9 year old boy killed after months of abuse

[Jonny Ingbar]

Really?

You think that extra training and perhaps a reduced operational load wouldn't have perhaps helped? I think it is unlikely that all six officers were "incompetent", it is far more likely that they were all over worked and under trained.

Its always the case that individuals are held accountable for systematic failings in the public sector, after a decade and a half of catastrophic underfunding.

Case loads are woefully unmanageable and it's easy to criticise with the benefit of hindsight, but this is usual without any context or professional insight.

Now I don't know, but I would hazard at a guess, that the professionals involved had unwieldy caseloads, and within that many of those carried significant risk, just like this one had, or worse.

It's almost like a game of whack-a-mole, not wishing to trivialise the seriousness of the subject of course.

In the vast majority of cases such a tragic outcome is never realised, but every so often the worst happens. It's inevitable.

Throw in the fact that the workforce is no doubt inexpericed due to the inability to retain staff because of poor pay and such cases are sadly predictable.

 

[Redka]

Reading the article there were numerous reports and police and social services were involved.

The main failing seems to be the rules - social services considered removing the child from the family but apparently the case didn’t reach the threshold as the killer was cooperating with social services.

Funding is undoubtedly one issue but specifically here I think somebody needs to look at the rules that are in place.

“Social worker Hayley Waldron told the trial that in March 2020 there had been legal discussions over whether to remove Alfie from Scott's care, but because Scott had been seen to be working with social workers at that stage it was deemed the situation did not cross that threshold.”

 

[sherlock]

One thing not mentioned so far is the absolute public and press vilification of social workers who have been accused of removing children ‘unfairly’.

Classic case of damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

There are multiple Facebook groups etc aimed at ‘getting’ social workers that families have grievances against.

Also worth pointing out that social workers have no power to remove children, they rely on courts to make that decision. The huge delays in court proceedings can absolutely be attributed to government cuts.

Children’s social workers are generally carrying caseloads of 35 - 40. The recommended maximum caseload for safeguarding cases is 15.

Massive social work shortages are down to policy decisions, that’s just fact.

It all adds up to a perfect storm and despite the fact that social workers still get 95% of things right, tragically these incidents will continue to happen.

 

[Alan_Breck]

The parents, partners and so called guardians of these poor little mites really can disguise what's happening and fool the social services into believing all is well and that the child is better with family than in care. I admit to tears when I read the story, and saw the photos, of another abused child, from the Birmingham area, little Arthur. A beautiful toddler with blonde hair, who many would have loved and cared for if the parent and partner had not been so massively deceitful to the social services. Lengthy prison sentences are not enough.

#UTB

 

[Redka]

One thing not mentioned so far is the absolute public and press vilification of social workers who have been accused of removing children ‘unfairly’.

Classic case of damned if they do, damned if they don’t.

There are multiple Facebook groups etc aimed at ‘getting’ social workers that families have grievances against.

Also worth pointing out that social workers have no power to remove children, they rely on courts to make that decision. The huge delays in court proceedings can absolutely be attributed to government cuts.

Children’s social workers are generally carrying caseloads of 35 - 40. The recommended maximum caseload for safeguarding cases is 15.

Massive social work shortages are down to policy decisions, that’s just fact.

It all adds up to a perfect storm and despite the fact that social workers still get 95% of things right, tragically these incidents will continue to happen.

As a general point I’m sure you are right but in this case there was no delay and the case went to court and a decision made. I think someone needs to look at these thresholds for removing a child. It seems to me it was obvious to all around that the threshold was met but tragically not by those with the power to do anything about it.

 

[atypical_boro]

Children’s social workers are generally carrying caseloads of 35 - 40. The recommended maximum caseload for safeguarding cases is 15.

This is all anyone needs to know, and until it’s sorted catastrophes will continue in abundance. But hey, they got Brexit done - thank God! Where’d we be without it?

 

[Laughing]

I think this is, largely, one of those situations where social services have to be right everytime.

That is unlikely given the chronic underfunding that others have talked about.

 

[Muttley]

the fact he didn’t understand it and ignored it in his report is not something that could be remedied by training.

Sorry, that is exactly something that can be remedied with appropriate training.

 

[sherlock]

As a general point I’m sure you are right but in this case there was no delay and the case went to court and a decision made.

Where have you seen that? I have seen no mention in this case that this ever came before a court?

 

[Redka]

Sorry, that is exactly something that can be remedied with appropriate training.

As mentioned if he didn’t have the common sense to understand what was been discussed with him then there is no amount of training that would remedy it.

 

[Redka]

Where have you seen that? I have seen no mention in this case that this ever came before a court?

Actually didn’t go to court you are right but they social services had legal discussions around it. It’s the fact the guy seems to be working with social workers which is worrying that that’s enough to forgive the previous abuses that the child had encountered. As mentioned I think it’s that threshold that should be looked at.

“Social worker Hayley Waldron told the trial that in March 2020 there had been legal discussions over whether to remove Alfie from Scott's care, but because Scott had been seen to be working with social workers at that stage it was deemed the situation did not cross that threshold.”

 

[sherlock]

Actually didn’t go to court you are right but they social services had legal discussions around it. It’s the fact the guy seems to be working with social workers which is worrying that that’s enough to forgive the previous abuses that the child had encountered. As mentioned I think it’s that threshold that should be looked at.

“Social worker Hayley Waldron told the trial that in March 2020 there had been legal discussions over whether to remove Alfie from Scott's care, but because Scott had been seen to be working with social workers at that stage it was deemed the situation did not cross that threshold.”

I don't disagree, the social worker would have to go on the legal advice from solicitors in that meeting.

But say the threshold is lowered, how long before we have the Mail and Express leading with stories that cruel social workers have taken children away from loving parents? And the inevitable public backlash that follows?

It's a thankless job, I really couldn't recommend it to anyone.