Little Arthur

Sorry, children of key workers.

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 .

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

ReadyMeals

Your assumptions have no foundation whatsoever.

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".

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

Nice story though MissAdventure!

Thanks.
Oh for an edit button, though.

A little boy who started a new school in September, who now lived with his father instead of his mother, a mother who was in prison for manslaughter; there are a lot of red flags for the school there. A social worker who visited, I don’t know why, or what prompted that visit, but who took no further action as far as I understand. That she/he needed to visit raises a red flag. Police who thought that the red flag raised by grandparents was being dealt with by Social Services and took no further action. How many red flags does it take? I think Arthur has been let down by all the services and people who should have protected him. As an ex teacher, I feel particular annoyance by the school, who apparently didn’t feel Arthur warranted extra care and attention, that he wasn’t vulnerable. I know we’ll all have to wait for the inquiry to report, but this is such an awful case, and so very, very sad.

I agree so much, maddy.

I’m another who agrees with your post maddyone. What we have learned about this little boy’s life in the ‘care’ of Hughes and Tustin is heartbreaking.
So many ‘ifs’, the central ones being if he’d been in school and, if the families concerns, that photograph had led to an investigation under S47, then a multi agency safeguarding meeting, he may have been protected.

Previous child death inquiries have similar themes of missed opportunities which inevitably include poor multi agency co- operation and manipulative, resistant, dishonest care givers.

Two dysfunctional parents how many more signs did the agencies need. That's not including the stepmother. The hairdresser still sticks in my mind, putting self interest before the welfare of a child.

Soda pop, I’m not defending poor practice. we don’t yet have an inquiry to give even more awful details. Just a word though, so many families referred to social work have ‘two dysfunctional parents’.
Tustin’s other children weren’t identified as ‘vulnerable’. Some people are adept manipulators. Some parents are cruel, abusive - this isn’t always immediately obvious. So far as I’m aware, neighbours weren’t reporting screaming from Arthur, abusive screaming to him by his ‘carers’. What was going on

One thing struck me about that clip of film that was released, the house was clean and apparently tidy, and looked after. Pleasant even. When I was teaching, our school adopted the policy of a pre school visit for all our Early Years children (that’s children in Nursery or Reception classes) and if you’d seen some of the homes I’ve been in, it’d make your eyes pop. When anyone visited Arthur’s home they would have seen a clean, tidy home. Would that change perceptions of what was going on? I don’t know, but I wonder.

I forgot to mention in my post last night, that’s Arthur’s teacher had also raised concerns. I’m assuming this was his new teacher. We don’t know what those concerns were, but why was he not regarded as vulnerable during lockdown if his teacher had raised concerns? I don’t want to pre judge, but how will the school come out of all this when the inquiry reports? It’s not looking good for the school in my opinion, but I know we have to wait for the inquiry.

I gather the local authority are planting trees near where he lived as a memorial to him. Are gestures like this too little and too late? I would like the memorial to him to be that no other child is let down as he was, that all those involved really do "learn lessons" and priority given to protecting children rather than to "keeping families together".

Maddyone, your point about a clean, tidy home, the children appearing happy in their play, the fact father had seen the GP and attended a follow CAMHS appointment would all be viewed as positive. It seems the parents do-operated with the sw visit. Given the fact A’s mother was in prison for manslaughter, conflict between his father and maternal gran not unusual.
The sw visit was in April. If a paediatric assessment had taken place a full exam would have identified any further bruising and checked height and weight. This poor little boy. Those wicked parental figures.