By Liz Davies
The social worker for Baby P described her role to the court as being 'there to support the family' a perspective restated by Haringey's document entitled 'Support offered to family of child A' rather than 'action taken to protect the child'..
In 1994, Wendy Rose of the Department of Health, promoted the shift in government policy from child protection to family support. By providing services to a wider group of children in need she queried what the political reaction would be to some hard-end cases being missed. It was recognised that refocusing professional attention from children at high risk of harm to assessment of all children in need would lead to tragedies. This policy was swiftly accelerated post-Climbie.
Of course it isn't an either/or because, within a protection strategy, a supportive approach may well keep the child safe. However, in the case of Baby P, classic indicators should have made it apparent that this approach would not work - unexplained, bizarre injuries in a very young child and a confused picture about adults in contact with the child. Proactively examining evidence, collating information about injuries and explanations, targeting perpetrators and ensuring the child's safety is the role of a joint police and social work investigation. Unlike Victoria Climbie, Baby P was defined as a child in need of protection but child protection conferences are only as effective as the investigation informing them. In 2003, Laming commented that he had not seen evidence of section 47 investigation in Haringey and current Haringey recommendations suggest that these multi agency processes may remain seriously flawed.
In both the Climbie and Baby P case professionals implemented the family support model whilst serious injuries remained unexplained, investigations were outstanding and the child's safety was not assured. Informed child protection work may or may not have prevented both child deaths but the knowledge base for protecting children exists and must be implemented.
The role of senior management with respect to critical decisions about placement and legal proceedings in the Baby P case awaits scrutiny and the reasons for the social worker's approach to the case must be explored and understood. The spotlight is now on Haringey but across the country serious case reviews have highlighted deficits in children's policy. The political reaction to this particular hard hitting tragedy is colossal. Now is the time to reclaim the language of protection, restore specialist child protection social work teams and protocols, joint work with police to investigate harm and the child protection register. The unethical and unacceptable alternative is to do nothing and await the next tragedy.
Liz Davies is senior lecturer in social work at the London Metropolitan University
Is the Baby P case symptomatic of a wider problem? Join the debate on our Carespace discussion forum
Of course it isn't an either/or because, within a protection strategy, a supportive approach may well keep the child safe. However, in the case of Baby P, classic indicators should have made it apparent that this approach would not work - unexplained, bizarre injuries in a very young child and a confused picture about adults in contact with the child. Proactively examining evidence, collating information about injuries and explanations, targeting perpetrators and ensuring the child's safety is the role of a joint police and social work investigation. Unlike Victoria Climbie, Baby P was defined as a child in need of protection but child protection conferences are only as effective as the investigation informing them. In 2003, Laming commented that he had not seen evidence of section 47 investigation in Haringey and current Haringey recommendations suggest that these multi agency processes may remain seriously flawed.
In both the Climbie and Baby P case professionals implemented the family support model whilst serious injuries remained unexplained, investigations were outstanding and the child's safety was not assured. Informed child protection work may or may not have prevented both child deaths but the knowledge base for protecting children exists and must be implemented.
The role of senior management with respect to critical decisions about placement and legal proceedings in the Baby P case awaits scrutiny and the reasons for the social worker's approach to the case must be explored and understood. The spotlight is now on Haringey but across the country serious case reviews have highlighted deficits in children's policy. The political reaction to this particular hard hitting tragedy is colossal. Now is the time to reclaim the language of protection, restore specialist child protection social work teams and protocols, joint work with police to investigate harm and the child protection register. The unethical and unacceptable alternative is to do nothing and await the next tragedy.
Liz Davies is senior lecturer in social work at the London Metropolitan University
Is the Baby P case symptomatic of a wider problem? Join the debate on our Carespace discussion forum
Leave a comment