THE ACCUSED ------ CHANNEL 5 now

[RTKangaMummy]

Now

Gosh, I have just read about a third of that report.

My feeling is one of frustration, so many different agencies involved with them, but was anything actually achieved?

Was anyone actually saying "This man is abusive/ it will not get better, / this relationship is not good for your child/you must put your child first?"
Because with everything that had happened to Kenzey- care, mental health issues, presenting at A&E due to feelings of suicide, domestic abuse, she needed a one to one relationship with someone who could help and advise her. (where the heck was her own mother?).

All that money and time being spent on the family and it still ends like this.

The report noted that Kenzey wasn't asked about domestic violence at her first midwife appointment as Kyle was present. It also mentions that after the incident of violence later in her pregnancy Kenzey didn't tell her midwife or other medical professionals about it.

Given that Kenzey also told her solicitor that there had been no violence despite the evidence to the contrary suggests that her denial and need to protect Kyle over all others were her number one priorities.

It's all very sad, the report talks about how well Kenzey had managed her life after coming out of the care system and now her child is facing a life of pain and disability.

here

BakeOff I think, having read the SCR, that the local authorities and various agencies involved actually managed the family pretty well. Kenzey and Kyle had an awful lot of involvement from various supporting agencies and it seems that the things that were 'missed' were purely down to Kenzey's denials and lack of voluntary information. I found it strange that Kenzey apparently went into care so late in her childhood (at nearly 18) apparently in order to secure housing and accommodation. It made me realise that she and her mum were quite reticent about discussing their relationship in the programme.

It reads to me like the HV, perinatal mental health teams, social workers and young parents workers all offered a lot of support and the catastrophic injuries suffered by the baby were really unexpected.

Such a sad case all round.

Sidge yes she did lie to most of the people involved with her, but surely she was able to do that because the care was so fragmented and involved far too many people with the contact spread out too much. If one person had been visiting more often, with access to all medical records, care records etc, maybe they may have been more successful?

But my main question is still, what are these people saying to the parents? I don't know, because I've thankfully never had any SS involvement, but do they say "You should not stay in this relationship, he has hit you and it will only get worse"?
It was shocking that Kyle was allowed back into the house after the domestic abuse, if someone hits their partner whilst they are holding a baby, why are they allowed straight back to the home?

I think part of the problem is that when someone like her is involved with many agencies, one person cannot do all the visits as they all come under different agencies and remits. The paperwork is linked to some degree but as we don't have an overarching "one system for everything" there will always be some cracks to slip through.

Re the intervention, unfortunately you can't tell someone how to live their lives but I have heard SWs and HCPs say to women "this is not acceptable. You don't have to live like this. We will help you." But if a woman chooses to stay with her partner then they can't force him to leave - they can and do remove children but have to go through stringent processes.

I guess Kyle was allowed back as he'd accepted a caution and she wanted him back

Can you really just go into care to secure housing and education? Surely that isn't what the care system is for.

I also noticed it mentioned when she was assessed by CAMHS they thought she had an 'emerging personality disorder'

I'm glad to hear that SWs and HCPs can be blunt about what is acceptable.

It's ludicrous that anyone should be allowed back to the family home after hitting someone. There should be an automatic "cooling off" period if children are in the home. It's just common sense.

As a now ex HV I have been very blunt at times...and I hate confrontation but sometime it has to be done. If I had been Kenzey's HV i would have made sure I sat her down and had a frank discussion. After that it would have been her own decision but I would absolutely have pointed out that her baby had serious injuries and someone had caused them. If it wasn't her (and I don't think it was) then she needed to be open and honest with police and everyone else. Had she done that then presumably she would not have faced jail.

I was shouting at the screen..."for goodness sakes someone sit her down and give it to her in no uncertain terms".

Of course "they" may have done exactly that and it was ignored.

Sadly what she did showed she was utterly incapable of keeping any child safe...,she chose her violent and abusive boyfriend over her child. Not only that but she had another baby with him.

I cannot understand why grandmother who is equally in denial about the violent abusive boyfriend has care of the injured child. Then again she will have gone through lots of assessments to ensure her care of the baby is safe.

Overall I also felt sad, Kenneth came across as a bright and articulate young woman. How sad that she has chosen to believe her scumbag boyfriend over the overwhelming evidence which included his confession.

Kenzey not "Kenneth"
We need an edit function.

Well you can't 'just' go into care to get secure housing. There would ostensibly be some other reason. But yes, someone who was aware of housing law might engineer a situation where their child entered care for a short period just before their 18th birthday just so they could obtain the housing and benefits rights of care leavers. And her mother just happens to work for a housing charity.

But either way there would have to be some sort of pretty serious issue. So either her mother lied about her never being any trouble, or she lied to get her into care. But she lied anyway.

They only filmed her with the lawyers. And it's not their job to do that and I think it would be legally very dicey as she's supposed to be telling the truth. Not what a lawyer's told her to say.

No one was ever blunt with my DS's birth mother (My niece)
It was incredibly frustrating.
She was cossetted and pandered to. She loved the attention and 'kindness' but it wasn't honest kindness. It was to keep her quiet and compliant.
She has LDs and other issues and had NO idea she was going to lose the baby. The assessment process was long but she seemed to think it was indefinite and her rudeness and poor behaviour was here getting one over on SS.
No one in authority ever said 'if you do not stop messing about you WILL lose your baby'

We told her but her friends and closer family were of the 'they can't do that hun!' type. That attitude coupled with SS limpness just made her feel it was all a joke and she would get him back, get lots of money and a flat thrown in.

She couldn't have cared for the baby but it was unfair for her to be strung along and it was a massive shock when the courts decided he could never go back.

The case on the programme was different but the mother and grandmother's attitudes were similar.
Self protection? Choosing to believe the 'fight for your bubz hun' narrative? , delusion or just pure dishonesty.
Maybe a mix of all that stuff.

I would have thought she got that straight talk fairly often. The barrister almost gave it to her and it was implied right the way through.

I thought it was her and her boyfriend who worked for the housing charity, not the mother. I also didn't think the mother had custody. She just had more contact. I suppose that might well be why Kenzy and the mother were not together at any point in the documentary - so that the mother could visit the child.

I didn't think it sounded like the various agencies did anything wrong. They sounded very thorough - unfortunately there are always going to be these cases.

The SCR recognised the 'halo effect' - that they were dazzled by presentation. And it has been remarked continually over this thread how Kenzey appeared and her degree of eloquence. Presumably there was a certain amount of manipulation of agencies from the start if she wangled the benefits of being looked after without the huge disadvantages.

Maybe that was why she was so stupid about the legal system - telling such obvious lies, and just thinking that if she kept repeating her innocence in more and more dramatic terms, she would convince the jury - because she had convinced so many other professionals in the past.

If she'd dropped all the 'we'll probably never know what happened' bullshit then there may have been a different outcome. You DO know, it was either you that caused those injuries or him. There are no other ways they could have occured.

If she'd have stopped trying to hide the truth, she would have been treated very differently I think.

All three of them worked for the same charity. Presumably her Mum got her the job and she met Kyle there.

I don't know for certain, but the impression I got was that her mother had custody of at least the eldest child. On her FB Kenzey appeared to be having pretty regular involvement with her including her treatment. And the way they spoke about the visitation on the programme, they never mentioned the mother having contact or visitation, they just mentioned that she would be 'present'. It hinted to me that she was there because she was taking the child/ren. Also her mother was arranging private treatment which would be odd for a child fostered elsewhere.

BillSykesDog, did it say that in the programme about all 3 of them working there? I didn't take it in.

If the mother did have custody, that made it all the stranger that the programme was made. I know nothing about issues of custody etc though...

If the mother does have care of the children, the conviction will add a layer of complexity as I suspect that Kenzie will never be allowed access to the children again - supervised or not.

I'm not sure the mother does have care or, if she has in the past, will have now

The information about the homeless charity etc is google-able.

The grandmother doesn't have custody. She was going to contact visits.
I would be very surprised if the grandmother got custody in this case.
She would have to drastically cut contact with her dd and show awareness that the parents were to blame for the injuries.
She didn't show any such awareness and appeared to be seeing her DD a lot.
These parents caused life long, life changing injuries to their child and refused to take responsibility. Contact will cease. I can't see any court awarding significant face to face contact with such a young child in a case this serious.

Nor should they. I am very pro contact for the child's sake but this would not be for the child. It would be for the mother to continue her fantasy that she did all she could to care for those children.

The child's condition will be classed as life limiting. She will be vulnerable to infections and have a very high risk of seizures. She may not be able to swallow so may be tube fed. She is likely to be in fostercare because adopters for children with this level are need are very rare. Even if she is long term care (and I hope she is) her situation will still be vulnerable and she may be moved around the system and end up living in residential care when she moves to adult services.
I doubt she is in the same placement as her sister. I would expect her sister to be freed for adoption now the criminal case is resolved.

Of course all of the above is me making assumptions but the are assumptions based on a lot of knowledge.

I hope she has been adopted. I hope she is with a family member and I hope she is with her sister. I hope that her CP is milder than I suspect.
But I doubt it.

Given all this accessible information, making Kenzey and family's identity even more traceable, I would ask even more strongly, to the maker of this film:

do you think it was responsible to do this?

I can see the merits of disclosing workings of the defence system, but with so controversial a crime. Yes, it made it fascinating to watch - morbid curiosity - and probably achieved high ratings.

But does this not encourage a lynch mob mentality in what was a low profile crime? Now surely there will have to be new identities etc.

Yes, it was fascinating, and this thread is interesting, but I don't think it was responsible broad casting.

I'm sorry it really is totally tragic but there was something very odd and Kensey and her mother.

I don't think it was a simple case of nasty abusive partner causes hideous injuries.

I just watched it and found it difficult viewing. Very frustrating to listen to her talk. She is in denial at best, how the hell can she just tell herself the injuries just 'happened' but weren't 'caused' by anyone. Of course they were. She is prioritising her abusive partner and her own image over the protection and justice for her baby daughter. Horrifying. She lied throughout even to her own legal team about the abuse and what happened that night. I found it difficult to understand what she was even talking about sometimes, her thought process seemed jumbled and irrational.
I don't think she is an evil abusive person, but imo the verdict was the right one. I think she knew more than she admits to. Her judgement and priorities were so skewed and she came across as very immature, I think it is in her children's best interests and safety not to be in her care.

It did seem strange that Kenzey's mum refused to accept Kyle's responsibility for the injuries inflicted on the baby.

I get why Kenzey was desperate to defend him but he almost killed her granddaughter and she still thinks that nobody actually hurt the baby?

I read also that the baby had a fractured shin bone. How does Kenzey think that happened? It was multiple injuries, though the doctors believed it was from one incident as there were no 'old' injuries. What he did to the baby must have been a serious assault, much more than shaking her.