Tonight:
9°c
The child of some friends of mine, a toddler at the time, fell off the bed at home a few years ago. It was the sort of split- second accident every parent dreads. After a stay in hospital, he was removed from his family home by social services while the parents were investigated.
It took a lengthy court case to get him back. Meanwhile, in Haringey - the borough that also failed Victoria Climbié - the mother and stepfather of 17-month-old Baby P literally got away with murder by playing the system.
Why the inconsistency? And why does no one want to take responsibility for anything? The fact that no one has resigned from Haringey social services over Baby P's death is shaming. Without strong leadership and accountability, the whole system is undermined. Because unless junior social workers know they have someone above them willing to back them up, how can they take tough decisions?
The errors in Baby P's case were so basic that it makes you want to scream. The biggest mistake was that the social workers were unbelievably gullible - the opposite of the beady-eyed sceptics who dealt with my friends and would not leave them alone with their child unobserved.
Baby P's mother, on the other hand, was left to do as she pleased. She dodged four appointments with a health visitor. She was arrested for cruelty - twice. Still he remained in her "care", if it can be called that.
It was obvious to anyone - including a child-minder who was paid for by the state, who complained of his neglect - that this child was the victim of regular and repeated abuse.
When detectives searched the house they couldn't find a single item of clothing belonging to him which did not have some trace of blood on it. At the trial, none of the three defendants (mother, step-father and lodger) could be convicted of murder because no one knows who wielded the fatal blow. It could have been any one of them. This is appalling.
Social workers must be forced to follow the harshest guidelines. This is not intrusive, it's common sense. Even my friend agrees - and she has been on the other end of the system's treatment, losing her child for several months.
The authorities should be blunt. If your child is on the "at-risk" register, you must not be allowed to miss a single visit with social services - or the child is removed. The same happens if you take a child to A&E repeatedly with a new injury every time (unsurprisingly, Baby P was a regular visitor).
Social services say they did not murder this child. But they were the only people Baby P had to rely on and they let him down. Won't anyone in Haringey acknowledge that by giving the wrong mother the benefit of the doubt, they sentenced him to death?
Dance of the perfect doll'
On Planet Strictly — where I am permanently resident — John Sergeant stumbles on. Now, under attack from dance fans everywhere, he is in danger of losing his cool. He has likened Strictly to a political contest and called for the judges to respect democracy.
Meanwhile, another theory for his popularity is emerging: his dance partner Kristina Rihanoff was described by a salivating Gordon Ramsay this week as “the perfect doll”. With her Jean Harlow curls and gravity-defying mambo kicks, Russian-born Kristina is indeed the definition of fabulousness. But this week the Siberian goddess faces her toughest challenge yet: Sergeant will have to lift her at least twice during the American Smooth.
I hope she has added levitation to her list of talents.
Hannah: adults must decide
Maybe none of us will ever have the wisdom or maturity to know the right time to die but 13 is definitely too young to make this decision. You can understand the feelings of heart transplant girl Hannah Jones. She has virtually grown up in hospital and just wants to be at home with her family.
I have no doubt that Hannah is an intelligent girl, wise beyond her years, and her refusal to consent to surgery is informed and well-argued. She is the only one who knows what it is like to face all this medical intervention.
But, the problem is, she is just a girl. Her parents — and they alone — should shoulder the burden of the decision, while taking her views into account. Ultimately, it must be clear that this is a decision for an adult to take — not a child.
Reader views (9)
The terrible tragedy of Poor Baby P has indeed caused alot of outrage among alot of communites, it is sadly too late for dear baby p whom had too suffer so much at the hands of those whom he most likely trusted. I pray and have faith that justice will be served to those that caused such awful suffering, may the monsters that did this to him be haunted by it for the rest of their pathetic lives... RIP with the angels dear beautiful baby p!!!
- Mosika, Honiara, Solomon Islands
Suffer little children to come unto thee. Oh my god did you suffer. You were such a beautiful baby with your blonde hair, big blue eyes and beutiful face. They will get wat they deserve for what they did. It's a pity you will never know that they will. I hope they all burn in hell. You are at peace now, god bless you and rip xxx
- Karen, Cardiff
If I said all that I feel for this little innocent child who did not ask to be born I would write pages and pages. I have cried each day I have heard of his horrific injuries and uneccesary suffering, where were these so called social workers, doctors and any-one at all who had any sort of contact with this poor mite, to let this happen to a defencless child is beyond comprehension. I am dumbfounded by all the excuses of any-one who seems to have had any say in the safety of this poor child. What are we as a nation becoming? Safety measures MUST be put into place, people in general surely should be more vigilant in spotting these terrible happenings. As for the perpetrators of such vile torture of a defencless might, jail sentence is too good for them,people might say theya are sick themselves for conducting such vicious pain on some-one who could not defend his self or even cry out for help, but whether they are "ill" or not they MUST have known what they were doing was evil and completly wrong.
Some one in authority SHOULD own up and take resonsibility for this terrible error, in order that lessons can be learnt in order to save any other unneccessary sufferings.
As a mother and grandmother my heart goes out to any child who suffers at the hand of others, child hood should be happy and care free. God bless and keep you baby P.you do not have to suffer any more.x
- Dilys Davies, Port Talbot
I find it interesting how you have chosen to comment on the difficulties faced by Hannah Jones declining a heart transplant alongside the very obvious failings of Haringey social services department when these two cases could not be in further contrast.
‘Her parents — and they alone — should shoulder the burden of the decision’ makes uncomfortable reading to anyone who has ever discussed end of life decisions with patients and their relatives. The onus, in these situations, remains on the medical team and is to be based on what they deem the ‘best interests’ of the patient to be. If relatives are forced to feel that they have made a decision alone, it can only bring a further burden of guilt that may interrupt their future grieving.
Hannah made this decision following extensive advice and discussions with the medical team at Great Ormond Street Hospital, and furthermore her parents were in support of her making this decision. Exercising the right to refuse treatment is difficult for both adults and children. Hannah, her parents, and the medical treatment team were all in support of her decision; surely then there is then no child protection issue here. Hereford PCT aught to send some of those staff to Haringey if they’re looking for work to do!!
- Liz, London, UK
I fear that any findings will conclude that it was a 'collective' responsibility, which it may be, but according to what I've read there were certain police officers convinced the child was in immediate danger from early on.
Without paying attention to such small but vital detail,it will appear as another whitewash.
If there should be no sackings, then resignations at least.
I certainly could not live with myself knowing my lack of experience or clout went to allowing such horrors to be inflicted on such a helpless child.
Shame on those who have been since.
- Sandie Smith, central scotland
I can’t stop thinking about this horrific story and poor little Baby P. As a father of two young boys my extreme sadness turns to extreme anger about the way in which this tragic event was allowed to happen. If only the clock could be turned back and this poor little sweetheart could have been saved. The three perpetrators of this vile torture of a defenceless, innocent baby must given hell in jail for a very long time as a bare minimum and of course Haringey Social Services heads’ must roll: now.
- Stan Smith, Newbury
So what you're saying is: if a social worker is in any doubt they should remove the child and use every legal means at their disposal to ensure he/she remains in local authority care?
This is a foolish, ignorant and deeply dangerous argument. Baby P's case is an utterly tragic example of what could happen if there are concerns for a child's welfare but it remains with its family. However, that doesn't mean that all children "at risk" are exposed to the same level of risk as Baby P. Risk is a relative concept.
Baby P's case was an extreme example. It's so shocking because it's so rare that such brutality and inhumanity go undetected by social services for so long.
At any one time, there are nearly 60,000 children in care in England. There are considerably more children who are not in care but are on the "at risk" register. Horrific though it is, this case is an extreme one.
It's easy (but wrong) to criticise social workers for social engineering, leftie views on parenting or state sponsored baby stealing. But if the argument in this ill-informed article was put into practice then it would be a widespread reality.
And isn't it so much easier to heap the blame on a social worker to avoid asking where the culprits' family, friends, community and society in general went wrong on this?
- Tim, London
When my ex's sister had twins, the full panoply of social "services" care was visited on her and her husband because one of the babies had a small scratch on her forehead that neither parent could conclusively explain (it was noticed by the health visitor, who deemed it sufficiently serious to inform social services). The parents were questioned exhaustively culminating in proceedings being brought (on the basis of that single unxplained "injury" alone) to put both babies on the At Risk register. I represented the parents at the hearing, at which it was decided that such action was clearly not the right thing to do. The boss of the social worker involved even had the good grace to apologise for the way that matters had been handled.
It makes me weep to compare how much was invested in scrutinising this family's situation, in relation to something that any reasonable person would regard as totally disproportionate, when poor Baby P did not appear to get one iota of the care and decisive action that he so desperately needed from the myriad social "services" and agencies supposedly charged with ensuring his welfare.
But as is usual when there is any fiasco involving the public sector, I imagine that no-one will be personally held accountable for any of this, one of the main reasons why nothing ever changes. Unless individuals are visited with the consequences of their (in)action, there is little incentive to improve.
- Helen, London, UK
This article has highlighted something which makes me angry. One of the primary reasons that social workers are wary about removing children is because of the monumental backlash in the media if they get it wrong.
Yes, Haringey council has blood on it's hands but so does any media outlet which sensationalises a case where a child who was not being abused was removed from it's home.
If there is a side of caution to be erred on, it MUST be the side which protects the child. Newspaper editors should be more careful about leading witch hunts of social workers who do a ridiculously difficult and demanding job with minimal resources.
I hope the journalists at the Evening Standard will remember this for the future.
- Kate, London, UK
