How could we have let Sara down so badly?

I have a different view of Sharon Shoesmith MissAdventure but this is probably not the forum to go into that. She lost her job, her income and her reputation so in my opinion she paid a high price.

The social workers in the Baby P murder case had been sacked ?

Kate1949

Nor me MissA. Unfortunately I did read about Sara. I'm not sure why. Maybe because I think we owe it to these children? I don't know.

Yes, no doubt the poor souls are owed something from a society that "let this happen", however uncomfortable it might be to hear about.

The sun also highlighted the huge bonus paid to Sharon Shoesmith, or perhaps it was her retirement pension.

The Sun only had to apologise ? Had there been an enquiry?

Nor me MissA. Unfortunately I did read about Sara. I'm not sure why. Maybe because I think we owe it to these children? I don't know.

Anniebach the Sun published names of social workers involved in the case of Peter Connelly and launched a petition for their sacking. They were besieged by journalists outside their homes and lived in fear. The Sun was later ordered to issue a public apology and pay damages. Rebekah Brooks, who had led the campaign, later admitted it had perhaps been ‘too harsh’ - a bit late.

They must be true psychopaths.
That would give them a get-out clause.

They are just pure evil.

Me too.
I can't put these cases out of my head, that's why I have to try and avoid reading the details.

I don't know. I despair.

I can't even begin to fathom out what these people think, when they try all the tricks to ensure the child is kept with them.

They must be true psychopaths.

What did those morons think would happen? That they could relentlessly beat her little body and she wouldn't die? That they would get away with it?

Quote HousePlantQueen Thu 12-Dec-24 22:10:57
Anniebach
I don’t understand why naming social workers would put them at risk, surely families they visit know the names. I am not saying they should be named , just don’t understand why risks
Have you never seen the witch hunts carried out by the press?

Even the press wouldn’t name a social workers, school teacher,
police officer when there has been no enquiry, no one found at
fault

I believe some social workers use different names in their professional lives because they are subject to threats from disgruntled clients, who are able to find out who they are and where they live.

Are social services not even involved when such decisions are made about an at risk child??

Sara was an at risk child, known to Social Services from when she was born.

Such a child should never have been allowed to be 'home-schooled'.

Anniebach

I don’t understand why naming social workers would put them at risk, surely families they visit know the names. I am not saying they should be named , just don’t understand why risks

Have you never seen the witch hunts carried out by the press?

NightOwl
That name brings back awful memories.
Also it was the time when my sister and two close friends were starting out in their careers as SW.
I remember having the most awful row with one of those friends over the Maria Cauldwell case.
For my shame I just wanted someone to blame 😥

When my daughter took her daughter out of school to home school her there was no contact from social services or the local council. Eventually she called the council herself to be told the school still had her on their register. There was no follow up or any further contact. Obviously my granddaughter was fine but maybe this happens to vulnerable at risk children too.

Yes, I know of social media thank you,

Given the state of social media, death or violence threats: outing their addresses: and more, Anniebach.

I don’t understand why naming social workers would put them at risk, surely families they visit know the names. I am not saying they should be named , just don’t understand why risks

I don’t really understand what posters are asking for in relation to transparency in the family courts. I know this is part of a wider discussion in general but on here am I right in thinking some posters want social workers, expert witnesses and judges etc to be named? If so, for what purpose? I really hope I’m misunderstanding this, if not, would posters be happy to see people’s lives put at risk?

Thanks for the Telegraph piece FGT. The reference to experts/guardians/other professionals suggests even if it remained private law, the level of risk needed thorough investigation. Placing a vulnerable child with a birth father with a history of significant abuse to the child’s mother, and other female partners as well as to children is something that needs to be reviewed and evaluated. Women’s groups have long been raising concerns that male violence within families isn’t taken seriously enough when contact arrangements are being made

FriedGreenTomatoes2

However.
A child has died. I cannot but think - to what level of hell have we descended when adults are protected and children are tortured? This child was known about from birth. Fifteen opportunities (yes, 15) were missed that could have saved her life.

The order was made by a fellow Family Court judge, Mr Justice Williams, who was concerned that there could be a “social media pile on”.

I can understand that trial by social media may not be considered desirable but brushing these decisions under the carpet is not in any way acceptable.