Morning:
14°c
The head of the professional body for social workers has admitted that a Cabinet minister's decision to order the sacking of Sharon Shoesmith after the death of Baby P was “perfectly legitimate”.
His remarks come a day before Ms Shoesmith, Haringey's former director of children's services, goes to the High Court to challenge her dismissal and the role of Children's Secretary Ed Balls in forcing her out.
Mr Balls ordered Haringey to replace Ms Shoesmith after an Ofsted report found a catalogue of serious concerns within her department and called for “urgent action”. The report said Haringey had failed to learn lessons from the death of another child abuse victim in its care, Victoria Climbie.
Kim Bromley-Derry, president of the Association of Directors of Children's Services, said that Mr Balls needed to be seen to take decisive action in the wake of the Baby P case and the public and media outcry.
He told the Standard: “He could have done many things. He needed to be seen to do something, and he chose for that [ordering Ms Shoesmith's dismissal] to be what he did. In a sense it was a perfectly legitimate thing to do.”
But Mr Bromley-Derry, also executive director of children's services at Newham council, warned the renewed attention around Ms Shoesmith's case “inevitably risks a prolonged conversation about all the things that are wrong about social services”.
He added: “Let's focus on what we can do to put services right in Haringey and in London and across the country. Let's focus on solutions. I think that is a much healthier debate for us to be having.”
He said the Shoesmith case had increased awareness of the “high levels of public accountability” social workers now faced in their jobs. “I certainly think social workers are finding that it does put an additional stress and anxiety on their work. I hope it doesn't get in the way of decision-making, but there is always that risk,” he said.
Ms Shoesmith, who earned around £133,000 a year, is seeking a judicial review of the decisions of Mr Balls, Haringey and Ofsted. She also has filed separate claims for unlawful dismissal and sexual discrimination, which an employment tribunal will consider once the High Court case concludes.
She refused to accept social workers, health workers and police shared in the responsibility for Baby P's death despite him having been seen 60 times. The 17-month-old boy, subsequently named as Peter Connelly, died 2007. His mother Tracey Connelly, her boyfriend Steven Barker and her lodger Jason Owen were jailed over his death.
In a newspaper interview, Ms Shoesmith said she had thought of suicide because of the public vilification. She accused Mr Balls of being “breathtakingly reckless” in sacking her.
She was dismissed without compensation or pay in lieu of notice. Mr Balls said at the time he would have been “astonished” if she had received a pay-off or so-called gold-plated pension.
Her solicitor Tony Child claims the Ofsted inspection was unlawful, Ms Shoesmith was unfairly not given opportunity to respond, Mr Balls's orders were unlawful and the council failed to grant her a meaningful appeal.
The Children's department and Haringey declined to comment. Ofsted said in a statement: “Ofsted is contesting the application.”
Reader views (8)
If this sanctimonious woman wants to receive praise and a £133,000 salary then she must be prepared to take responsibility for what happens on her watch.
She should of fallen on her sword in the first place at least then she would of recouped some sort of respect!
- Merv, Reading, Berks
I think it is an absolute disgrace how such niglect was left unseen by a professional socail worker i myself broke my heart when i read about the torture and pure sickening treatment of baby peter.I am an untrained and i would have picked up on the signs that were there obviously she was not doing her job correctly and therefore should be sacked and never employed in such a career again even if only out of respect for baby peter as he was such badly left down by who should have been there proteceting him from the torture he suffered.Sharon Shoesmith may have lost her job and feel awful,not awful enough though because i have seen a smile on that face and if i was her i would only hold my head in total shame,there is no way she could ever suffer as baby peter did and deserves no form of sympathy and defeintly no compensation of any sort it is absurd to even think of her gaining money for the loss of an innocent child's life.In my opinion she deserves a prison sentence not compensation it would be total disrespect to a life that has even really began yet and what baby peter had experienceed in his short time was appaling every child deserves more than that.Love costs nothing care costs nothing thats all they need really the basics and yet some cant do that its discusting.
- Stacey Howell, swansea wales
Who's going to sack Balls? I suppose Joe Public will have to do it. The useless PM wo n't do it will he?
- Anglo, Sussex UK
Kim Bromeley Derry is right. Ed Balls had to be seen to be doing something and to try to look like he cared about the diabolical quality of child protection ability in front-line practice on a NATIONAL LEVEL.
Sharon Shoesmith should have stood up for the children instead of trying to sweep under the carepet the fact that IDENTIFIED at risk children in 'her' child protection unit were being 'overlooked' and not being enabled to access any child protection ability in practice.
Ms Shoesmith should have said that child protection in practice is NOT a childrens' service but is a seperate thing and needs to be treated as such.
She could have said that she should never have taken a job where she was 'in charge' of a child protection unit because that requires a 'specialised' expertise.
For ignoring the suffering of the children, who were brought to her notice, she deserved the sack.
We must be glad however that she still has her uses.
She will, by her actions, keep the plight of the IDENTIFIED being abused, at risk children in the public eye and just maybe ED BALLS will be forced to regognise that there is something very seriously wrong with the NATIONAL CHILD PROTECTION POLICY and with front-line child protection in practice, as it is set-up at this moment.
Just maybe ED BALLS will really do something NOW to redesign the system so that it can work and so that it is workable by all who try so hard to protect the children.
The BEING ABUSED at risk children can't wait !
- Darnthesafetynet, London W11 1NR
@ R.F. York, Yorks, UK: "Does this odious woman honestly still believe she was unfairly dismissed? She should be charged with criminal neglect".
The sooner she stands in the dock, the better.
- Reuben Camara, Morecambe Compound, EUSSR
Mr Bromley-Derry says 'Let's focus on what we can do to put services right' and 'focus on solutions', and 'the Shoesmith case had increased awareness of the “high levels of public accountability” social workers now faced in their jobs. “I certainly think social workers are finding that it does put an additional stress and anxiety on their work. I hope it doesn't get in the way of decision-making, but there is always that risk'
Does it really take the death of two children to make social workers aware that publically accountable, and that they have to make decisions. What did they think their job was about? Sitting in a nice warm office drinking tea?
If this is management at its best then God help any child at risk. Bromley-Derry has now just laid the foundations for the next line of excuses. We were too stressed and anxious to make correct decissions.
Once again, the focus on solutions would be to make excuses for the inability to carry out a reasonable level of competent service and by 'learning lessons' children will still not be protected. This statement is about the protection of social services, not about the protection of vunerable children.
- Alan, carlisle uk
How many other incompetent people hold onto their jobs because employment legislation introduced since 1997, largely at the behest of the EU, makes it just too difficult or costly for their employers to get rid of them ?
- Peter Haldane, Chelmsford
Does this odious woman honestly still believe she was unfairly dismissed? She should be charged with criminal neglect.
- R.F.York, Yorks, UK
