Hamzah Kahn

How on earth could anything that happened it that home be construed as "love" - arrant tosh, sentimental claptrap. And I don't think the judge needed to show "any more compassion" - who is there who will defend the defenceless? but so

Totally agree with gracesmum,no way on earth was there "love" shown in that household.RIP Hamzah

Don't you think there is a difference between this case and that of, say, Baby P, and other deliberately harmed children?

Thank God that WPCC didn't give up till she actually saw this woman. She probably saved the siblings' lives. The picture of this little boy is so haunting. Thank God too the other children rescued will be cared for, I hope they have a chance.

What makes you say this child was not deliberately harmed? He was starved to death - apparently reduced to eatiing the contents of his nappies (unless this is sensationalist reporting) - that is 100% deliberate. This is not "accidental" - that level of neglect is cuplable, criminal and IMHO deliberate. Each case is different in its own way of course, I am not disputing that, but no way is this less culpable just because physical violence or injury were not involved.

The other children must have been of school age.

Daniel's Law

Alright Gracesmum.

If a group of young men are carrying out a robbery, and one of them shoots and kills somebody, they can all be charged with murder. (Joint enterprise?) I don't understand why a mother, who allows her child to be tortured and killed by her partner, should not be charged with murder along with him.

The oldest 'child' was in his early 20s and lived at 'home'. Why is he not responsible for aiding and abetting in the neglect of his brother?

Greatnan- the 'failure to protect' by one parent, whilst another physically, emotionally or sexually harms the child can be a bit of a minefield. But yes, I agree with you. Each parent contributed to the life of that child, both have parental responsibility and so both should be held responsible for their part in the crime.
As far Hamzah and his siblings, he was neglected to the extent he starved to death. The other 5 children in that home must have experienced the most awful neglect of their emotional, physical and developmental needs. They also lived with a mother who was permanently drinking, and so emotionally unavailable to them. The children were aged between 5 and 13, and it beggars belief that until this determined young PCSO knocked on the door, the plight of these children wasn't fully understood by agencies whose job includes the responsibility to protect children.
The comments by J08 about his mother's experience as a victim of domestic abuse, her mental health issues appear to be one of the issues that clouded the minds of those tasked with looking at the children's welfare. In serious case reviews, the comment that the needs of the adults became the focus is almost always reported. The child becomes invisible as people put their energies into trying to change parents - many of whom resist, don't want to change, and are dependent on drugs or alcohol which compound existing depression or anxiety.
It is not rare for the perpetrator of violence to claim provocation, as Hamzah's father did, or for them to make allegations that the children are neglected. What is more unusual is for police/social workers not to see the wood for the trees. Until the serious case review is published, we won't know the details. But - let's not leap to the defence of a woman who neglected her children and allowed her remaining children to live with the dead body of their brother lying in a cot. Rip Hamzah, and yes, let's hope his siblings are in loving, safe homes and getting the therapeutic input they no doubt need.

Iam64 the oldest child was in his 20s.

Details of a police interview conducted with Hamzah's father Aftab Khan recorded in December 2008, a year before the child's death on 15 December 2009, were read to the court.

“
Start Quote

When it all comes out I'll come back and see you and say I told you so... you guys are not listening”

Aftab Khan
Mr Khan had been arrested on suspicion of violence towards his former partner, Ms Hutton, but told officers: "You've got to keep an eye on that woman.

"All I want you to do is get a doctor to check Hamzah, check how undernourished he is, check how neglected he is, see how he is. "

Jurors also heard how Mr Khan told police Ms Hutton was an alcoholic and there were vodka bottles all over the house.

He said she would not let him take Hamzah to a doctor and that she was "overpowering" and "an alcoholic".

In the interview he warned police: "When it all comes out I'll come back and see you and say I told you so... you guys are not listening."

I don't know all the details of this case as I couldn't stomach hearing how much worse it was and yet was allowed to happen. Not because I was turning a blind eye but through sheer frustration that those who were aware of what was going on did nothing to save this baby.

Then we have the suit appearing on the news telling us " lessons have been learnt". No they bloody haven't!

Families in this situation should initially be monitored weekly, every six months is too much of a gamble.

More health visitors/social workers would obviously have to be employed enabling a fair distribution of cases which would change the present system that these departments are swamped with so many cases to deal with and not enough staff.

Does anyone think this could be a possible solution to help stop this continually happening, and if so, if we can see it, why can't the government?

I believe that the police are now being instructed to consider the position of children in the house where there is a report of domestic violence.

If that's the case Greatnan that is good news and a breakthrough

I do not know the details of the case and have read only some of the reports. However it doeas seem strange to me that the other children were not under some kind of care plan / At risk register that schools would have been aware of. If the mother is such a serious alcoholic that she is unable to feed her youngest child then who was getting the other kids to school? Did they just look out for each other? Did they look well cared for etc? I am the last person to pile guilt onto schools but it seems odd the other kids did not raise alarms anywhere.

Greatnan the police are supposed to have been paying attention to children in households where there is domestic abuse for a long time. In my experience, in an authority which was far from perfect, they routinely referred all such cases to children's services over the last ten years or so. I am not saying all were fully assessed - there were far too many for that to be possible, but at least there would be a record of the concerns and action could be taken if there were repeat referals. It obviously must have varied a great deal from area to area for this poor little boy to slip through the net so completely.

I am really concerned that this case, following so quickly after the tragic case of Daniel Pelka, suggests that things are actually becoming worse rather than better for vulnerable children. We in children's services have made many mistakes over the years but I find it hard to understand how a child can be completely lost and invisible within the system. I believe the solution lies in reinforcing the key role of health visitors, as others have said, with routine home visits to all children under five, followed by decisive action if access to the child is denied. In addition I believe that the responsibility for assessment should be firmly handed back to social care. The problem with the present system is that we are told 'safeguarding is everyone's business'. Very true, but what is also true is when everyone is responsible for doing something no one actually does it.

All of this would require investment and more health visitors and social workes, but what can be more important than the welfare of children?

18 years ago the police covering the area in which I worked had an agreed policy with area social work teams, that a written report of every incident the police were called to, where domestic abuse/violence had occurred, and where there were children in the family.
As night owl says, there were too many for every one to be responded to with a social work visit. The exception would be families where we already were involved, or had previous involvement. Or if the incident had involved extreme violence.
Our team wrote to every mother, informing her we were aware of the incident, and offering support if she wanted it. We enclosed a list of agencies that could offer support to men, women or children. A 2nd police report always resulted in a letter arranging a social work visit. Our aim was to support the victim, usually the mother and always the children. Of course, we weren't always welcome, but we ensured the parents were aware of the damage caused to children growing up with domestic abuse. Three incidents, and non co-operation would result in a multi agency meeting.

Nightowl's comments about 'safeguarding' being everyone's business and responsibility are spot on. I've recent knowledge of unqualified family support workers being asked to be 'lead professional', or to undertake the Children and Family Assessment. Everyone involved has a significant role, but their knowledge base is different. Only qualified, well supervised social workers, with regular training inputs should be completing investigations where children are suspected of being at risk. The power lies with the social workers, they're the only people who can initiate court proceedings, and that has to underpin work with individuals like Hamzah's parents. That power needs to be exercised sensitively, supportively and in a child centred way.

Aka - I fully accept your points about Hamzah's father's comments. They should have been properly investigated. I've read there were 2 multi agency meetings - how can they have happened without prior investigation by a social worker, whose responsibility includes speaking to everyone with first hand knowledge of the children. That should include family members, parents, school and health. I also agree with nigh owl, that we need more health visitors. Failure to attend clinic, immunisations or see the GP in a family like this should have been ringing alarm bells very loudly. As others have said, it doesn't seem possible that the care given to the older children didn't raise concerns in schools. Like everyone else on this thread, I'm shocked and distressed at the failure of anyone to intervene effectively.

It is hard to believe that neighbours could have lived close to that degree of squalor and not known that something was wrong. Or is the whole area so disadvantaged that a family of neglected children doesn't stand out? In our road people have always kept an eye on "problem" households. The police have been called if things have begun to look serious and I think it has always been done in a spirit of damage limitation rather than nosiness.

I'm all for the child benefit book being handed out and stamped when the child in danger was presented at the surgery. GPs may want more money but the parent needed the money for her alcohol so would produce the child.money speaks.

I thought benefits were mostly paid direct into an account nowadays?

I think that the various 'officials' concerned need to have a simple central system to record concerns and alert others. By which I mean if a teacher/neighbour is concerned about a child who appears uncared for /abused they can report it on-line which automatically sends a child protection alert to SS, GP, HV, A&E, police etc. who would have to check their records to see if they have had any contact/concern with the family and respond yes or no within a timescale. If the CP alert was monitored by a specialist CP team they would soon see that an alert re police for domestic violence, HV for no show at check ups etc created a picture that was worth investigating further.

Would it work...police, SS, HVs, teachers , neighbours what do you think?