n provide immediate appropriate support and challenge to the local authority to ensure that comprehensive and effective safeguarding arrangements for children and young people are established.
The Local Authority, working with its partners and in particular health and the police, should:
Whilst not a mandatory requirement, it would be good practice for the Local Authority to:
The following points are made to help schools check their current child protection practice in light of criticisms made by the joint area review in Haringey.
Named persons must refresh their child protection training every two years. All other education staff must refresh every three years. Check with your safeguarding board how you can access training.
The joint area review criticized the lack of collaboration and communication between agencies, and specific reference was made to agencies not being present at strategic meetings, case conferences and core group meetings. Such meetings provide a forum to share information and decision-making.
Working together successfully depends on the development of professional relationships across agencies. Strategic meetings can help to develop relationships but it is also useful to meet other professionals in less formal settings. Consider inviting social care workers into school to meet staff informally or to give a presentation to a staff meeting about their work.
The joint area review criticized the level of ongoing communication between all agencies. I have mentioned above some of the ways agency collaboration can be improved. However, it takes will on all parties to continue working together practice. One of the issues highlighted in the joint area review is that agencies did not keep each other up to date in respect of changed circumstances in the family or in terms of change of worker. On the first point, never presume that the parents have told the social worker what they have told you – always check. Parents may innocently tell one member of the professional network about a change in circumstance or an incident, presuming that in telling one professional they are telling all those working with them. On the other hand, the parent who is intent on covering up incidents may give one story to one professional and another story to someone else.
As you are aware, schools have a statutory duty to safeguard and promote children’s welfare; make sure your child protection policy is regularly reviewed and that your governors are supportive of the child protection structures and processes. If you have concerns about how a case is progressing, seek advice from your education designated officer, the senior case worker for the case or your local safeguarding board.
Read Joint Area Review Haringey Children’s Services Authority Area
Ed Balls has announced that Ofsted will carry out annual reviews of children’s services across the country... Schools will be included in such reviews
We are unable to publish reader comments about individual child protection concerns on this website. If you are worried about a child please call the NSPCC Helpline on 0808 800 5000 for help and advice. Alternatively you can contact your Local Safeguarding Children Board (LSCB) through your local council.
A mother of four attends her GP with her youngest child (nine months old) who has a swelling on the head. She says she found him in the back seat of the car like this after he had been in the care of her mother. When the child is examined in hospital he is also found to have extensive bruising, minor scratches and discolouration to his nose. Doctors conclude the injuries are non-accidental. The mother claims not to know how the swelling occurred, adding that the scratches have come from her dogs and the baby bruises easily when playing. This last statement is disproved by further hospital tests. The hospital records that the parents of the child are separated and the mother has a friend (Mr SB) who she claims is never alone with her children. A strategy discussion at the hospital agrees there should be a joint investigation and a possible emergency protection order (EPO). The mother is interviewed under caution by the police and gives the same explanations as previously. | | | ||
The mother agrees the child can be placed with one of her friends during the investigation. The health visitor reports the child’s immunisations are not up to date. The primary care mental health worker reports the mother has a history of depression but not mental illness. The mother’s history reveals she was taken into care after witnessing domestic violence by both parents and she was married aged 16. The husband says that the marriage had problems and, after the birth of the last baby and the mother met a Mr SB, he moved out. In observed interactions you see the baby smiles at the mother a lot and seems happy. The mother tells you she has recently learned her stepfather is not her real father and she is upset by something else that happened to her as a child. | | | ||
Social workers believe the child is suffering neglect only, however the conference concludes the child is suffering physical abuse and neglect. It’s decided not to pursue care proceedings but the child protection plan includes monitoring, family support, health and development checks, family and housing support and for the mother to go on a parenting programme. The mother agrees to get rid of the two dogs. The child is allowed home and the family moves house. As the new social worker allocated, you visit and feel the mother is affectionate with her children but note the baby is head-butting the floor. The mother requests for the dogs to be allowed back. The school reports the mother has slapped another of her children across the face and shouted at them. During a request for more contact the father says Mr SB is now the mother’s boyfriend. You question the mother and she admits that she would like a relationship with Mr SB who is living with her. | | More needs to be known about Mr SB’s relationship and influence on the mother. The head-butting should also be investigated as a possible psychological response to harm. | ||
Solution-focused therapy is suggested for the mother. Two months later she takes the baby to hospital with a swelling to the left side of his head and symptoms of illness. Mother states he was pushed by another child against a marble fireplace four days ago. Body maps indicate bruises and scratches on his face, head and body. Doctor accepts mother’s account of the injuries and focuses on the other symptoms.
| | | ||
The child is discharged home. The health visitor refers the baby to a child development centre for the head banging. The mother names Mr SB as next of kin on health records. On an unannounced visit you see a bruise on the baby. The mother initially says this was due to rough play with another child but later says he bumped into the wooden frame of a sofa. A hospital assessment notes grab mark bruises on the lower right leg. The mother says she grabbed his leg to prevent him falling off the sofa. The mother says a friend will be staying with the family over the weekend. The police say they want an EPO to be applied for. | | | ||
The child is allowed home without an EPO. At a child protection review conference you agree not all the injuries can be explained by the mother and the school nurse reports that the child’s weight has dropped from the 75th centile to between the 25th and 50th centiles. | | | ||
The school reports that the older children have been given authorised absence. The mother also misses one of her parenting classes. On phoning, the mother says she had to leave the borough to look after a sick uncle. | | | ||
The health visitor reports that the baby’s weight has dropped to the 25th percentile. The baby also has an ear infection and a small bruise under his chin. Another child has a bruise under one eye. The mother says the infection was caused while she was trying to clean his ear and he struggled. | | | ||
A legal meeting takes place and it is decided the case does not meet the threshold for care proceedings. At a child development clinic numerous bruises are noted on the child and his weight has now dropped to the ninth percentile. The doctor believes the child is unwell and miserable due to a possible viral infection. The doctor advises the mother to take the child to the GP or the hospital if he does not get better. The police advise that prosecution will not be pursued. | | |
On 3 August, the London Ambulance Service responded to a 999 call at 11.35am. The 18-month-old baby was pronounced dead at 12.19 pm.
‘there needs to be better information sharing’.
Dick Henson, detective chief inspector, Child Abuse Investigation Command:
This review shows we need better sharing of information. That might sound like a superficial answer but the fact is that you will never know the significance of what you know until you share it with other professionals. It also needs to be done in a timely way so you can achieve dynamic risk assessments. Any new information needs to immediately lead to an appraisal of whether it changes the risk assessment or the control mechanisms in any way.
We also need to come back to the adage “assume nothing, believe nobody and check everything”. So, if the removal of large dogs in a house containing toddlers is part of the child protection plan, you need to make sure the dogs aren’t just being hidden out the back somewhere. If a toddler has chocolate smeared on the face and there are child protection concerns, ask for the child to be cleaned up.
It comes down to all professionals thinking “what’s it like to be this child?”. In this case, even without the injuries discovered after Peter’s death, if all professionals involved had been thinking about how much pain he was suffering throughout their dealings with him and the family it would have focused the thinking on to the child more than the mother.
There are also lessons on effective supervision and ensuring that professionals do not become isolated.
If there is disagreement on a course of action, as there was here, then that needs to be recorded alongside the reasons for the dispute so it can act as a flag on a case when new information is received.
Nushra Mansuri, joint manager for England of the British Association of Social Workers:
Given the bias of some parts of the media to target the social work profession, by reading a SCR we empower ourselves to be better informed about a case and, while not wishing to condone the blame game, we can talk about things going wrong in terms of not just one agency but the relevant agencies in a case in order to put a more balanced view across to others.
Sue Woolmore, child protection trainer and consultant:
What makes Peter’s story exceptional was that he lived as long as he did. One of the SCR’s lessons must be the need to gain understanding of infant survival.
Although Peter’s life ended with brutal force, he was also under constant threat from his unrelenting experience of fear and stress. The dysfunctional bond from his mother will have driven a wedge into Peter’s attachment to her.
Peter struggled on with outstanding courage, but other babies may lose that resilience, that will to live in the face of such a bleak and frightening existence. Their deaths may be inexplicable, despite the context of neglect and compromised parenting.
Date Published: 11 September 2010
More from community care.
The networking platform for social workers
The latest job opportunities within the social work sector
The largest free to attend event for the social work sector
The online learning and practice resource for social workers
COMMENTS
Baby P's real first name was revealed as "Peter" on the conclusion of a subsequent trial of Peter's mother's boyfriend on a charge of raping a two-year-old. [2] [3] His full identity was revealed when his killers were named after the expiry of a court anonymity order on 10 August 2009.
Learn about the case of Peter Connelly (Baby P), who died in 2007 after months of abuse by his family and visitors. Find out the findings, impacts and lessons from the serious case review and the inquiry that followed.
How the death of Peter Connelly in 2007 sparked a media storm and a 'Baby P effect' that changed child protection in the UK. Read the accounts of social workers, managers and experts involved in the case and its aftermath.
The Story of Baby P: Setting the Record Straight, Ray Jones, Bristol, Policy Press, 2014, pp. 352, ISBN 9781447316220 (pb), £12.99. Keith Popple. Keith Popple ... a number of statutory reviews of the case and a national review of social work took place, which together with a debate in the House of Commons revealed major concerns in the way ...
Abstract. In England in 2007 Peter Connelly, a 17 month old little boy - known initially in the media reporting as 'Baby P' - died following terrible neglect and abuse. Fifteen months later, his ...
The reports examine the tragic death of Baby Peter, who was abused and neglected by his parents and carers in Haringey, London, in 2007. They are published with identifying details removed to protect the privacy and welfare of vulnerable children and their families.
Following the convictions, the death of `Baby P', and the inadequate responses of child welfare professionals, began to dominate political and media discourses. This critical commentary initially focuses on media, particularly newspaper, reports on the case and identifies a number of key themes.
Reviews directly relating to 'Baby P' case. First serious case review (SCR) report (commissioned August 2007) Haringey Local Safeguarding Children Board (2008) Serious case review 'Child A', Executive Summary, November, London: Department for Education (DfE) [DfE (2012) 'Publication of the two Serious Case Review overview reports - Peter Connelly', updated 12 July 2012 (www ...
The article examines how the case of Peter Connelly, who died in 2007 after years of abuse, influenced safeguarding services in the UK. It covers the media coverage, the inquiry, the reforms and the challenges of the case.
From 22 December 2006, Baby P had been the subject of a multi-agency child protection plan involving social services, health services and the police. On 11 November 2008, a serious case review into the death of Baby P was published by Haringey's local safeguarding children board, as required by the
Tracey Connelly, who admitted causing or allowing the death of her son Peter in 2007, could be freed from prison after the Parole Board decided she should be released. The decision sparked controversy and a review of the parole system by the Justice Secretary.
The story of Baby P: setting the record straight Caroline Norrie Research Fellow, Social Care Workforce Research Unit (SCWRU), King's College London, Strand WC2R 2LS, UK Correspondence [email protected]
A GP reflects on the case of Baby P, killed by his mother, her boyfriend and a lodger, and compares it with a similar case in his own practice. He questions the media and political furore, the scapegoating of professionals and the over-intervention in child protection.
By Daniel Lombard on November 12, 2008 in Child safeguarding. The failure to protect Baby P was because of poor practice by health professionals, social workers, police and lawyers rather than systematic breakdown, a serious case review found. Professionals in the London borough of Haringey saw the boy 60 times before his death, caused by his ...
Timeline: Baby P case These are the key events in the Baby Peter case: 2006 March 1 - Peter Connelly is born to Tracey Connelly. November - Connelly's boyfriend, Steven Barker, moves into her home ...
13 May 2009. Brown years (2007-2010) NHS reform. On 3 August 2007, Peter Connelly (known as 'Baby P' or 'Baby Peter') died aged 17 months old, after sustaining severe injuries over an 8-month period. NHS health professionals had cared for Baby Peter on multiple occasions during this time. On 11 November 2008, his mother Tracey Connelly, her ...
A social worker and academic challenges the media and political narrative of the death of Peter Connelly, also known as Baby P, in 2007. He exposes the distortions, injustices and consequences of the campaign against Haringey council and its staff.
This joint area review has since been published. In a press statement given on 1 December 2008, Mr Balls said: 'The whole nation has been shocked and moved by the tragic and horrific death of Baby P. All of us find it impossible to comprehend how adults could commit such terrible acts of evil against this little boy.
In the wake of the full publication of the second Baby P serious case review, child protection consultant and trainer Perdeep Gill looks over the case history and re-examines the options that professionals on the case faced. A mother of four attends her GP with her youngest child (nine months old) who has a swelling on the head.