departments, changes in staff, lack of resources etc. However all are HER responsibility - that's why she was exec and paid alot of money! That's how it works Sharon - live with it.

So right, fifitot

I heard part of this interview and was astounded at her ability to relentlessly preach "poor me" as if SHE was the victim in this case. Excuse me, I believ Baby P was the victim.

I began listening to that interview with anopen mind as I have largely avoided the BabyP news stories and discussion. But, she convinced me that we are better off without her.