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? 💙

Gut feeling = professional curiosity

What is inexcusable is so many visits to the hospital in a short period of time and no follow up or action taken.

There was follow up. The first two were physical health related, the last a broken bone.
Regardless he had multiple social work visits, including visits on the ward from a different social worker. A more senior doctor who looked at the bruising (i think). Social work visits at home including from an independent social worker. The social workers also liaised with the hospital on several ocassions

That's what worries me about this case. If he had no follow up then its an obvious hole to fix to prevent it happening again, whats terrifying about this is that he did have what was meant to happen but it still failed

I wonder if checks were made all over Preston’s body ie genitals?
If not, maybe this needs to be compulsory?

Still can’t stop thinking of him.

Would you consent to your childs genitals being checked if they went in to hospital for a fever?

Not being goady but im not sure how intrusive checks i would want for all children that present. I dont think i would want to enforce genital checks on children presenting in hospital for physical health or for broken arm that was witnessed and seemed reasonable.

Those kind of intimate checks in themselves opens up potential for abuse

From what I can gather, the injuries were mostly internal. An examination for CSA should not be arranged for any child without suspicion as the examination itself can be very intrusive and traumatising. Up until their phones were seized, I don’t think there was any suspicion.

Yes, but not evidence. The review should look into whether the professional curiosity was followed fully and therefore evidence was likely to have been found before he died.

Indeed whatever is put in place will need to be fairly global

If we wouldn't accept our kids being checked for genital harm when going in for an illness or injury then we cant sign up some of the most vulnerable children to do it

Its tempting to be knee jerk in the face of such horror but we have to think of achievable ways to prevent harm.

Professional curiosity is absolutely key, once you start exercising that, the evidence follows.

If either a medic or a social worker had just asked to look at the date the video of the toy box falling was taken, things could have been very different.

We don’t need to (and absolutely shouldn’t) start demanding that genitals are checked if a child it’s taken to hospital. I think some of the answers are much more simple, although I’m aware of the cost/time implications.

A multi agency recording system that notes every contact with a child known to services would make information sharing so much easier. It would be instant. Too many things slip through the cracks because one professional didn’t communicate with another, or someone isn’t getting back to someone else, or someone can’t attend a meeting. I’m not saying this would be flawless, but it’s got to be a step in the right direction.

Professionals not taking anything at face value; we need to ask the difficult questions and not just accept what we’re being shown/told.

It seems so simple written down but it comes up time and time again in SCR’s and I fear it will be no different in this one; a lack of multi-agency working and a lack of professional curiosity.

JV's work colleagues realised that he had given them different accounts of how Preston's arm was fractured. Which should have been a red flag. Teachers are mandatory reporters.

Another teacher, Rachel Alty, said a group of staff had met up at a pub towards the end of the school year. Mr Varley joined them and seemed 'exhausted like a new parent.'

But she said they became concerned that they had been given different accounts of how Preston had been injured.

Ms Alty then told the court she discussed it with two colleagues and they noticed Jamie was telling them all different accounts about how Preston had broken his arm. One of the colleagues raised their concerns with the headteacher and asked for a welfare check.
www.lancs.live/news/lancashire-news/teacher-accused-killing-baby-preston-33861775

Thanks for that, I hadn’t seen that before.

The article says that the teachers had a conversation around two weeks after Preston’s death and realised they had been given different accounts. Obviously at that point it would have been too late to save Preston, but did they go to the police?

I wonder if Varley’s colleague had reported his “dark thoughts” to social services might action have been taken.

Yes, you are right, not every child who comes in with a plausible explanation eg, broken leg etc should be checked. I’m just thinking in the case of Preston who was a baby and been admitted several times over a short period, but as another poster said the injuries were internal, so if he had been examined all over maybe the outcome would still be the same.
I’m just so angry and sad for Preston.

I'm confused; I thought the discussion between the colleagues was before Preston died, not after, because that was apparently the reason the 'welfare check' (on Varley! But nothing done for Preston) happened through the head teacher.

Shouldn't she have escalated or at least mentioned those concerns to someone rather than just believing JV's word for it? I get that her priority would have been him as her employee, but shouldn't she have reported also out of concern for Preston?

Edit: yes, this is what the article says.
Ms Alty then told the court she discussed it with two colleagues and they noticed Jamie was telling them all different accounts about how Preston had broken his arm. One of the colleagues raised their concerns with the headteacher and asked for a welfare check.

So that PLUS the 'dark thoughts' conversation and still nothing seems to have been mentioned to anyone outside the school about Preston's welfare rather than Varley's.

Its a hard weigh up.

At the time Preston was a kid who had two physical health visits where the drs felt he was physically unwell and it was appropriate, a bruise in keeping with typical injuries with his age. Later he presented with a fracture, that was reported as witnessed and there was even a video explanation. Obviously we know its all Bullshit in hindsight

However if I presented my child post seizure at a+e, went to get them anti biotic for a fever, or i saw them get injured then I wouldn't want their genitals checked out of process.

Its all so obvious in hindsight

I’m confused too!

Around two weeks after Preston had died, Mrs Gee said the topic of his broken arm came up again. Here, she told the court, Mr Varley said ‘the baby had his arm caught in the bars of the cot which had caused the injury’, she said.,
She told the court she did not question Mr Varley on the differences between the accounts.

I took that to mean the conversation happened after his death but maybe not! Yes, you’re absolutely right it should have been reported.

This is all so tragic that so much “evidence” was floating around that something wasn’t right. And I believe there absolutely needs to be a different, more robust approach to monitoring the welfare of non-verbal adoptees - babies, toddlers and disabled children.

Did no one question why Preston wasn’t in hospital regularly when in his foster parents’ care but this changed when in JV and JMFs? Even if the issues independently could be “explained”, the pattern is off and worst case scenario was an indicator that Preston was in danger.

Denying the foster parents’ access to Preston - more evidence. It’s a common tactic of CSAers to be “protective” and restrict contact with children they are harming - recently saw this with the two recent paedophiles in the nurseries. Sure, there COULD be good reason for it, but should it not have been investigated and encouraged by SWs to facilitate?

I don’t believe it was the SWs job to bring together all of the separate strands of evidence to assess Preston’s safety. You would think it was! But remember, they have come to know the perpetrators and, as commented throughout the trial, they were slippery, smarmy liars. An independent third party was/is needed.

God it’s so harrowing. I think about Preston every day.

another serious case review that will be talked about at safeguarding training. In such training, we are taught ‘it could happen to anyone, and anywhere’ just because a family are ‘nice’ you do NOT, ever, assume that abuse cannot be taking place. this poor baby was miserably failed by multiple agencies and there will absolutely be a serious case review into this. I cannot understand why because of previous similar incidents and case reviews, these professionals haven’t learnt to just take precautions as a bare minimum. When I’ve had safeguarding concerns even minor, I’ve reported them (I’m an early years teacher). I’d rather the reports after investigating come back as nothing than be something presented as something minor, unreported and then out to be really awful in reality.

rest in peace baby Preston 😢💔

I agree with the poster there should be third party involvement. I think this case shows a need for another safeguarding role altogether. Social workers are often too busy trying to build rapport with families in crap circumstances and we see it time and time again that they fail children because they are too focused on the adults. I honestly think there needs new roles between police and social workers a qualified professional that sits outside of this and investigates potential safeguarding concerns like this and is involved with any child that has safeguarding alerts.

It was reported much cleared in the live court updates.

They realised that the story was inconsistent and then arranged for a welfare check on JV. Not on Preston. This was before his death.

And should have been reported to social services. They are mandatory reporters.

I know!

Inconsistent accounts of an injury is a red flag for abuse. But their concerns were with JV and not Preston!

Why??? They are mandatory reporters.

I don’t think we have “mandatory reporting” in England? As of this year there is one relating to child sexual abuse, and there is one relating to FGM, but not physical abuse or neglect. Though I agree the school should have spoken with the social worker to raise the concerns.

Oh really? I thought they were. But they should be!

In America, teachers are mandated reporters. I just assumed they were here too.

See, this is why for me a number of the flags in this case really cannot be said to be just "hindsight". Different individuals, usually those lower down the pecking order, ARE noticing problematic things and patterns at the time, in some cases quite rightly reporting concerns upwards as they know however small they seem they should be flagged, (the foster mum, the colleagues) but then the trail seems to stop, even though it really shouldn't have. Especially as simultaneously you are getting hospital visits etc.

I would've thought this was mandatory too, from the head teacher's pov as a professional at least, but apparently not. I am concerned also about the lack of child-centredness here when it comes to the welfare check.Yes, there is reason to check on her staff member, Preston is not her responsibilty technically but again, it is everyone's responsibility to safeguard a child. That's meant to be the point of being a 'safeguarding lead'. it's so frustrating.

Again, this isn't meant to target individuals who failed here. I get why the social worker can't act on something they don't even know about. But that link between the school finding something out and not saying anything externally is a key one, and it's one of several professional level 'cracks' that seem to have happened here. The head appears to have taken it on trust when JV tells her his social worker knows about his problems coping. I'm pretty sure you're not supposed to do that at any point; why shouldn't she have mentioned it or flagged it to someone? Even the "I had a welfare check with JV and made X decision". should have been noted surely. There seems to be something really wrong here.

Yes,Preston was unfortunately failed by so many.
I sincerely hope these people reflect on what they could have done and if there is reason to hold people accountable then so be it as is stated will happen pending the outcome of the review. Something clearly has got to change.