Two year old starves to death

GSM I am not a social worker, but it seemed to me she done everything she could, as her superior said on a television interview, as a social worker she has no right to gain entry on the property. She also informed the police. Unfortunately these people are very overworked, it is so easy to blame them.
I will wait to see what becomes of the enquiriry and not scapegoat them.
Also posters are having a go at the Mother forblaming the social worker, what are posters on this thread doing. I think over worked social workers are a easy target.

If the mother had not seen her child since November, then it sounds as if it was just for a brief visit, and the father only had the child with him over Christmas and New Year, who was the main carer? Where did little Bronson normally live?

Poor little scrap. So many willing, caring people who would love to adopt but have been denied the chance because of changes in the law.

So agree GSM

The gutter press.

Germanshepherdsmum

The mother who last saw her son in November according to The Sun, to whom she has sold her story.
www.thesun.co.uk/news/25405724/bronson-battersbys-mum-remembers-last-time-saw-boy/

The Sun has reached another low.

Yet again overstretched Police and Social workers are being blamed for a tragedy. The child's so called Mother needs to be looked at, why on earth could anyone leave a small, vulnerable child with a sick adult, no contact, not even calling to wish them a Happy Xmas? There is more to this than the knee jerk pile on by the tabloids.

From photographs and details, it appears to me that both parents were vulnerable adults and he should never have been left with either of them unsupervised. It is reported that the father couldn't cope and it has not been said why the mother didn't have custody so perhaps she couldn't either. So sad that this little boy didn't have a chance. Did read that someone said he was crying out for love and attention. So many of these awful cases of neglect. Social workers and the police should have acted sooner. A sixty year old man with health problems should not have been left with a two year old.

Oh my goodness, ten children?
Why is it that those who are least able ( or willing) to look after children are invariably the ones who have the most?

Sterilisation has been mentioned for women like that, to prevent large numbers of helpless little ones being brought up in these chaotic households.

However, once we go down the route of State intervention like that, we are on a very slippery slope.

I don’t know what the answer is apart from cutting their benefits, but then the children suffer.

The mother who last saw her son in November according to The Sun, to whom she has sold her story.
www.thesun.co.uk/news/25405724/bronson-battersbys-mum-remembers-last-time-saw-boy/

the mother said 'who can we rely on to keep our children safe if not social workers'

duh...mothers maybe !!

What tattoo collection ?

Mum is selling her story to the Sun, no doubt she’ll be able to add to her tattoo Collection showcased also in The Sun. They all look unkempt and dirty - mum, dad and the poor baby.

A very sad case what the poor little chap and his father went through doesn't bare thinking about. Much more needs to be investigated before any assumptions can be made.

eazybee

I think you will find that the lack of staff is due to doing such a thankless task; no praise or thanks for turning out over Christmas, trailing round other addresses to find the family, contacting the police, following it up again and then being blamed by people trying to make cheap political points.

It's surprising that anyone wants to even think of social work as a profession!

I think you will find that the lack of staff is due to doing such a thankless task; no praise or thanks for turning out over Christmas, trailing round other addresses to find the family, contacting the police, following it up again and then being blamed by people trying to make cheap political points.

Not just current thinking Dinahmo but enshrined in legislation - the Children Act 1989 is very clear that children should remain within their family of origin wherever possible. That means that not only parents must be assessed but also other family members who are proposed by parents or put themselves forward as potential carers.

Years ago a friend who was a deputy head in an impoverished area of South London talking about some of the case meetings that she had attended. I asked why these small children weren't put up for adoption and her response was that current thinking (back then) was that children should stay with their parents, if at all possible, with support from social services etc. This was back in the 80s and I don't know if it is the same now.

What is apparent is that the services are inadequate to deal with these cases because of insufficient staff which is in turn due to the austerity measures of the Tory govt.

I’ll just add - we have no idea what the events were between the 2/1 and 9/1 or what discussions were held. The social worker may indeed have followed up her calls on 2/1 and 4/1. I have experience of making many such calls as an out of hours SW. The police may have said ‘yes we will visit but we can’t say when it will be because we are snowed under and have only two officers on duty for that area right now’, or ‘we have no availability because we are dealing with a riot where all officers are attending and are under attack with missiles’ (both true responses I received on different occasions). The social worker may have escalated this to her manager and other discussions may have been held at this level. We know that she contacted other people who knew the family and she may have also explored other avenues.

We have no idea what other cases she was dealing with at the time or what else she may have tried. As others have said, there is no indication that this child was felt to be at immediate significant risk from his father, only that both were vulnerable and that statutory visits were monthly, although he was being visited weekly. Suggestions that she could and should have done more are premature in my opinion.

Well said, nightowl

There are many families such as this, living chaotic lives, where children are passed between parents and family members with social workers and other agencies trying their best to provide support and to ensure the children receive the services they need.

The threshold for care proceedings is relatively low following Baby Peter Connolly’s tragic death but even so, there are thousands more children who do not reach that threshold. The state cannot remove every child who receives less than adequate care and there are ethical questions about where the state’s powers should begin and end.

It is quite possible that care proceedings were being considered within the assessment of this family. In the usual course of events, his plan would be formulated and adapted as information was gathered. This would be scrutinised at every stage with the little boy at the heart of it. It is possible that at some stage he would be removed and placed in care.

The only thing that disrupted this process, which is a process going on for hundreds of children every day in social work offices across the country, is that his father sadly died. If not, we would never have heard of him. We need to wait for the results of the inquiry and the police watchdog investigation before assigning blame for what followed to any individual or agency.

chocolatepudding that must have been shocking, I am so sorry. The last thing you need is a journalist sensationalising such a tragedy with dubious stories.

So easy to blame an overworked social worker who tried various ways of locating the father and little boy.

As far as I know (bearing in mind this is from media reports) this child was not the subject of a Protection Order.
Social worker visits were monthly.

Please do not believe whatever is written or reported in the press and the media.
The truth will come out at the inquests and public inquiry.

Our DD died suddenly age 7 months back in the 1970s. I can still remember the ambulance crew and the doctor who came to the house and the coroner who arrived two hours later. DD died of natural causes.

Four days later the local newspaper printed their once weekly load of rubbish which happened to be the Christmas edition. I picked up the paper and read ON THE FRONT PAGE - BABY FOUND DEAD IN COT - AND IT WAS A PACK OF LIES. dd had been rushed to hospital....NO.....I WAS THERE AND THAT IS NOT WHAT HAPPENED.

Even now I would give the journalist who wrote that piece of pure invention a good telling off and some physical abuse to get the message through his/her thick skull.

Please do not believe the press and media reports about this tragic event. May they rest in peace

If you were the SW, rafichagran, not having had any feedback from the police when you asked them to call at the house on 2 January, would you not have chased them up rather than just calling them again when you couldn’t gain entry two days later, and then, still with no police response, waiting until 9 January to call at the house again? Knowing that the child was so vulnerable as to require a weekly visit, would you really not have done more? I would be surprised if she is exonerated by the inquiry - likewise the police,

nanna8

For goodness sake- those kids need to go into decent foster homes. She could have visiting rights. What sort of a system is it ?

As far as I understand it, Bronson was not the subject of a Child Protection Order but was a child in need of monthly visits to ensure his continued welfare.

I may be wrong, but that is how I understand it.