See also previous posts on this subject here and here.
In the wake of the tradgic death of the small boy known as ‘baby P’ in Haringey, director of Childrens Services Sharon Shoesmith found herself in the middle of a media storm. This well respected former teacher (who had an impressive track record in turning around education in the local authority) did not resign, but was eventually sacked from her post by the council leadership. Given the pressure, they perhaps had little choice- someone must be responsible for this dreadful thing- and as Shoesmith was the boss, the buck stopped with her.
This despite an unprecedented letter of support from many of the head teachers within Haringey for Shoesmith.
Yesterday, as the dust begins to settle, and those in the media looking for scapegoats have moved on to the next media feeding frenzy, we begin to have a chance to consider what really happened in this case, and what actions may be necessary to try to avoid it happening again.
Things have already changed in relation to the protection of children across the UK. Quite simply, the threshold for removing children from home and placing them in care has shifted. We now remove one third more that we were doing a year ago. Society (and no doubt the media) has a decision to make as to whether this is acceptable.
Sharon Shoesmith herself was interviewed on BBC radio 4 womens hour. It was a fascinating interview- she was put under considerable pressure by Jenny Murray the interviewed, but made some telling points.
You can listen again to the interview for a while on this link.
Here’s a summary of some of the detail;
April 2007, concerns raised about parenting. Investigations started, child placed on at risk register
June- SWer raised concerns about injuries. Suspicion that these were non-accidental, but no evidence. Specialist medical assessments not conclusive. ‘Fell on stairs.’
Hv’s Swer visits- not enough to meet threshold for care proceedings- three multi-agency child protection conferences. Robust discussion (police later said ‘we told them to take action’) but course of action agreed by all.
CPS- not enough evidence for charge for neglect- this decision made the week the child died. Baby P seen Monday be SW, Wed(medics), Thurs, SWer again, Friday, dead.
At some point over last 48 hours, there was a brutal attack on the child. No-one has been charged with murder. Swers had no knowledge of the two men living in the home- partner and lodger. Boyfriend hid when professionals visited- in a wardrobe and also in a trench in the back garden! Went to great lengths to hoodwink professionals.
The mother gave the impression that she was willing to work with staff- leading to optimism.
Then the media stuff exploded. The story became about Shoesmith- she was the visible presence. No other photos released of family, or child at first.
Ofsted and government departments knew what had happened days after- they were informed. Serious case reviews happened, made recommendations. Months later (as the press and political response gathers like a storm) ofsted chose to make another inspection, which can be read here. They gave no prior warning of the contents of the report or opportunity to discuss the accuracy of the findings to Shoesmith prior to publishing- very unusual. The report was in stark constrast to earler finding by the same agency.
There was then an interesting discussion as to whether Shoesmith, as the leader of a service that failed to protect Baby P was responsible in some way for the death of the child. Shoesmith answered the question very well, asking searching questions about the role of leadership in public life. She described sleepless nights, long days from 6AM to 10PM dodging the media. How she had even considered suicide. But she did not kill this child. She was responsible for a service who tried to protect, but failed.
She also made a point about the low status that our society awards to staff trying to protect kids- and Social workers in particular- asking which other profession would have been at the brunt of this treatment from the press?
Finally, she made this point, which we all should bear in mind-
Each week, at least one child is killed by a member of family in the UK.
Many many more are saved following interventions. In many of these cases, we can never be sure whether actions to protect were proportionate and necessary- we rely on multi diciplinary discussion and decisions. We will NEVER be able to save all the people we work with.
Should Shoesmith (or other staff) have been subjected to the trial-by-media (a notoriously inaccurate judicial process?) I think not.
Should they have lost their jobs? Perhaps this is a response commensurate with the awful loss of a child’s life. But if this applies to Shoesmith- then should it apply to many other directors of social services across the country?
Or is this issue more to do with how we as a society manage the care of our children and allow media generated hysteria to fuel our decision making?
this fragile tent 
I do believe its the hardest cases in that neck of the wood. and that many social workers are avoiding the area… again its the application of dislocation, seen it, worked with it and am seeing it applied in the UK. Chris its the application of a legal system ‘to save’ children across the board, but save them into what. this case as all high profile cases is creating more hysteria and more dislocation..
but that for me in a spiritual sense is its purpose..
I’m watching what I used to deal with on a daily basis on the South Side of Chicago being recreated here
Get ready this is a taster
I see two issues in this case.Firstly it looks like the law regarding child protection needs to be tighter or better applied.
Secondly it looks like all the agencies involved failed on some level and while it may be difficult when put under so much pressure by media when you take the money for a job and there is a failure like this then its your head that has to roll.
Hey there Billy- hope you are well. Missed you at the Emerging Scotland meet?
I think the points you make are both entirely valid- but if I may, can I press you a bit further into some of the detail- not because I am being argumentative, but rather because I think these matters deserve a public debate by reasonable folk outside the hysteria that surrounds tragic events like this one.
I am have been a social worker for 18 years- never in childcare, but I feel qualified to comment on these issues because I have spent enough time in and around difficult family situations to know how complex and difficult they can be.
Taking your second point- most people in social work simply do not do it for the money. Sure, it is reasonably paid, a social worker starts on around £24K pa and the top of the scale is around £30K pa. Teachers, police and nurses get more. People attracted to SW tend to go in with idealistic ideas (and perhaps naive) about ‘making a difference’.
And let us make no mistake- things can and will go wrong- they always do in complex systems dealing with such incredibly different issues. Sometimes this is to do with mistakes- even incompetence- by social work staff. There should be accountability for this, as there should in any walk of life. But it should be fair and measured, and it should not be based on media half truths and over simplifications. Some of this stuff needs to be discussed-
One child a week is killed by a family member.
Most of these have had contact with health workers, teachers, police or social workers.
All the research about assessments of risk suggests that AT BEST we can get things right about 70% of the time.
Decisions about taking kids into care (or not) are NEVER made by social workers alone- it is always discussed as part of a multi disciplinary team.
Despite this- there was no call for the heads of the doctors, nurses or police who had contact with this baby in the days prior to it’s death.
Many children are protected by intervention of services.
Outcomes for these kids are very poor.(In terms of education, work, Mental health, drug use, homelessness)
Resources are very very stretched almost everywhere.
And in case you think that outcomes are poor because of the damage done to kids by their experience-in Germany, outcomes are good.
In Germany they spend four times per child what we spend.
Your first point relates to the law- I’ll post this and come to that in another reply…
(A continuation of a very long response to Billy’s comment!)
Billy’s first point was that ‘the law relating to child protection needs to be tighter or better applied’. Again- this is a very reasonable point. The question is HOW?
The Children (Scotland) Act is thought to be a good piece of legislation- but are there things we could add to it? Stronger powers for scrutiny and observation and control? The installation of camera’s in family homes to keep an eye on exactly what happens there perhaps? But how about when not in the home?? Is this invasion of privacy ever likely to be regarded as acceptable? MORE power for interfering nosy social workers? I wonder how this will play out in the media, let alone the civil right movement?
Law made in a hurry (in response to a serious incident for example) is almost always BAD law.
How about better applying the law we have? Well yes- this should be what we are striving for- but see the points made in my other reply!
The final point I would make is this one- we want to live in a society where children are valued above all things. This is the core principle of the Children Act- ‘the needs of the child are paramount’. But kids are born to damaged, addicted, depraved and criminal adults. Some we know about- many we do not. We have no way of accurately predicting in every case what combination of circumstances might lead to serious harm. Even when we suspect that harm may be taking place, then deciding when this harm is likely to be serious and intervening directly to remove children (with all the damage this is likely to do) is an art as much as a science.
My job has always been to work with adults with mental health difficulties. These folk have often (but certainly not always) had damaging and abusive childhoods. They have grown up with partially healed wounds. Could we have prevented this? Could someone have made a difference in my own childhood? Perhaps, and perhaps not. Can law make it better? Can one profession let loose like family police really make all the bad stuff go away?
I am afraid we kid ourselves if we think this will ever happen. The issue is one of human society, and the answer is not to appoint a ‘social police force’ to do societies job for it. Blaming one profession is just too easy.
I am a Christian- this is why I chose to do the job I do. I believe in people. I think they carry the image of God- ALL of them. Many are scarred by ungrace, and in turn, this ungrace pours out into the lives of others, particularly children. What is needed is for communities of grace to be birthed in the middle of us- salting the good stuff to bring out it’s flavour, and shining light into darkness. We have to start building goodness, kindness and grace back into the communities that we serve- in the hope that the life is lived in a deeper more loving way.
But we too will sometimes fail.
Enough of me ranting- I hope I made some sense- it is pretty close to my heart as you can see!
Cheers
C
Anyway- enough from me
Hello, my name is Faye Saville and I am in my final year studying for a BA (Hons) Public Relations Sandwich Degree at the University of Central Lancashire.
I am currently conducting a piece of academic research for my dissertation. My research is focused around the area of crisis communication and online public relations.
This study aims to discover how and why various Internet methods (e.g. blogs and social networking sites etc) are used by individuals to communicate with online during a crisis. My research specifically focuses on the crisis and case of Baby P. Therefore, this study requests to hear from individuals who have an interest (professional or otherwise) in the social work/social services and welfare sector and the case of Baby P.
Would you be interested in posting my questionnaire on your blog? If you have accessed the Baby P case online and have followed the case I would very much appreciate if you could fill in my questionnaire and return it to myself.
The questionnaire also aims to discover how and why individuals who have an interest in the social work/social services and welfare sector have found using the Internet in the Baby P crisis useful.
If you would like me to send you copy of my questionnaire please let me know. The questionnaire should take approximately 15 minutes to complete and your responses will be a very valuable contribution to my research.
Please note: All questionnaires filled in and returned to my email: QuestionnaireResults@live.com will remain completely confidential and anonymous. Bloggers who wish to share their comments with other bloggers, can send responses to: http://fayesaville.wordpress.com/contact/
If you have any questions or comments please do contact me.
Kind regards,
Faye Saville.
HI Faye, I’ll drop you an e-mail…
Hi! Thank you very much, I really appreciate it!
Pingback: Baby P- the Police investigation is examined… « this fragile tent