Lack of leadership in soicial services

tickingbird

Trisher
but it is society and the system of austerity some voted for that failed to protect him.

How do you square that with all the children that died under a labour government? No austerity measures then. Poor Victoria Climbie died in unimaginable circumstances. SW’s involved then but it took a taxi driver to take one look at her in the back of his taxi and decide she was going to hospital. Labour council as well.

When Victoria Climbie was killed a number of initiatives were introduced after an enquiry Climbié's death was largely responsible for the formation of the Every Child Matters initiative; the introduction of the Children Act 2004; the creation of ContactPoint, a database that held information on the contacts of the various childrens' services with particular children (closed by the 2010 Coalition government); and the creation of the Office of the Children's Commissioner chaired by the Children's Commissioner for England.
The Every Child Matters policy can be read here assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/272064/5860.pdf
But don't read it unless you have a strong stomach. The standards which are proposed, the provision necessry the desired out comes are hard to take. SureStart Centres, increases in CHAMs, no children in B&B accommodation by 2004. It simply shows that Arthur's death might have been prevented if these things had happened

I agree with others that those who should have protected Arthur failed to protect him. I understand his teacher reported the concerns to Social Services, or reported them in all probability to the person in Arthur’s school who was responsible for the safeguarding of children. Where did the system fail then? The teacher responsible for safeguarding? The Social Services? The individual social worker who was responsible for Arthur? The police who were alerted by Arthur’s grandmother? The government for closing Sure Start Centres? Children have been killed by their parents or care givers forever it seems. Every time there is an inquiry we are told that lessons will be learned, but they never are learned.

That's why social workers are employed in child protection roles.
Child protection!!!

maddyone

The government didn’t kill Arthur.
The social workers didn’t kill Arthur.
The father and step mother killed Arthur.

Out of interest, somebody out there must know, are the numbers of children killed by their parents and care givers really dependent on which government is in power? It seems unlikely to me, but what do I know!

Yes the father and his girlfriend did but the authorities failed him, resulting in these two evil people torturing and killing him.

I've no doubt there will be a litany of "lessons to be learned" from this.
Blaming cuts just isn't good enough.

They said on Newsnight that Arthur constantly said at school that his father was trying to kill him. If this is true I see here not just a failure of SS but a complete failure of communication between the people involved with him.

trisher I understand that his teacher did report her/his worries to Social Services as did a grandmother and uncle who also reported their concerns to the police.

Warning signs were missed despite that for whatever reason.

Arthur was failed and as a result suffered months of torture and a dreadful death by a callous, evil, manipulative woman who fetched her mobile phone and filmed him dying.

But these sort of tragedies happened before all the recent cuts in funding.

Trisher
but it is society and the system of austerity some voted for that failed to protect him.

How do you square that with all the children that died under a labour government? No austerity measures then. Poor Victoria Climbie died in unimaginable circumstances. SW’s involved then but it took a taxi driver to take one look at her in the back of his taxi and decide she was going to hospital. Labour council as well.

I didn’t see Newsnight and had read the Arthur had told his teacher once that his daddy was going to kill him. Once I’d enough of course but if this was something he repeated and it didn’t lead to a s47 investigation, well I feel sick

They said on Newsnight that Arthur constantly said at school that his father was trying to kill him. If this is true I see here not just a failure of SS but a complete failure of communication between the people involved with him. And I think there can be little doubt that this has been made substantially more difficult by funding cuts. Teachers with bigger classes and less support, social workers with bigger client lists and more paper work, cuts to the police service. Combine these with adults who are aware of their rights, can be threatening and manipulative and you have a system which fails vulnerable children. And these people may be responsible for killing him but it is society and the system of austerity some voted for that failed to protect him.

maddyone The parents killed Arthur, because Social Services did not stop them, they had the opportunity and blew it.

nightowl, while I understand the legal restarints, too often the social workers have been fobbed off by parents and have accepted the reasons the parents give, for not doing full inspections of children or accepting excuses for why the child they want to see isn't available.

On issues, like talking to children, then there needs to be a change in the law. I hope the enquiry that we are to get will look, not only the failings in this case, but revisit others like that of Baby P to see if there is any pattern to be found in these tragedies, whether, in attitudes of social workers, deffciencies in the law or even - and I think this is what really needed, and that is a thorough examination of the way social work is managed in this country and the way social workers are trained.

nightowl, while I understand the legal restarints, too often the social workers have been fobbed off by parents and have accepted the reasons the parents give, for not doing full inspections of children or accepting excuses for why the child they want to see isn't available.

On issues, like talking to children, then there needs to be a change in the law. I hope the enquiry that we are to get will look, not only the failings in this case, but revisit others like that of Baby P to see if there is any pattern to be found in these tragedies, whether, in attitudes of social workers, deffciencies in the law or even - and I think this is what really needed, and that is a thorough examination of the way social work is managed in this country and the way social workers are trained.

The government didn’t kill Arthur.
The social workers didn’t kill Arthur.
The father and step mother killed Arthur.

Out of interest, somebody out there must know, are the numbers of children killed by their parents and care givers really dependent on which government is in power? It seems unlikely to me, but what do I know!

It’s despicable to fail to acknowledge the impact on social work and every other agency involved of devastating austerity and cuts over 11 years. Stating my belief in this in no way suggests I defend bad practice.
Night owl’ s post resonates with my experience. I recall the change when we needed parental permission to see a child in school, often with their teachers support. Teachers are often significant, especially for primary school children. Their teacher knows them well. She knows who never has breakfast, arrives late crying ‘miss I missed breakfast club, I’m starving I’ve had niwt since dinner yesterday”.
The lengths, the endless forms etc teachers must complete before children;s services can be contacted would shock many posters.

Resources like family centres, nurseries, social work assistants who’d arrive at 7.30am to help struggling parents with routines, ensure children got breakfast and out to school, be back at the house 4 or 5pm to repeat this are long gone. Those services helped some families through tough times and provided clear evidence that other parents couldn’t/wouldn’t engage with necessary work to meet their children’s needs.

It’s like re-inventing the wheel. I could weep

Hetty58

For Heaven's sake! How very predictable - on Gransnet - to start bashing Social Services, while ignoring the ridiculous caseloads, the awful lack of funding for councils, the police, the NHS etc, since, at least 2010.

Ah - but then of course, all you Tory voters actually did vote for that, didn't you?

This was happening years and years ago, yes would you believe in the days of Labour gov, and councils, did Labour voters vote for that, no, anymore than Conservative voters. So chucking money around as Labour is won’t to do, makes no difference Absolutely despicable comment.

Monica in my experience, any allegation of physical harm to a child would result in exactly what you say, followed by (of in the case of older children) a full child protection medical with a Community Paediatrician. If this did not happen for little Arthur (which seems to have been the case but I can’t assume the reporting is 100% correct) then this was a bad mistake.

Social workers used to regularly visit children in school or other settings and speak to them alone if there was suspicion of harm. They have not been allowed to do this for many years without the parents’ consent. Social workers have to work within the law. They do not, and have never had the legal powers to remove children summarily from their parents even if they suspect they have suffered abuse. It often feels as though social workers have one hand tied behind their backs. However, do we want the alternative, which is to invest them with far more powers to interfere in family life? This is the eternal question.

In too many of these cases it is decisions made by indivdual social workers after visiting the family that is at fault.

To make the excuse that the parents were devious or manipulative is not sufficient excuse. Abusers of all kinds are often charming, manipulative and abusive. It is the social workers job to recognise this and know how to deal with it.

Simple things like insisting on seeing the child undressed to their underpants and examining them carefully. A social worker going round to talk to the child at school or somewhere outside the home where parents and guardians are not present. Being able to immediately remove a child if such an interview reveals any evidence of abuse.

Often what is needed is good and intelligent decision making by those in charge and a willingness to put the chld before the system.

DaisyL

I wasn't criticising individual social workers, rather the leadership - whether from above in social services (the leader of the local SS who has just resigned was apparently earning £140,000 pa - and at that salary we are surely entitled to good leadership - or from the government. We do need more social workers and it is surprising if you can earn that sort of many that more people don't go into it! And before anyone jumps on me I do realise that money is not the main motive for good social workers.

Yes, we should expect good leadership but if you have limited resources and are bound by regulations limiting what you can do, it must be like wading through treacle, you just can’t do what needs doing.

It’s easy being a successful leader if you have the resources and the ability to change the system.

I’d just like to make it clear I’m not blaming individual sw’s. It’s the system and it’s inability to change. The department needs a complete overhaul from the top down whether it likes it or not.

I absolutely appreciate the difficult job that social workers do - I couldn't do it for love nor money - but you cannot ignore the fact that there are failings in the system itself. I know this from first hand experience - if one social work department had communicated properly with another, my grandson (then aged 2) would never have been left alone with a mother who attempted to kill herself and take him with her.

Urmstongran

tickingbird

Who would have thought at first glance that Emma Tustin was a bad parent: spotless house, devoted partner, answer for everything, and a monster.

A well trained social worker with the awareness and nous to know all is not as it seems, especially when reports are coming in from different people.

And added to which if these departments join up the dots, past history on Ms Tustin would have revealed early on that she had mental health issues, had tried to take her own life, had 2 of her own 4 children removed from her care, had jumped out of a window, fracturing her pelvis and requiring several weeks in hospital.

Did this woman’s history of instability not ring any alarm bells, did it not warrant a watchful eye? - even before she met Hughes during lockdown? Perhaps a ‘red flag’ inserted onto the computer screen - no action YET but if anything comes to light down the line, any reports from family or neighbours, question all narratives & think the unthinkable⁉️

That’s my view.

I was typing something similar, Urmstongran but lost the message. The father of one her other children alleges that was what happened.

The youngster (Arthur) was found to have 130 injuries all over his body after being hit, slapped, kicked, punched, and beaten, “over and over”

These were missed because a social worker had a cursory glance at one old bruise and believed , as told by Tustin, that it had been caused by one of the other children.

I do understand the pressures but surely there were already warning signs about this woman?

I make a point of not interfering in my children’s decisions but did try to persuade DD not to go in to Social Work. It’s a thankless job with so many belligerent people prepared to wade in, but not so many people getting involved in family befriending schemes.

No end of times she would like to just scoop the children up and take them somewhere safe but obviously she can’t! Gut feeling alone is not enough but sometimes that’s all you can go on when the parents know exactly how to work the system. Look what happened in the Orkneys!

A closer look at the top echelons is vital. Too many taking the jobs for their own advancement. The person in charge has a lot to answer for.

Same happened with the C-diff scandal. The CEO was vain and a bully and very much responsible for what happened. Another one who resigned in the nick of time and was then employed at a higher salary in a neighboring hospital trust. This was under a labour government.

I wasn't criticising individual social workers, rather the leadership - whether from above in social services (the leader of the local SS who has just resigned was apparently earning £140,000 pa - and at that salary we are surely entitled to good leadership - or from the government. We do need more social workers and it is surprising if you can earn that sort of many that more people don't go into it! And before anyone jumps on me I do realise that money is not the main motive for good social workers.

tickingbird

^Who would have thought at first glance that Emma Tustin was a bad parent: spotless house, devoted partner, answer for everything, and a monster.^

A well trained social worker with the awareness and nous to know all is not as it seems, especially when reports are coming in from different people.

And added to which if these departments join up the dots, past history on Ms Tustin would have revealed early on that she had mental health issues, had tried to take her own life, had 2 of her own 4 children removed from her care, had jumped out of a window, fracturing her pelvis and requiring several weeks in hospital.

Did this woman’s history of instability not ring any alarm bells, did it not warrant a watchful eye? - even before she met Hughes during lockdown? Perhaps a ‘red flag’ inserted onto the computer screen - no action YET but if anything comes to light down the line, any reports from family or neighbours, question all narratives & think the unthinkable⁉️

That’s my view.