Little Arthur

Nice story though MissAdventure!

Oh balls!
Wrong thread.
I'm so sorry.

A young man with Down Syndrome followed me around when I got into work.
He kept looking at me intently, then said "You look really nice today. Almost human".

ReadyMeals

Your assumptions have no foundation whatsoever.

I know very well that all schools aren't as great.
Gaping great chasms, not just gaps.

GSM - the teachers at my grandchildren’s schools maintained phone contact and occasional home visits to all children.

Iam64 the same happened with my grandchildren's schools. Work was set even for the youngest ones, marked and followed up. The form teachers phoned every week and contact was maintained.
I don't know if home visits were made to vulnerable children or at risk children but if contact was by phone then teachers could be reassured by some manipulative parents that all was well.
If Arthur had changed schools then his new teachers would not know him as well either.

There are gaps in the system and the poor little boy fell through them.

I don’t believe Arthur was a difficult child. I read he would talk in a baby voice and became obsessed with soft toys. Quite common in children who’ve been bereaved or suffered trauma. My own 6 yr old grandson has displayed similar behaviour since the sudden death of his mum when he was 3. He has one particular soft toy he hates to be parted from and is allowed to take it to school and time is set aside each day for him to sit cuddling it.

I haven’t read anywhere that his birth mother was bad tempered. In fact his paternal grandparents stated that “Olivia was lovely”. She came from a good family and is intelligent but went downhill and started with mental health problems after taking up with Hughes. All the evidence, especially from the photographs published point to her being a caring mum. He certainly looked happy and cared for. Obviously there were problems with drink and a toxic, volatile relationship. We know the rest. It’s worth noting she stabbed him in the leg and it nicked an artery. Not excusing or condoning but she was found guilty of manslaughter not murder.

As for the so called caregivers, there is no evidence they were struggling to cope. She hated Arthur because she believed Hughes would return to Olivia when released as long as they had the bond of Arthur.

As stated quite clearly by the prosecution and the judge in his summing up, she intended to kill him. She wanted him out of the way and quite obviously hated him.

Grandparents wanted to have him but Hughes said no. Hughes, apparently, is a weak, passive individual who follows the line of least resistance and was in thrall to his more dominant partner.

I don’t believe it was anything to do with not being able to cope. She states on the police body cam footage after it happened that Arthur had ‘battered my kids’, “battered his dad” and the day before at her friends had “pushed me down six steps”. The day before he could barely walk he was in so much pain and as evidenced by the hairdresser he could barely stand up or hold a glass of water.

There are reasons, lockdown being the main one, and the visiting sw not examining him thoroughly but his behaviour and those two not being able to cope aren’t one of them.

Arthur could have gone to either of his grandparents, either long or short term.
They wanted to have him and the father said no.

As far as I know, only, of course, and I'm not following too closely because it's too vile.

A combination of a child with some behavioural problems (quite natural being brought up by an alcoholic bad-tempered mother) and caregivers who were obviously short on patience and empathy, and then lockdown so they couldn't even get a break from each other... It's possible that had the little boy been a well-behaved child with no problems, and there had not been a lockdown, then the father and stepmother might just about have been ok caregivers for him. If any single one of those factors had not been in place everything might have ended up ok.

GSM - the teachers at my grandchildren’s schools maintained phone contact and occasional home visits to all children. They visited vulnerable children at home. No one in social work or education were surprised when vulnerable children failed to attend school.
Maddyone yes, now we have more information it’s becoming clearer how this little boy’s needs were so badly missed. Dad seeking help from the GP, attending a camhs appointment and Arthur’s emotional difficulties put down to his experiences living with his mum, then her imprisonment.
In saying this, I stress I’m not excusing the way the families concerns weren’t properly investigated. Even worse, that when the photograph was seen by the social work team who did the initial home visit, that a comprehensive safeguarding investigation.

Agreed GSM and as an ex teacher, I know what a good safeguarding team should do, and in my opinion, I don’t think it was done here.

Yes they should maddy. Do you remember the teacher who trudged miles delivering food to vulnerable children from his school during lockdown, and keeping an eye on them?

Calistemon yes you’re right. Three of my own grandchildren attended school all through lockdown because their parents are key workers. Well, our gorgeous littlest one actually attended nursery. He’d never be to nursery before because we did the childcare, but his parents were told in a very authoritarian manner to get him into nursery in one week, and given the names of four nurseries that were open for the care of key worker children. They were trying to juggle one parent in work, the other working from home to start with.

Anyway Arthur should have been in school as a vulnerable child, but because he changed schools, I think the waters were muddied, and he fell through the gaps. Also because his mother had gone into prison, his anxiety was blamed on losing his mother. His class teacher raised concerns, but they seem to have been dismissed as understandable due to the circumstances, although his father sought help from the GP and CAMHS. I think the fact that he changed schools, changed homes, and lost his mother were all seen as the reasons why Arthur was anxious. Despite all that, the school’s appointed safeguarding teacher should have been far more active in getting Arthur into school.

I’m a coward and can’t read it. I think about him constantly. I try not to as there’s nothing that can be done now but the sheer sadistic cruelty of this pair is just beyond my comprehension .

Sorry, children of key workers.

maddyone

Thank you for filling in a few blanks for me Calistemon. The link clearly shows that lockdown was the beginning of the end for that poor little child. I have said multiple times on a couple of threads that Arthur died because of lockdown. Many people were protected by lockdown, but Arthur was not protected by lockdown. Our schools should never be closed for so long again. School is a safe space for vulnerable children.

I agree.
Of course, some schools were open as hubs for vulnerable children and key workers but very vulnerable children may not have attended anyway.

He spent hours and hours standing facing the wall in the hall, and that is where he finally collapsed and died.

That is far as I got with reading the timeline before I had to give up.
Bless his little soul

I think about him every day. Poor little soul. Physical abuse is terrible but to toture and starve anyone is beyond me.

That link gives the clearest timeline I’ve seen Callistemon, thanks.
Maddyone is correct in pointing out lockdown was a significant factor, Arthur was talking to staff in both his schools, plus his deteriorating physical and emotional state would have been obvious to staff, not to mention injuries.
Hughes had sought help from his GP, attended CAMHS with Arthur.
Set that against concerns from his maternal and paternal families. The police sergeant took no further action after the photographs were sent to children’s services. He believed there to be an ongoing investigation. Why the cursory visit wasn’t followed by interviewing family members, Hughes and Tustin again, seeing Arthur alone and getting a medical opinion on the photograph, plus paediatric assessment of Arthur will no doubt be covered in the review

Thank you for filling in a few blanks for me Calistemon. The link clearly shows that lockdown was the beginning of the end for that poor little child. I have said multiple times on a couple of threads that Arthur died because of lockdown. Many people were protected by lockdown, but Arthur was not protected by lockdown. Our schools should never be closed for so long again. School is a safe space for vulnerable children.

I can't read it.
I just skimmed the first couple of lines and that was enough.

MissAdventure

Ah, I stand corrected.
It's all still a jumble of who did what at the minute.

This is a local paper and I am assuming this timeline is correct, but it may not be so:

www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/arthur-labinjo-hughes-murder-timeline-22347441

MissAdventure

He wasn't referred though.

Just before lockdown. He was upset about his Mum which made him anxious.

March 2020
Hughes took Arthur to see Kerry Forsyth-Benson, a CAMHS (Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services) practitioner, at Bishop Wilson Clinic in Birmingham.

Arthur expressed concerns about his dad leaving and not returning. Ms Forysth observed his physical condition at the time to be fine. She concluded there was no mental health issue at that time because Arthur's anxiety and 'aggressive play-fighting' had reduced.

Ah, I stand corrected.
It's all still a jumble of who did what at the minute.

MissAdventure

He wasn't referred though.

According to Birmingham Live he was seen but that was before his father moved in with Tustin.