Tonight:
4°c
The council at the centre of the Baby P scandal left at least seven more vulnerable children at risk of serious abuse, it can be revealed today.
An emergency inspection of Haringey children's department ordered by Children's Secretary Ed Balls after the Old Bailey trial of 17-month-old Peter Connelly's killers found “very serious concerns” about “seven or eight” cases.
In one, social workers failed to act for two months after a child made a “very explicit allegation” at school of being sexually abused by its father.
In another, they failed to fully consider the dangers posed to the unborn child of a drug-using mother, despite the fact that both men who
may have been the father were a “risk” and the mother's four other children had been taken into care.
In new court evidence obtained by the Standard, Ofsted inspector Steve Hart said they raised “seven or eight cases” that gave “very serious concerns as to whether children were being adequately safeguarded”.
At the time, the council had 632 looked-after children. He said: “Nobody ... can have been in any doubt that these demonstrated very significant professional failings within Haringey council children's services, and that the consequences of those failings was to leave
vulnerable children at risk of significant harm.”
The Ofsted dossier, complied after a fortnight of checks last November, will be used in the High Court today or tomorrow to defend Mr Balls,
Ofsted and the council against legal action brought by Haringey's former director of children's services, Sharon Shoesmith.
She is claiming that Mr Balls acted illegally in ordering her replacement, and is seeking compensation for loss of earnings.
Ms Shoesmith, 56, who earned £133,000 a year in her post, claims she will never work again.
The report helps to explain Mr Balls's actions and why, at a press conference last December announcing the removal of Ms Shoesmith, he described Ofsted's findings as “devastating”.
It reveals that a child made comments suggesting it was being abused by its father in November 2007, but it took until January last year for Haringey to hold a strategy meeting — and then it
still did nothing.
Mr Hart said the case showed “a complete absence of decision-making” by social workers. He added: “In my view it is hard to state strongly enough just how grave these failures were.”
Baby Peter had been found dead almost four months earlier, on 3 August 2007.
Inspectors found that in a number of cases, social workers had not been able to see children suspected of being abused on their own. This is considered “vital” to allow them to speak freely.
The team conducted 49 interviews with staff, and 10 meetings with Ms Shoesmith, including two formal interviews.
Part of her claim is that she was denied the chance to respond to the Ofsted report, in breach of natural justice.
In evidence to the court, lead inspector Heather Brown said the scale of the failings was “unique in my experience” and the combination of problems
“exceptional”.
She said managers appeared to be aware of the problems but failed to act.
Ms Brown said: “When I began the inspection, I was expecting, and hopping, to find that the case of Baby P was essentially an aberration. What we found was shocking, even for the highly
experienced team that worked on the inspection.”
Ms Shoesmith, who received a pay rise after the death of Baby P and was described by her boss as “our heroine” for her media response to the case, said she became suicidal as a result of being “vilified” by the media.
Because of restrictions on identifying Baby P and of using pictures of his killers — his mother Tracey Connelly, her boyfriend Steven Barker and his brother Jason Owen — Ms Shoesmith
became the “public face” of the scandal.
She received death threats — one person sent her “100 ways of committing suicide” — and her younger daughter was advised by police to leave the country.
Ms Shoesmith claims Mr Balls “acted in haste” and ordered an illegal inspection upon which he based the reason for her sacking. The hearing is expected to concluded tomorrow, with judgment
at a later date.
Reader views (31)
She should have had a big notice on her wall saying "THE BUCK STOPS HERE".
She seems to forget that she was in charge and failed.
- Grumpy As Hell, wimbledon, 08/10/2009 19:53
Report abuse
Ed Balls should never have been left in this position
Haringey Council should hang their heads in shame, these
are babies, If Ed Balls had not intervened the country
would have been up in arms what he did was an emergency
and rightfully treat it as such.
- Cb, Middlesbrough England, 08/10/2009 17:13
Report abuse
why will she never work again ? there are plenty of jobs around she needs to take a pay cut
- Bob, stamford, 08/10/2009 16:36
Report abuse
Salary, status, no accountability. Typical New Labour!
- Philip, London, England, 08/10/2009 15:58
Report abuse
She has no decency, but will probably win her case. If Ball couldn't legally sack her he should have sought a change in the law. These are the laws Labour brought in.
- Davidke, ramsey isle of man, 08/10/2009 15:07
Report abuse
This case is just one of so many over so many years that makes the strong case that having children isn't a 'right', but a 'privilege' and that people should be made to demonstrate in some way that they are up to the wonderful, but multi faceted, arduous and 24 hour a day seven days a week, 52 weeks a year x 20 years task. While this particular social worker team seemingly had little ability and know how, they had a huge work load. It is wrong to expect social workers and schools to be responsible for picking up and reassembling these abused and unhappy children (created by neglectful (for whatever reason) parents) into happy, functioning people. That system doesn't work, for quite simply children need 24 hour a day care and love; and no social worker or outreach team in the world can be there all the time for all the needy children. All that happens is yet more children are doomed to be born and repeat the cycle.
- Helen, norwich, 08/10/2009 14:52
Report abuse
Oh dear....such emotion. all directed at this woman. Has not anybody learnt that behind every headline is the true story.
Social Servicers across the Country are a failure full stop. If the kid does not die before in care more likely to die a death of a thousand emotional 'wounds' over their time in care and shunting from one 'paid' carer to another..then when 16, dumped into the real world and all support gone.
The Myth has finaly been broken that Social Services does not work and yes this woman is the scapegoat. How do we know this ? because every Social Services dept across the Country just carries on as before.
Did Ed Balls, as the Minister IN CHARGE resign ??....thought not.
- Clif, London, 08/10/2009 13:31
Report abuse
Her arrogance is staggering. If she had even a shred of self respect and decency she would never show her face again. She has shown no remorse for the part she played in the death of the baby. She should be charged with criminal neglect.
- R.F.York, Yorks, UK, 08/10/2009 13:30
Report abuse
Just because the Minister followed public opinion (for once) does not mean he was swayed by it. He had a report to offer him guidance, which he was fully entitled to accept. The revelation today of additional cases of neglect confirms his decision was correct. Why does the applicant claim she will never work again? She could have my job, if she bothered to apply. Or does she mean she will never work again on such a generous salary?
- Bloke, Lambeth, 08/10/2009 13:20
Report abuse
Can't get another job? I should think you can't. Only in Local Government is there an expectation that she should have a right to be given 'another go' at a similar top ranking job. You failed at your job. You don't have the right to take a similar position and you shouldn't expect to. Take a job as a waitress and work hard and maybe one day a different career path will open that you are suited to. It certainly isn't a career in protecting children
- Mr Opinion, london, 08/10/2009 12:57
Report abuse
Well said John Bull, does she not realize that the whole nation are against her rantings.
- C Cusano, Bedford, 08/10/2009 12:39
Report abuse
"the council had 632 looked-after children"
That's a hell of a lot of kids in care, I'd be more concerned as to why so many people are having children when they're obviously not fit for purpose. At a higher level you've have to say successive governments have been encouraging this type of person to have children by offering attractive benefits to do so. Perhaps if you made people more accountable for their actions in the first place then they might think twice, then again, the mentality of some can never be fathomed.
- Bob, Cheam, 08/10/2009 12:27
Report abuse
It's a pity that this woman did not pay as much attention to the children, who were ultimate responsibility, as she does looking after her own affairs.
I don't think there is anybody in the country, apart from her cronies, who think she did not get her just desserts; let's hope the judge shares these views as well.
- John Bull, London, 08/10/2009 12:10
Report abuse
What I find absolutely disgraceful, and, unforgivable, is that her case is based on the technicalities of how she was dismissed, not on her deplorable performance. This unfortunatly is a result of the PC, and, targets driven strategy of this government, which unfortunately bears no relation to achieving real efficiency, or, improvement in performance. This may of course have something to do with the fact that the Ministers who set these targets have no experience of what it is like in the real world, and, as many will find out very shortly their 'experience' has no value whatsoever in the private sector! We did however elect these 'dummies' so, we can't complain, and, for anybody to say we do not have to put up with it for much longer, my response would be, they are all the same, 'same bottle, different label' Its very hard to have a positive outlook for the future if you are a citizen of the UK!
- Kevin Sullivan, Roehampton, London, 08/10/2009 12:04
Report abuse
Great to see the effort and vigour she is putting in defending herself. If only.......
- Hansel, London, 08/10/2009 11:55
Report abuse
I suggest the court should award Ms Shoesmith an English dictionary with the entry for "Humility" clearly marked.
Had she been as concerned with the plight of those desparate children as she apparently is with the consequences to herself, a tragedy may have been avoided.
She was well paid to oversee Haringey's measures to protect vulnerable children. Those measures failed, and that failure happened on her watch and is therefore her responsibility. Any suffering experienced by Ms Shoesmith is nothing when compared to that endured for most of his life by the innocent Baby P.
Ms Shoesmith compounds the shame of her part in Haringey's failures by bringing this action at all. I'm no fan of Ed Balls, but he did the right thing.
- John C, Leatherhead, UK, 08/10/2009 11:14
Report abuse
Has the woman no shame?
Compensation for what?
So how much was the childs life worth?
- C Cusano, Bedford, 08/10/2009 10:13
Report abuse
Suicidal thoughts and financial ruin? AT LEAST YOUR STILL ALIVE.
- Irene Baawuah, London, 08/10/2009 10:05
Report abuse
EDITED by admin @ 12.24 on Ovtober 8 2009
Breach of community guidelines
- Nowan King, London, 08/10/2009 09:44
Report abuse
Shoesmith's attitude sums up public sector workers - they're happy to take their salaries and gold plated pensions but take no responsibility.
Even if her dismissal was not procedurally correct, her removal was morally so. She precided over an inefficient department that resulted in the death of at least one child. She should be embarassed to be bringing this action.
- Adam, London, 08/10/2009 09:00
Report abuse
I think this woman should be on trial for criminal negligence, not looking for cash hand outs from the courts.
- Thomas, London, 08/10/2009 08:54
Report abuse
This is the problem when you pander to the court of public opinion and government pressure. If the correct disciplinary porccedures had been adhered to then the same result would probably have been arrived at anyway. Everyone is entitled to a fair hearing, however bad their misconduct. That is what this country is about. Fair justice for all. She will probably win her case and it will be sent back to Haringey for a proper disciplinary hearing to take place. She will then be sacked. A bit of a hollow victory and a complete waste of additional tax payers money which could all have been avoided had political expediency not over taken common sense.
- B Gare, Norfolk Gorleston, 08/10/2009 08:49
Report abuse
If only Sharon Shoesmith has stood up for the IDENTIFIED being abused children at the time that Baby Peter was discovered to have been slowly tortured to death.
She should have said that Child Protection in Practice is NOT a Childrens' Sevice but a very seperate thing which requires specialised expertise and as such she was not fit for the job that she took.
Ms Shoesmith has said to have had suicicial thoughts due to the public anger expressed regardidng the preventable death of little Peter.
Ms shoesmith should stand in the shoes of many of the individuals who have had to make a child abuse report to Child Protecion Units, like Haringey's.
They contemplate suicide everyday whilst they 'watch' child protection in practice and fear for the safety of the children.
They are well versed in 'the no one else shares your concerns' mantra of the SS and are very familiar with the latest injuries seen on the children being deemed 'injuries of the self-inflicted kind.
They know that Baby Peter was 'a very clumbsy child'
If only Baby Peter could appeal !
- Darnthesafetynet, London W11 1NR, 08/10/2009 08:31
Report abuse
"She has been financially ruined"? She was pulling down £2,000 a week, for God's sake! You mean she didn't have any savings?
"Sharon Shoesmith said she considered suicide over the Baby P tragedy."
Maybe if she'd actually DONE it, I could find some respect for her.
- Croyboy, Croydon, 08/10/2009 08:30
Report abuse
She was the Boss and the buck stays with her, She should have gone to jail to set an example to other useless Social Bosses.
- Stan White, leeds, 08/10/2009 08:29
Report abuse
Shoesmith has less credibility than a dead rattlesnake.
Join the dole queue Shoesmith along with the other 4,000,000 unemployed in the UK.
Quite how she justifies wasting High Court time and money beggars belief.
- Reuben Camara, Morecambe Compound, EUSSR, 08/10/2009 08:29
Report abuse
Sometimes there has to be exceptional cases where the current law has to be overidden.. not a good thing in a democratic society. This is one of them. I have no love for Laboour or indeed Ed Balls however on this occasion he earns full mmarks for the prompt action he took in this horrendous case.
- Strongbow Sullivan, Paris,France., 08/10/2009 08:06
Report abuse
EDITED by admin @ 12.25 on October 8 2009
Breach of community guidelines
- Dannyp, Egham, 08/10/2009 08:04
Report abuse
Death is emotional and even very much more so when it involves a poor defenceless tot. Just of thought of his suffering brings to tears to my eyes.
As much I despise Balls only this once I will agree with him for sacking that wretched woman. In the corporate world he would be charged with corporate murder. My total disgust for the woman, I hope she burns in hell.
- Asw, HK, 08/10/2009 08:00
Report abuse
We all know she`ll get the payout - the law is feeding off itself as usual, lawyers will get richer and no real sense of justice will prevail amongst their fodder - us.
You cannot put a sterling value on a babies life, but awarding her £xxx taxpayers money is going to be the legally justified value of gross incompetence.
- Darius, London UK, 08/10/2009 08:00
Report abuse
It's called justice you silly woman.
- Fred, London, 08/10/2009 07:30
Report abuse
