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? 💙

Look, I genuinely do not know the answer. I am upset about this and simply trying to think of ideas, but I had not considered that aspect. Bear in mind this is coming from someone who has never come across anything like this personally or worked in this area.

The statistics suggest that 1 in 20 children in the UK experience sexual abuse. That is an enormous number. I just hope that experts in this field can eventually come up with better ways to prevent it.

Many ideas throughout history sounded unrealistic or silly at first, yet later became part of everyday life. From the bottom of my heart, I cannot bear the suffering of children and animals who are voiceless, so I am only trying to contribute ideas and thoughts.

Maybe instead of immediately judging or dismissing my comment as silly, try explaining your perspective and educating me. If I still do not understand after that, then say whatever you think.

She was released in 2024.

Prestons mother tortured and killed Lily Lillie with another girl she was 14 Preston was her second child removed she has an older daughter. Sympathy only to foster mum ❤️

The podcast goes into much more detail this week.
They say Fazakerley semen was found inside the cot bar exactly where they had positioned his neck and body over as he was “drooling” with the prosecution say it’s evident it’s semen in his mouth in the picture.

Again I don't think its trying to wave it off.

Its trying to be reasonable about what can actually be achieved and checking traumatised childrens naked (many of whom would have been removed for sexual abuse) is likely to cause much more damage to the vulnerable than it prevents. If it is deemed as protective then it should be for all children presumably? Would you allow it for your toddler if they were living with a step dad?

It's really easy to assume there was some massive thing that was missed, its because they are gay and skipped the queue/checks, theres a loophole that can be closed and we would all love that to be the case because all the blame can be pointed and it would be easy to prevent. Actual child protection is much greyer than that, and isnt fool proof in the slightest, its all judgement and what can be proved.

its a lot of stuff from non adopters with no experience of the system or current safeguards who won't be affected or whos kids won't be affected by what they propose.

For example the a+e visits are obvious in hindsight, but it was only three visits, if I remember only one of them was because of an injury, the rest had diagnosed ill health. As a social worker you aren't going to be questioning a diagnosis and a kid that's been given antibiotics.

I know its fairly common for adopters pre adoption order to go to a+e more regularly because you have to document bruises and any injuries, have less parental discretion, and youre a new parent with all the fears that come with that (but with a moving toddler and not a newborn!). We were questioned after our visits, and i actually know many people who were very scared to go to a+e when they should have gone in the post placement pre order bit. I wouldnt want that fear increased because i think it would hurt more children than it saves if its any more draconian than the current way of have face to face follow ups anyway.

Its the same as not wanting to see the foster parents, a red flag in hindsight but completely ordinary in adoption circles.

The same with checking phones, theres been nothing in the changes that suggests pre adoption there was anything to find, so it wouldn't have helped. Even if there was Social workers aren't police, they don't have the software, legal standing etc to get what the police can pull off.

The whole thing is about using the resources they have to prevent the most harm. Without a sudden army of social workers, prospective adopters, medics etc then the limited time needs to be used wisely, and anything that's so time intensive needs to have a reasonable chance of being preventative.

Again the system needs a certain level of flow. The resource needs to be shared between different at risk points in the system between managing social worker time, support and being able to physically remove kids.

It's a weigh up of risk of too few adoptions means that more kids are left in foster care, and more kids are left in risky homes because theres no foster care space, or teens are booted out early into risk situations to make room. All things that have proven negative outcomes too. There isnt a no risk solution

I know, the details of the case are utterly revolting. Horrific. Summing up and verdicts likely this week. I'd be very surprised indeed if they weren't both convicted. JV in particular. More will doubtless come out after it's over.

It looks as though there were various points where action should have been taken if current mutli agency safeguarding protocols had been followed correctly which they appear not to have been. It isn't all just with the benefit of hindsight. I'd be pretty sure the case review afterwards will show multiple breaches of what was supposed to have happened even under current processes (oh, and the "plausible explanations" for injuries isn't really the case, or shouldn't have been to a more trained eye, and in fact, medical staff DID report some to police, as they should have - but was it then acted on? No. The explanations don't actually seem to have been all that plausible, but appear to have been taken to be so, perhaps because of bias over JV's social/professional status, his being safeguarding lead etc etc and of course, not connecting dots or acting on information by the very people who are meant to be trained to do so. )

The point is that social workers and the other linked agencies (including medical professionals and police) responsible for looked after children being placed for adoption by the state, unlike lay people, very much ARE supposed to be trained to question rather than accept explanations for exactly this reason, whether they are medical professionals or not. This isn't some random knee-jerk new idea I or anyone else is coming up with.

The problem is whether it is carried out properly and if it isn't, why it isn't, which I would expect to be the focus in the aftermath. Preston has been very, very badly failed here.

Jesus. I had wondered about that but hadn't known about that evidence. Fazakerley is in it up to his neck then. What a nasty lying piece of shit.

I wonder if anything will surface from seized computers of other paedophiles? Maybe not now but later on.

I honestly think it’s completely out of order to name his birth mother on here and speculate on how she got pregnant etc. Step too far.

I understand what you’re saying but it is information which is readily available. Obviously the speculation isn’t good though and does show a little bit of ignorance of how the Prison system works. I’ve only read one article on her and that did mention that she had been released on licence multiple times.

Doesn’t matter. It crosses a line. Irrespective of previous actions I am sure she has suffered enough and it is disrespectful.

I agree she has presumably served her time. I'm not aware of the details but it shouldn't be relevant to Preston's life.

It is relevant to Preston of course it is what she did how she was recalled many times resulting in him being taken into care. I suspected it was semon what absolute monsters. Which podcast is it please or is there only one

Im not sure how I feel about the naming of the birth mum

Early on in the case there was lots of comments about him being snatched from his birth mum, would have been safer there and stolen to order type comments and having the circumstances more publicly known helps that misconception slightly

It’s not relevant at all. She isn’t on trial here.

My understanding (and i might be wrong because there's a lot out about this case)
Was there were three hospital visits.

Two initially as a result of reported illness, one was a chest infection where he was diagnosed and treated and the other was a fever (post seizure?). He was seen by somesort of safeguarding on fhe ward. The social worker did a home visit and reported that he looked unwell in keeping with what he had been treated for. One of the doctors noted bruising but said it was typical placement for his age? Even the forensic Dr agreed the forehead ones were at that point weren't a cause for concern, and wasn't typical of abuse.

The other is the obviously worrying one of a broken arm. Social services called and did a home visit again i think within a day. Noted that they looked upset by it, checked with the hospital who also had no concerns. An independent reviewer also went to the home.

The story of the fracture obviously changed, and it sounds like they told the fracture clinic something different, but this was a week after the social worker visit. This is the obvious bit of concern.

Again im not saying he wasn't failed, but that lots of the suggestions that visits need scrutiny clearly aren't aware that he was under intense scrutiny at that point anyway from multiple different safeguarding people

Lots of the horrific stuff was from photos the pair took and were discovered by the police after the fact, and wasn't known at that time.

I think it's just one. The Trial: the tragic life of Preston Davey. There's a transcript version based on court reporting. There's also the live reporting in the Manchester Evening News

Now whether or not trials should in fact be reported publicly in this much detail or on podcasts at which point of course they become subject to public comment is of course another question. See also the Letby case. And yes, the only reason for mentioning the birth mother at all (and no she absolutely isn't on trial here) was because of the somewhat misleading narrative that he 'should' have stayed with the birth mother. He was removed for a reason, sadly, it's not immoral or disrespectful (and no, I really don't care how those with a bee in their bonnet feel about that), but beyond that point, absolutely, she is not relevant to the details of this case. But my feelings, as I've said, are mostly with the loving foster mother who cared for him for the first ten months of his life and whose character and care was disparaged and lied about by the defendants. My heart breaks for her.

Anyway, as I say. The verdicts are due this week. Then, no doubt, more will come out and we'll see what, if any, systemic failures are revealed or how much could only have been understood in hindsight.

Frankly, he probably would've still been 'safer' with her, on the balance of probabilities. I doubt she would've been as likely to brutally sexually abuse him in the worst possible ways, until he died of it.

Really though, my sympathy is with his foster mum.

I do think the slight nihilism from adopters is having been at the edge of the system and seen the cracks. You're faced with the reality that the system is imperfect, that sometimes people try really hard and it still fails

I can see the people on this thread using change as a form of hope. Hoping that there will be a fix, that its because someone fucked up, checks weren't done properly before or after. That its easily fixable. Because to accept that sometimes people can do unpredictably horrific things, which cant be assessed for and the systems miss people is too terrifying to accept but is the reality for lots of people in it. That people try really hard, and do what they should but it doesnt work, and that monsters walk among us without sign

I agree.

I remember when dunblane happened and the shock and dismay and we made schools safer and we tightened up gun laws and then twenty eight years later Southport happens and we look at mental health and we look at extremism and we look at Prevent but I just think terrible things will happen and we can’t always predict them. I’m not saying we shouldn’t try but I don’t think there’s a way to completely eradicate horror or evil from our world.

Yeah, it's a fair comment. I don't think it's ever going to be 100% perfect. Because "the monsters" will always attempt to be ahead of the game and usually are. (I have my suspicions that Varley's safeguarding knowledge was part of that - after all, predators actively seek out potential gaps in the system, test them out etc etc).

That said, we know to expect that, and agencies involved really can't let already established protocols fail. If they do, you need to know why and do your damndest to ensure they won't fail again. And child safeguarding, as in other aspects of life, is something that needs to be dynamic to meet new potential threats. I've got to say, I feel like every generation, we're having to relearn things we did learn already but have let slip for various reasons, plus on top of that, may not always have the resources or knowledge to meet the new ones. But we'll see what comes out of this. I do think this case will be a big wake up call though, horrible as it has been.

That’s up to her. We don’t get to decide that, IMO. But evidently MN disagree.

'One vulnerable child being saved' is no good if there are no foster homes or adoptive families to move the child too because the vast majority of people would not accept the amount of scrutiny that has been suggested on this thread.

In terms of saving children it would be more effective to have more checks on all families - if children are taken to a&e then parents have to hand over their phones or have their homes searched before getting them back. All children having full body examinations every few months to check for signs of abuse. CCTV installed in the homes of children where anyone has raised safeguarding concerns.

It isn't just "the amount of scrutiny suggested on the thread". It's basic fucking safeguarding. Long-established protocol in many cases. And many digital checks don't require seizing devices or CCTV or any of the other things you are claiming we're suggesting.

For Christ's sake. We're talking about a vulnerable baby who was almost certainly raped to death by those who'd been cleared by the STATE for his adoption, ffs. Despite, it seems pretty obvious now, having pretty much NO experience with children and the training and support being pretty feeble, from what I can tell (a wider problem, as we know).

Reading throught the transcrcipt of the case I can already see some major red flags pretty early that people who should have known much better should have viewed with more scrutiny and more focus on Preston's welfare (rather than Jamie's). It's not anywhere near good enough.

They are trained to spot signs of it within families, but are they trained to examine the exterior of a child’s genitals and bottom and definitely spot the signs of abuse vs illness? That’s a very different job and surely would require medical training, and one which would require exclusion of all other issues which may cause irritation in that area. Would a social worker be trained sufficiently to notice irritation around a child’s bottom and tell it about from nappy rash, or the child has had diarrhoea recently or has been exposed to a food they’re intolerant too or has been scratching because of worms? I genuinely don’t know if there are differences but there are many very common reasons why the exterior of a child’s bottom might look sore. The clear injuries to Preston which indicated SA are largely internal such as internal tears and bruising to the bladder which would be incredibly invasive to test for and would almost certainly traumatise more children than it would save.