Little Arthur

Of course the mother was bad-tempered, she killed someone in a fit of drunken temper. Being an alcoholic she was probably drunk quite often. And if she got bad tempered when drunk then she was probably quite often bad tempered. Of course the parents are going to say she was wonderful. And both sets of grandparents had brought up people who turned out to be murders. The kid was disadvantaged and at risk no matter which relative took him in!

OMG. Blame the parents. What utter nonsense you speak. Not really worthy of response.

As for the mother being bad tempered - she was found guilty of manslaughter. Two alcoholics together, undoubtedly being physically violent to each other when drunk. It certainly doesn’t follow that the woman was bad tempered or abusives to her son.

By all accounts she was a good mother and had a loving relationship with her son.

Iam64 - It was the paternal grandmother ie Hughes’ mother taking photographs and reporting mostly. It was his own brother ringing the police and being threatened with arrest. There was no conflict.

I can’t understand why it’s so difficult to follow and it concerns me that sw’s can get these things so mixed up ( if they did) as you appear to be doing. Hughes and Arthur were living in an annexe of his parents’ house up until lockdown when he moved in with Tustin. Therefore Arthur was very close to his paternal gran and extended family.

It was the paternal family that described his mum as lovely, not her own family.

tickingbird

OMG. Blame the parents. What utter nonsense you speak. Not really worthy of response.

As for the mother being bad tempered - she was found guilty of manslaughter. Two alcoholics together, undoubtedly being physically violent to each other when drunk. It certainly doesn’t follow that the woman was bad tempered or abusives to her son.

"blame the parents". Uh, yes, the little boy didn't kill himself did he. Of course it was the parents.

Old woman70. Very good post.

ReadyMeals. "blame the parents". Uh, yes, the little boy didn't kill himself did he. Of course it was the parents.

I was referring to your post stating that both sets of grandparents had brought up murderers. Very poor taste comment.

Bringing up murderers? There but for the grace of God!

You’re clearly determined to find fault with anyone connected to social work tickingbird. My point stands, it wouldn’t be unusual for there to be conflict within extended families.
Children who life with alcoholic parents are exposed often to violent rows, it seems that happened with Arthur in the care of his mother. She seems to have met his needs but with substance misuse, those needs are never met consistently.

So where were the people employed to oversee his care?
It was obviously lacking, and yet nobody seems to have joined the dots.

Iam64. I don’t understand your comment directed at me.

You are consistently finding excuses for the abject failings of social services in this case. In your previous post you stated it was understandable there was conflict between Hughes and the maternal grandparents. I haven’t read that there was. I believe you were attempting to further excuse the sw’s failure to take the abuse allegations seriously. I merely pointed out to you that the allegations were made by his own mother and brother and, no history of conflict. You never mentioned alcohol abuse.

Ultimately, this is nothing to do with alcohol abuse and his birth mother. Unless you have other information, I’m not aware of any safety concerns which were raised when he was living with his mother. Unfortunately, many children in the country are living with alcoholic and drug addicted parents. It’s hardly a good environment but they aren’t all being deliberately tortured and murdered.

I don’t believe Tustin and Hughes were alcoholics or drug addicts but they had a clean and tidy home…

Bottom. line, Tustin hated Arthur to the point that she wanted him dead. She influenced his father to feel the same. He was the link between Hughes and Arthur's mother, and if Arthur were dead the link would be broken and Hughes would have no reason to have anything more to do with the mother.

Some of these comments are in very bad taste. The parents killed Arthur!

Yes, while he was very clearly at risk and reports were made to the relevant agencies.
Saying that isn't in bad taste at all.

youtu.be/RZL5p_Lqle8

Heartbreaking.

MayBeMaw

Dee1012

Wasn't it around 1973 when Maria Colwell was killed...as usual the powers that be will have enquiries and say 'lessons will be learnt'.
How many lessons do they need?

It's utterly heartbreaking.

Just spotted this - I was in hospital having my first baby (who died 3 weeks later) and I can still remember the 4 of us mums in our ward, sobbing at the tragedy.
Lessons clearly have NOT been learned.

So sorry for your loss MaybeMaw, how dreadful for you.
There are sick people in this world who should never be in charge of children. Severe and gross under funding is always going to lead to more tragedies happening. Also , I think it was worse for this poor child because he was hidden away during lockdown/ summer holidays and fewer people saw him who might have been able to intervene.

Also , I think it was worse for this poor child because he was hidden away during lockdown/ summer holidays and fewer people saw him who might have been able to intervene.

Yes, even though his grandparents, his uncles tried to see him.

I’ve made no excuses for bad practice.
Arthur’s maternal grandmother was prevented from seeing him by Hughes

Yes but not his paternal grandparents who were the ones that took the photographs of the shoulder bruising. Even Tustin’s own stepfather reported them over their treatment of Arthur.

No, you're not, iam64.
However, to be told it's "bad taste" to want answers has been said.
So, I will carry on asking and posting just as I would anyway.
People who think it's bad taste had better steer clear if they don't like it.

I’ve only just read your most recent posts maddyone but you have made some really important points particularly with regard to the fact that there were so many ‘red flags’ that have been ignored by so many agencies as well as the school. We shall indeed have to wait for the results of the inquiry but I suspect it will be pretty damning.

So many reports had been made to several different agencies but no-one seemed to see the bigger picture.
Is there a need for a central register where these comments can be recorded by everyone, then the cumulative effect might show up more?
As it is everyone seems to have considered what was reported to them or what they witnessed wasn't too worrying at that time. Put them all together though over a period of time and they are.

V3ra- I’m out of date but hope someone still working can give up to date info. There was to be a central register but my memory is this was abandoned because it was feared parental rights may be affected. I may be wrong about this and haven’t found google useful.
The child protection conference used to be the place where various agencies provided written information on its involvement. It was the only place where confidential (police) info could be shared.
However, an investigation under Section 47 should have resulted in the social work team calling a formal multi agency meeting.
No doubt the inquiry will answer some of these questions and make recommendations which agencies Must follow

It’s about time childrens’ rights superseded those of the parents.