Just who can protect innocent babies ?

[pilotlight]

Once again an innocent baby's life has been prematurely ended at the hands of some maniac. Once again we learn that the very people who's job it is to protect the vunerable knew that the perpetrator ( the father ), was a "violent man who presented a risk to children" -- quote.

Am I alone in thinking that our Social Services are slowly, but surely, proving themselves to be a complete waste of time regarding such issues.

I do not know what the alternative solution could be, but maybe someone does, before more innocent lives are lost - that could, and should, have been saved.

[stoo_pid]

No you're not alone pilotlight. As someone has had personal experience of fighting virtually the same level of incompetency from social services, my blood boils to think that, instead of learning from these mistakes they seem to think that failure to protect children is an acceptable level of service & anything else is a bonus.

The mother was given 3 years for doing nothing. Perhaps if any professional who knew the child was at risk but also did nothing should face charges too...

I fully appreciate that social workers have limited resources & on the whole have a very diffcult job. That is not an excuse for leaving a baby with someone you believe is likely to cause harm to it. The most depressing thing is this won't be the last case like this we ever hear of.

[mike1222]

Why do I think that the social workers involved in this will probably retire on ill-health with a big compensation payment due to the stress of the job that they so blatantly failed to do in the first place (hope that makes sense!).

None of them care about the poor little mite that was so badly let down by them!!

[raysparx]

every time this happens we are told "this will never happen again" and it bloody well has what on earth nis going on? is the wholw world sick? where are the social workers or the so called NSPCC it is a joke it makes me so sad,what harm had this poor little baby done?

PLEASE somebody come up with an answer because what we have now doesn't work

[WaldoMcFroog]

There are failings in Social Services, of course there are, and they are undeniably tragic and its vital that no one gets complacent.

However, no one ever bothers to think how many cases of this kind of thing have been prevented because of the successful intervention of Social Services. If they prevented 99 cases but one doens't get stopped, you'll only hear about the one. Remove the social services that are being pilloried and far more cases will occur. The notion that social workers don't care is deeply fatuous, facile and offensive.

It's all very well to say that information sharing wasn't good enough, but to put such things together is incredibly difficult work requiring a great deal of legal analysis to ensure that breaches don't occur where they shouldn't and information is passed on where it should be. They are not simple things that can be put together in a moment. I don't work for social services, but I am involved in information governance and know for a fact that councils up and down the country are working incredibly hard to negotiate this minefield in order to ensure the chances of kind of thing happening are minimised.

Oh, and perhaps the majority of blame ought to be pointed at the *** ** * ***** who actually killed the baby? Just a thought.

[Goodsoulette]

I agree. The blame lies with the parents. We cant protect them all, and its sad. Maybe a better sense of community would have helped the poor lad. i see they lived in a block of flats, I noticed when a woman up the street from me was neglecting her children, so I grabbed the children phoned the police and then social services and they were taken into the grandmothers care. I think sometimes people dont speak out and it just goes to show you must.

I do find it incredible however that the abuse was missed by the health visitor especially as the baby was so young. she has been sacked and although she commited no crime she will pay for the rest of her life. I thank god that skiving off my work a bit doesnt get anyone killed.

[Goodsoulette]

Oh and I think he deserves to die. He should be killed in the very same way he murdered his own child. Punishment to fit the crime.

[smudge]

Evil B!

[gedk]

I would just like to volunteer my services to exterminate this evil piece of sh*t. Me thinks there's a fun time ahead for him in prison.

[stoo_pid]

Waldo, no-one is saying remove social services. What is needed however, is for SS to be more accountable. It's not enough to care about children - these situations need good-doers rather than do-gooders.

(2 parts)

While the information sharing could have been better, that is largely irrelevant in this case. The appropriate staff in this case knew this child was at risk, yet did nothing. You would like to think this was a one-off but we had the same experience with SS. I also know someone who was sexually abused by her step-father on several occasions, despite SS being fully aware of the risk to the child. Neither of these stories made the news.

In our case my nephews were taken from the situation (and placed with us) but ONLY when we refused to leave their office until a plan was put into place (seriously). Again, SS already knew that these children were "at risk" yet did nothing to change the situation. I have absolutely no doubts at all that my youngest nephew would not be alive today had we not forced SS to respond.

I can honestly say that not one single decision made by SS in my nephews' case was made for their benefit. Most seemed to be financially led. We had an extremely stressful year of fighting SS on behalf of my nephews. In that time they tried to return the boys to their mother & her boyfriend, despite already knowing they were both heroin addicts & he was a convicted dealer with a long history of domestic violence. On another occasion one social worker actually looked me in the eye and told me that they could save money by splitting the boys up, having one fostered (which costs money) & one adopted (which costs nothing).

[stoo_pid]

part 2

So, I'm afraid there are some social workers that do not care - or at least not enough. And if you think our experience is unique, have a look through the message boards at the Family Rights Group...

And raysparx, please don't lump the NSPCC in with this lot - they were a fantastic help & support for us (along with the FRG). If it wasn't for them our nephews would not have had a happy ending.

[raysparx]

hi stoo_pid maybe nspcc do some good work but if you think back two or three years when somebody phoned them one christmas for help they got no responce and why was that? they were too busy organising the christmas party that is when i personally decided not to support them anymore,but i am really glad you have had positive responce from them ,that is great news maybe i will have a rethink about support again,after all we all want what is best for the innocent kiddies,hope allkeeps well for you, good luck

[Whickerman]

Am I alone in thinking it odd that you need a licence to keep a dog, but any maniac can have a baby?

[smudge]

You have a very, very good point there Wickerman!

[madein1978]

Social workers only get involved when someone is giving an illegal a hard time!! The NSPCC are a waste of time, they take money but rarely do any good! The only charities that are worth the time of day are Animal ones! RSPCC, RSPB, Dogs Trust, etc.. They're the only ones I ever contribute to because they do some good for their cause!

[euwie]

This is a big shock!But a little more for the people in the UK because u dont see it often.But here in my country it is a everday thing and it is getting to much!!!!People abandoning babies and leaving them for dead,"Adult men" raping small babies!Its sick.Somedays i want to go out there and shoot the ********.But I don't wana go to jail ,so If u get a answer for stopping this please inform the people of South Africa!WE ARE SICK OF IT!!!!!!!!!!!!

[maxi29]

Social workers will always be an easy target because they're damned if they do, damned if they don't. If they take a child into care because they suspect the parents are violent, then you can expect Daily Mail headlines along the lines of "Evil social workers split our family", if they don't intervene and a child dies, then expect headlines on the lines of "Lazy social workers ignored dying child".
But not only do they have to make fine moral judgments, they are also working long hours, in small, over-stretched teams with a high turnover of staff. My partner and I are in the process of adopting children and in the last year, we've had three (about to be four) social workers on our case and we're talking about two children who have been taken into care and who are on their third social worker in six months. When you have such a high turnover of staff, it is easy to see why some children slip through the net. However, I'm willing to bet that a proposal to raise council tax across the country to fund improved pay and to employ more social workers would be howled down.
And finally, the processes in the country are screwed. A vulnerable child might have been seen by social services, housing, the police, the education system, a GP and a local hospital - all of whom have their own records. If the family moves to another borough, then there might be a completely different set of records - with no communication between them.
To my mind, given such circumstances, it's a tribute to the dedication of social workers that so many vulnerable children are rescued (and no, I'm not a social worker myself - I couldn't do their job).