Thanks to Jonny Humphries and BBC Online News for the Headline
A note to readers, the Headline itself is upsetting enough, the details within in it are traumatic and disturbing. However, it is the reason for me doing ” HeadlineTherapy”. We are bombarded each day with headlines, sometimes the stories behind them are inspiring , sometimes like this one; a story that generates a Headline like this is tragic . We read and digest and feel helpless to fix. Abuse keeps on happening. All sorts of tragic abuse. As we digest the Headline we lose hope that any of it will ever be fixed, but I assure you it can. We have to keep the discussion open and we have to engage the people who are basically “immune” to the bombardment of Media Soundbites. The people register what is happening, but our Media Establishment have disengaged them ( deliberately) and wish to create “journalist heroes”. They go on and on about “Mental Health”, well I assure you #HeadlineTherapy is good for Mental Health and getting people talking and interacting. There’s good news , bad news and funny news. Most people only have time to read a Headline and say “told you so”. However, if they had a programme or a podcast which highlighted the Headlines and discussed them and gave some interaction, perhaps the information would stick better. You could even produce statistics on what are the most commonly repeated “Headlines”. It would work in any Country.
19 days after Social Services closed her case a baby girl 19 months old ,and half of her expected weight arrived at hospital close to death, covered in bed sores, dehydrated and although the article didn’t say most likely in terrible pain . Fortunately she survived and although the article didn’t say what happened to her it still gave me a “flashback” to “baby Peter” who died a long time ago and was not helped by Social Services despite there being many indications that he needed help.
Thankfully the article explains how despite concerns being raised in April 2024 about care of the child and a referral to Social Services , that it was deemed despite access to the child being restricted that the child’s” basic needs” were met . In December 2024 an anonymous referral was made through a Safeguarding Hub ( I’m so glad they exist and surely if they are used this must be treated as a very big Red Flag).
Social Workers visited the same day and found the child underweight and unkempt, but the mother refused “social care involvement” and to engage with a Child and Family Assessment.
A mulit-agency strategy meeting then took place, but it was decided due to a lack of information that the “threshold had not been met” to progress the case under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. The case was closed despite the child not having had a physical visit since December 2024.
Thank heavens the baby did reach hospital and as a passing shot “practicioners should be more curious” about the every day experience of the child and that the decision not to move forward to a Section 47 was “problematic” seems a vast understatement
I would like to know how much “finance” played a part in stopping the progress of the case to a Section 47 and if anyone is interested , working out the cost of the “report” into what went wrong and comparing it to the cost of intervening in December 2024 to stop the suffering of the child. Not taking into account the costs to the NHS in getting the child back to full health. Yes for those of you interested in Finance perhaps that would identify that taking action early may be the best solution.
thenotsomightyom 