Daniel Pelka

I can't support this petition as I don't understand who would be charged under such a law. Would it be all the teachers in his school, or just a few? Would it be the next door neighbours, or anyone who knew the family? I am interested to hear that other countries have similar laws and there may be a case for looking at how it works in those countries, but I don't believe that a knee jerk response to what is undoubtedly a tragic case would be helpful. I will be very interested in the outcome of the serious case review to see how on earth this happened. We have very clear safeguarding policies to which all agencies must adhere, but it seems very clear that individuals and agencies did not do so in this case.

And anyway, the link isn't blued!

change.org says it can't find the page anyway...

www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/change-the-law-to-better-protect-vulnerable-children-like-daniel-pelka?utm_campaign=petition_created&utm_medium=email&utm_source=guides

Thanks nightowl.

Oh, thanks, Nightowl! Was just being grumpy and CBA to do it myself. (Hangs head in shame)

I am not sure if a change in the law would make a difference. There are clear procedures already in place to support vulnerable children & adults. Sadly on a few awful occasions the procedures do not work as they should. I do not think the Headteacher would have responded differently if there was this proposed law in place. Certainly he might be on a charge now but that would not save the child. It is retrospective.

Nor do I think that the risk of facing criminal charges is likely to attract people to professions where morale is already so low. Social Workers already work in a climate where they fear that one mistake will lead them to be blamed by their employers, face disciplinary proceedings, be named publicly and photographed in the press, to face death threats from members of the public as well as their clients. Oh and on top of all that they earn a pretty low salary as well. Can't think why there is a national shortage of social workers

I agree fully with Nightowl This is an appalling cock up up, but the last thing we need is more knee jerk legislation, which is probably unworkable.

Teachers and social workers have to work delicately with situations like this and the public don't hear about those cases where things go well.

To describe things simplistically; there is a holy grail in the profession of as far as possible working with the consent of parents, and to try and develop good relationships with parents to help them improve parenting.

So, at the same time as trying to develop the parents trust, workers are expected to act in a very authoritarian manner and to "snoop around the child's home" and not to automatically trust a lot of what they are told by the parents.That is no easy situation in which to work. Maybe social workers do need to be much more robust in challenging parents and insist more quickly on medical inspections of children and homes.

Not to mention better funding for local authorities who have had to cut Children's services to the bone.

As I posted on the other link about Mandatory Reporting regarding Daniel Pelka. All it entails is for people such as teacher, doctors, dentists, child care workers, police, etc to report directly to Child Protection any suspicions or of any child telling that adult that they have been abused. The teacher etc is not asked to discuss with the parent or inspect their home. It is not about social workers being liable, it is about those in contact with the child to step up and report a child who is being abused. Otherwise people who should be responsible sometimes are doing nothing as in the case of Daniel Pelka.

I have added a link post Mandatory Reporting in Australia. It has worked but more funding is needed for more social workers. I read recently that the government were putting in extra funds for a pay rise for social workers. The thing is social workers can't protect abused children if their abuse isn't reported in the first place.

This petition is not asking for social workers to be vilified. It is not a knee jerk reaction to ask questions as to why, in the six months that Daniel Pelka was systematically starved and beaten in a systematic and pre-planned campaign to destroy him (the judge's words, these) no-one stepped up to help him. The serious case review will no doubt tell us, yet again, as in the cases of Victoria Climbie and Baby P, that "lessons need to be learned" I do really get fed up of hearing those empty words! He looked like a concentration camp victim, for heaven's sake. It is everyone's responsibility to care for vulnerable members of our society. I am a nurse and am trained to spot the signs and symptoms of abuse in vulnerable adults and how to deal with it. I would be failing in my duty of care if I did not stand up and report the slightest suspicion of abuse...and I would be deemed to be a party to it if I didn't. Which is as it should be in my opinion.

lilyching" I was saying that we do not need any Knee Jerk *legislation on this sad situation. Not that we do not need an explanation.

Any Government legislation that is brought in quickly, so the Government can be "seen to be doing something" is usually a near disaster.

In general workers who have to go into a home and suggest that the children might not be properly cared for are not exactly welcomed.

Children's services have been under financed for years now. There are simply not enough staff to do this very stressful job and many social workers and mangers go off sick with serious stress and leave the profession.

Sorry I do not know why that was all highlighted. I am going cross eyed!

This is a truly dreadful course of events isn't it. Cruel and manipulative parents, and a very vulnerable child, and his sibling, just almost too awful to think about. The only positive thing is that so many people are talking about it and desperately trying to look at how things could have been different for these children. I share the comments by Nelliemoser and Nightowl - I only wish there were simple solutions to complex problems. I'm sure that the young teacher, TA, HT, nurse, doctors, police who had professional involvement with Daniel will live with the horrors he was subjected to for ever. So will his sibling. I agree that a child who is failing to thrive, scrabbling for food and with parents known to fight,take drugs and drink heavily - every alarm bell in everyones head should have been ringing loud and clear. The process for getting a proper social work investigation has simply failed and we all want to understand how. Like others, I don't want to simply have every other child death review re-hashed, references to poor communication, parents who manipulated and intimidated professionals. I am not saying that more resources would magically improve practice, but it needs to happen. More effective, and career long, multi disciplinary training should be mandatory for all involved. I've been involved in social work training and I'm sure that using excellent workers, who do the job for the greater part of their working life, is the way to go. Theory is essential to underpin this difficult work, but individual courage in situations like this could have possibly, maybe had a better outcome for the child. It is a brave individual who whistle blows, or simply makes a referral to the police and social work teams, without going through whatever system is in place where they work. Teachers can only be effective in expressing concerns, if they have proper support from the designated child protection staff member.

"Lessons will have been learned" the director of the Authority will step down with a huge payoff .

In maybe months , weeks the same old , same old , it is a tragedy for these poor darling children.

I think it is a great pity when the public seek to blame entire professions when things go horribly wrong.
No system of protection can be 100% perfect, because the truth is that some people are so evil, devious, and manipulative that they can outwit any professional.
The aftermath of the Harold Shipman case resulted in changes in the governance of the medical profession, but it's doubtful that they would have prevented his actions. I agree with Nightowl and Nanaej, that criminalising those who fail to act will neither save children, nor encourage young people to become social workers, or prevent the loss of experienced ones.
Far better to encourage a robust system of confidential reporting, as well as giving social workers the resources the need to work effectively IMHO.

I recalled today that just after the election the new government ditched a software platform that was developed to facilitate inter-agency communication about children at risk. Anyone recall what it was called?

It was called contactpoint Jess and it was one of the ideas that resulted from the death of Victoria climbie. Millions were spent on it but there were huge problems of security and confidentiality and it was scrapped by the coalition govt soon after they came into power.

It is positive to see so many thoughtful, con confrontational posts about Daniel's death. I agree with those who believe that criminalising those who fail to act will save children, and will in fact deter many potentially excellent paediatricians, social workers, teachers etc. Student social workers have often commented their tutors advice them to go in to any area of the work, but to avoid children and families work because of the stress involved, and the potential for personal attacks from service users, or the media. Nonu - Sharon Shoesmith didn't step down with a huge payoff, she was sacked, vilified and isolated as were the social workers, and paediatrician involved so far as I'm aware. The comparison with the after effects of Harold Shipman's murderous behaviour is a good one.

There is a very old legal maxim: 'hard cases make bad law'. It seems appropriate to this situation.

I remember Sharon Shoesmith saying in an interview that it wasn't the social workers who murdered Peter, it was the parents. And the parents, in that case and Daniel's case, lied and misrepresented and covered up what they were doing very effectively. In both cases, the mothers failed to keep appointments at hospitals. The professionals think of themselves as engaged in a joint project with the parents both working to do the best by the child. These parents saw the professionals as the enemy to be lied to and avoided if possible. One of our DS was both fearless and adventurous and this resulted in a number of visits to A&E. They always asked him what had happened (they couldn't have stopped him from telling the whole story, anyway, often with appropriate actions). But suppose he had been frightened, confused, not able to explain? In a foreign language?

Lilygran you are right to highlight this particular problem. Child protection procedures are very clear about the need for children to be spoken to, alone if possible, in all cases. This may necessitate the use of an interpreter. This issue was a significant factor in Victoria Climbie's death where professionals accepted the adults' explanations and excuses. If a child presents with injuries that cannot be explained they can be admitted to hospital even when there is no medical need in order to safeguard the child while further investigations take place. I have known (and requested) this to happen on probably hundreds of occasions over my career. That is why I am amazed it did not happen in Daniel's case.

If it isn't clear already I am not signing either!

There seems to be some serious issues here about how much reporting went on in the school and how much the designated teacher for child protection did with the concerns that should have been passed to her/him.

That is what the serious case review should address.

There also seems to be to some misguided reluctance in the profession, to talk to children without parents present or their permission which IMO is plainly stupid.

Central to the problem is the fact that SWs are working with a paradox - they need to engage with the parents and get them onside in order to try and improve parenting; but they also need to be challenging and ever-vigilant for lying, cheating and subterfuge. It is an almost impossible tightrope to walk. They are being asked to take on two incompatible roles.

The emphasis on keeping children at home has, I think, gone too far. I remember a recent fly-on-the-wall TV series that followed SWs dealing with children and families, and on several occasions I felt that the pendulum had swung to far in the direction of keeping children at home at all costs - there were people there who clearly could not be even the most basic of parents.

However it is so very hard - there is absolutely no doubt that the desire to know or be with one's biological parents is an atavistic need - you only have to watch "Long Lost Families" to see this. I do not like the format of this programme, but it is riveting because it brings home that truth. Even those adults whose adoptive homes were ideal and who had happy childhoods seem driven to find that biological connection.