Baby Preston Davey - Content warning concerns CSA (added by MNHQ)

[Sadmamma35]

I’ve just read about baby Preston Davey and I cannot stop thinking about him. I have a 13-month-old of my own, which is probably why this has hit me so hard — I can really relate and my baby is my everything.
I’m crying as I write this. Why does it hurt so much for a baby I’ve never even met? Has anyone else felt this way?
How do you cope with the negative thoughts that follow when you read something like this? 💙

@hihelenhi it isn’t really about shrugging our shoulders, which suggests a lack of interest and concern. The opposite really; most people are horrified by it. But there is a limit to what we can reasonably do.

We could say no single men or men in a couple can be permitted to adopt - but that wouldn’t have saved Leiland-James Corkill. We could seize devices and check them but that wouldn’t have saved Preston. We can do absolutely everything but it still won’t be enough.

Indeed. (Just as an aside, at least one poster did say "I can't see that anything could have been done to save Preston" which is patently untrue. Quite a bit could have been prevented if the agencies involved had actually followed even existing safeguarding protocol properly, let alone anything extra that may come out as a further 'lesson to be learned' from this case. And it does turn out to be the case that SOME retroactive digital checks could feasibly be made against known risks, and it wouldn't require anyone giving up their physical digital devices or "having their homes and cars searched" as was implied. Nor to only be checked for the the time period of being in the "waiting to be approved" system. It could be done retroactively. But would require, obviously, the police etc already knowing where the risk elements were )

When I say "sacred caste", btw, it's not just it being two gay men in this case although I do suspect that may well have been an issue here, certainly based on the social worker's behaviour.

But I'm also talking about the class markers or assumptions made. That if someone "looks professional" they are, for example.

As another aside, there's been a worrying number of recent cases where an abuser has turned out to be a school's 'safeguarding lead' for instance. Potential abusers will often try and wangle themselves into positions where they know they will be considered "above questioning" (back in the day, it used to be, say, teachers and vicars, other supposed pillars of the community) What those positions or markers are change over time, obviously, so any checks made should adjust likewise to take that into account.

I will be interested (although obviously also horrified) to see what more emerges from this case after it is over and what impact if any it will have on the reality of child safeguarding going forward.

See my other post. I agree that it is a very hard to manage situation and new risks emerge all the time. And "pervs, killers and evildoers" (just shorthand for what we're seeing examples of here) ARE always going to try and perv, kill and evil-do to some extent.

But I also think that safeguarding - and state institutions who are meant to look after vulnerable people and children - absolutely do have a responsibility for doing everything they can to prevent that, which needs to be dynamic to meet the threat. Safeguarding is everyone's business.

Meanwhile, work also needs to be done on reducing and preventing instances of the perving and evildoing in itself that gets to the root of it rather than just acting against it when it's happening, but that of course is an even deeper issue.

Just to add, neither of the two has been found guilty of any offence. I’m actually surprised that this thread has been allowed to stand as court proceedings are active and MN could potentially be in contempt of court. Both defendants are entitled to a fair trial.

That being said, I did want to raise the very real phenomenon of post-adoption depression here. From my reading of all the evidence, JV, as the primary carer, would seem to have not been enjoying being a father. New adopters can be left feeling very lonely and isolated and as if they are only caretakers of the child or children because there is still intense scrutiny and multiple social worker home visits and official meetings with professionals even post placement. The rest of the world thinks you should be deliriously happy but adoption can throw up a lot of ‘stuff’. You haven’t had nine months to love your child, but there’s pressure from everyone for you to fall in instant love, the child doesn’t look like you or smell like you, introductions are usually hellish as you essentially move in to the foster carer/s’ home and your every move is watched, recorded and then reported. I still shudder when I think of my first lot of introductions and they were more than 18 years ago. And then you take home someone else’s child, perhaps amid hostility or upset from carers, and it feels like a little alien has landed in your home. But you can’t really talk to your nearest and dearest about your true feelings as that would make you look ‘ungrateful’ when your dearest wish had finally come true. Plus, even if you are struggling, the advice from social workers is to ‘funnel’, so hole up in your home and not let family or friends meet your little one for several weeks. This is the worst bit of professional advice ever. Attachment can be a lifelong process or it may actually never be achieved for some trauma experienced children.

The weight of expectations on adoptive parents is massive, as evidenced by this thread. But another massive truism is that there is basically now no meaningful support for those of who are parenting the children who are deemed so vulnerable that the state had to legally sever them from their families of origin. An outgoing president of the family courts interpreted the Children Act 1989 to decide that adoption should only ever be the ‘last resort’.

I’m not making excuses for JV but having experienced grave doubts and very dark days in the early days, weeks and months of my first adoptive placement, I am reading between the lines to assume that he was in the grip of post-adoption depression. I don’t believe that he or they set out to adopt a child as an abuse plaything. I think things went very badly wrong for the couple post-placement.

@hihelenhiI absolutely agree with you, I think I said way back on the thread about this phenomenon, that people seem to be programmed to allow boundaries to blur for some people, in this instance for example a gay man.
It is normalised to accept insults and personal digs wrapped up as jokes for example and if you don’t play along you very much do see the other side when they feel seen or exposed, which can be very nasty.
We also make assumptions of someone (consciously or otherwise) has a ‘good’ job, a nice home, does a lot of charity work etc.
I also mentioned before I personally know people who knew JV and who are struggling to come to terms with this on so many levels.
Let’s just hope the jury reach the right decision now.

@ThePieceHall That is a beautifully written post thank you for sharing it.

So are we saying that the only reason they were approved as adopters was because there was a positive bias towards them? And that this should form no part in the process? So in that case how should it be decided?

He’s also portrayed as an attention seeker/ drama queen, and I wonder whether this was part of him seeking medical attention rather than the ‘overprotective new parent’. Him seeking medical advice for some things then not for others is confusing- he didn’t immediately go to hospital/ call an ambulance when Preston had a seizure/ was clearly extremely ill at the end of his life

Well, no, we're not saying that it was the ONLY factor, are we?

But there is some evidence that it may well have been ONE factor.

And of course the issue of watching out for such instances of bias is and has always been part of good safeguarding protocol.

I absolutely hear you and this was in fact the case for a friend of mine when adopting (sadly the adoption ended up failing, which is far more common than gets talked about). There is a serious lack of practical support given to new adopters, basically left to it, which is another systemic issue that needs tackling across the board.

I have to say that I do not, however, believe that will be found to be the case for JV, (assuming he is found guilty, which I VERY strongly suspect he will be). People do NOT r*pe and SA babies because of "depression". They may harm them in other ways due to frustration and not being able to cope, as we know. But SA does not work that way. From what we know of abusers (and sadly, I have known a few) doesn't 'come on suddenly'. Again, it's all about the pattern.

Yes, it is, but it wouldn’t have actually changed this case as far as I can see.

Er yes, it would have. Why wouldn't it? It's one of MANY factors here. But it's probably the key factor, in fact, as to why some of the patterns were not picked up and taken as seriously (by the key person whose job it was to be able to recognise this) as anyone who understood the fundamentals of safeguarding would have done.

I'm sorry, but I'm alarmed that quite a few people don't seem to know a great deal about basic safeguarding and how it works (or is meant to work). If we can't even get that right, we're done for.

But what was ‘the pattern’?

I was a safeguarding lead until I stepped down after having my first baby, so I do know a little about it.

I have not read about this case as extensively as some but I haven’t seen evidence of a pattern. I have seen that he had injuries and was taken to hospital with these, but these injuries did not appear to have met a threshold for safeguarding. So theoretically that could be raised but the problem is that’s not without consequence either and could well lead to parents not getting their children much-needed medical attention due to worries about social services intervention.

Thank you for your agreement about the systemic failings for adopters. You are right, the numbers of failed adoptions are increasing exponentially. The BBC did some extensive research into this prior to Christmas. The fact is, local authorities and the government are not obliged to record adoption disruptions (officially, this is the terminology for failures pre-Adoption Order - so the legal bit of paper) and breakdowns post-Adoption Order. Which is very convenient for LAs and regional adoption agencies as adoption continues to be presented to the world as a happy-ever-after story and everything is great in Adoption Land so we don’t need to fund support to help those parenting the most vulnerable children in society.

I'm sorry, what? Have you not been reading the updates from the court reporters? The trial has been being reported live in the Manchester Evening News. It is quite enlightening - and that's with any trial reporting restrictions that are in place.

• There was a pattern of injuries/ailments that started ONLY when Preston was placed with the adopters. This culminated in his death four months later. And injuries which the prosecution pathologist described as highly consistent with more than one instance of SA, I'm afraid

• There is also a pattern regarding JV's behaviour and the kind of images he took (which seemed overly focused on, for instance, Preston's genitals, lots of nakedness. There is a particular picture that was taken the day he died, the description of which is horrific. But there's very little doubt as to what it portrays if you actually read the details and how that tallies with the prosecution pathologist's report)

• There is a pattern of other abusive behaviour, like booing him awake, incidents in the bath, incidents of, well, let's just say, treating him in ways that loving parents would NOT do.

• There is a possible pattern regarding stories being 'seeded' to explain injuries and there is a pattern in the way those stories are being told.

• There is a pattern regarding the lies and holes in their stories and in the way they tell them.

• There is a pattern regarding the relationship dynamics between the two of them.

• There are also other "patterns" here common to sexual abusers and how they operate and get 'immunity', which if you've not have the misfortune to have had dealings with any, many people won't be aware of.

The point is, that while you may not, people who understand safeguarding and how child abusers operate DO and SHOULD understand this. All of it. It's come up several times in similar cases. it requires looking at things as a whole, not just as isolated incidents.

I strongly suggest you read the court proceedings from the Manchester Evening News. If you have a strong stomach. And perhaps find out more about how CSA AND safeguarding work.

But @hihelenhi the only one of those anyone outside the home would be aware of is the first. I’m really not seeing what you evidently are, I’m sorry. I don’t see how we can change the system in retrospect to ensure that Preston could have been saved.

If you look at the details, there absolutely is a pattern.

I'm afraid that people who have experienced or have been close to abuse possibly understand those patterns better than those who are designated safeguarding leads in companies. There's a difference between knowing what you've been told in a training situation and really getting it. Perhaps that's part of the wider problem.

It's glaringly obvious to me, sorry. Glaring.

And part of the issue (and it's come up several times in similar cases) is that the different agencies are not putting those individual observations together.

Sorry, leaving this conversation now. Getting really fed up with the wilful blindness and apathy. Nothing will change unless we address that. There are many including professioanls in this field who see it too and are actively working to do so and hopefully the review of this case will help to do that.

Possibly there is but are you suggesting children should be removed from parents (birth or adoptive) based on ‘really getting it’? Because that is certainly not infallible and is littered with problems.

Waiting for the obvious to be explained, then.

No, I don't need to 'explain' it to you. If you actually need it explained and can't do the work for yourself then you don't get it, sorry and appear incapable of doing so. Sadly, that makes you part of the problem,.

You need better safeguarding understanding. Much better. And to understand how CSA dynamics work. Luckily there are many professionals who DO understand it. It needs to be applied consistently,. That is all. Bye.

You’re being rude and personal, which I feel is misplaced on a thread like this.

It is an upsetting case but there is nothing obvious or standing out which could have predicted or forecasted it. I have lost count of the number of children hurt and harmed and killed in my lifetime alone and every time the responses about never letting what has already happened are predictable. And it never does in that time or place.

We like to think we can control things. We can’t.

Forensic examination of your digital / online profile at the level of a police investigation is resource- heavy. They will pull out all the metadata and where possible use their power to ask relevant providers to give up their data. Things that can be examined are devices, programmes and apps which store data, social media, servers and platforms, fixed and mobile points of connection to the internet. A simple profiling would include social media and a 'can we look at your devices please?' spot check.

One flag could have been the stability / length / commitment of relationship before the adoption but there were flags afterwards too, before Preston died, specifically the hospital incidents and subsequent social worker alerts. The child was very young and couldn't speak, so extra vulnerable. If there had been a 'pause' button, and devices had been spot checked at that point, and questions asked of family, previous fosterer and colleagues, or investigation generally, things would have taken a different turn.

But there'd need to be a presumption that things might be going wrong and there never seemed to be that presumption, including that e.g. the adoptive parents weren't coping, had developed mental health problems, or were just bad at what they were doing. Their explanations of everything were seemingly taken at face value.

I get there are no resources - allocating even meagre resources is a government choice though.

I think the point that people are trying to make is that it’s easy to identify ‘patterns’ after an incident. Not anyone, including all of the professionals involved, raised any safeguarding concerns prior to Preston’s death. Even the medics at prior hospital visits. Preston died in plain sight. I’m not sure that the death could have been prevented. Sadly. The adoption process is as robust as it can humanly be. Because it is a human process, overseen by humans. There was no evidence of any prior wrongdoing by either defendant. Post-legal proceedings, there will be a serious case review conducted by Preston’s LA and we will get lots of yarn about ‘lessons learned’. Not anything will really change. Not much can change as far as the scrutiny of prospective adopters goes, unless we suggest social workers moving in with prospectives for an intense period to get a 360-degree, holistic view of them as human beings. Adopters are the most vetted of parents in the UK. What will happen is that the 3,000 children waiting in England for forever homes will now have a longer wait and the prospective adopter numbers will nosedive even further. The reality is that the powers that be and the government genuinely believe that there is an adoption crisis because of the cost of living. No, there is a crisis in adoption because the government and LAs are not putting their money where there mouth is and committing to properly supporting the success of adoptive families.

Also, you will never eradicate risk of harm in families, adoptive or birth, regardless of how extensive the vetting, because it just is not an achievable aim. Social work is predicated on human relationships; it is an art rather than an exact science.