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?