Baby P death: 'Don't lose confidence in children's services' » Central Government » 24dash.com

As the investigation began today into how Baby P came to die in his blood-stained cot, the Children's Secretary said there should be no loss of confidence in council services.

"The fact is this was a mother who did the most terrible things to her son and actively lied to cover up - in the end you can't stop that from happening," Ed Balls said.

Others disagree.

Haringey Council in north London, where its child welfare services oversaw the brief life and tragic death of Baby P, is the same local authority heavily criticised over the notorious case of Victoria Climbie.

The eight-year-old's murder at the hands of her carers demonstrated how children can suffer and die despite being known to many separate agencies and prompted a massive re-examination of the child welfare systems.

The inquiry set up in her name was supposed to "recommend action that would prevent such a tragedy happening again", but seven years later 17-month-old Baby P would die even after 60 visits from the authorities over eight months.

An independent serious case review handed to Mr Balls showed evidence that agencies in Haringey "singly and collectively failed to adhere to the procedures for the proper management of child protection cases".

Even as the actions - or failure to act - of the workers involved began to be examined, a separate tragedy was today unfolding after a 21-year-old mother was arrested in Manchester on suspicion of murdering her baby and two-year-old son.

The youngsters were known to Children's Services, but Manchester City Council said its social care team had not been involved with the family at the time of their deaths.

The current outcry over Baby P's death follows research released in January warning that agencies were struggling to prevent deaths among abused and neglected children.

The report by a University of East Anglia (UEA) team for the Department for Children, Schools and Families examined serious case reviews, which are carried out when a child dies or is seriously injured due to abuse or neglect.

The researchers found that of the 161 cases, which dated from 2003/05, 55% of the children were known to children's social care at the time of the incident and 12% - like Baby P - were named on the child protection register.

The report uncovered a "preoccupation" among all agencies with eligibility criteria for their services, rather than a primary concern for the child, and said poor communication was common.

Although parents rebuffed agencies, the agencies themselves "avoided"
parents by offering a succession of workers, closing cases, losing files, re-assessing, referring on or starting and then dropping court proceedings.

In many cases, workers were frightened to visit family homes and could become "frozen" in the fact of hostility from parents.

But, making a point particularly relevant to Baby P's case, whose mother manipulated professionals concerned about his welfare, the researchers urged workers to remain "sceptical".

Lead author Marian Brandon, a child care specialist at UEA, said at the
time: "Our findings suggest that risk could be minimised if practitioners were more curious and thought more critically and more systematically."

But she warned that to practise in this way, workers needed to be well supported by management, but many were in teams depleted by staff absence and long-term sickness.

Speaking today, Ms Brandon said that the death of Baby P was not typical as he was on the child protection register.

"He should have been safer, so his case was more preventable," she said.

"There are much fewer excuses for what happened with him because people already knew there was a heightened risk.

"I think overwhelmed is what a lot of health workers and social workers are - overwhelmed by the volume of work and overwhelmed by the families."

She said a more rigorous approach was needed and better working conditions for staff, including support, supervision and training - allowing for greater understanding.

"I think you are more likely to stop it from happening if you can understand the psychology," she said.

"Having a sense of how you would expect them (the family) to behave in the light of their past and experiences, you might not be so surprised that they are manipulative."

Dr Ray Jones, professor of social work at Kingston University and St George's University of London, likewise argued that people involved in child protection must be both compassionate and sceptical.

"That's one of the skills of good social work practice and also, I have to say, a police investigation.

"Sometimes things are not clear that they are going to happen and actions that are very extreme and very severe are not easily predicted.

"But if there's an element of doubt, an element of concern, or an element of uncertainty, it is good professional practice to be following up those concerns."

To prevent another tragedy like Baby P's, he said: "Professionals need to keep each other informed about what's happening and they need to be inquiring, inquisitive, investigative and imaginative... really pushing to get more knowledge."

Yet when social services do take action and remove children from families, they risk criticism for removing children from their parents unnecessarily.

"This is a balance that needs to be struck all the time," he said.

"If we lower the threshold of tolerance (for leaving children with their
families) there will then be complaints, quite fairly, that children are being removed unnecessarily from families.

"The difficulty is anticipating where are the Baby Ps of the future among all the children that social workers are working with."

Simply suspending the belief that things are ok for the child and imagining what family life could be like for him or her was an essential step, the experts agreed.