Agenda item

To receive a presentation on learning from serious case reviews.

Sarah Peel, Manager of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board (LSCB) gave the presentation that had been previously given to all practitioners regarding the lessons to be learnt from the case of Baby Peter.

The make up of the Local Safeguarding Children Board’s was a multi disciplinary one with partners across the voluntary sector.  A serious case review (SCR), could be requested by anyone and  was carried out when factors such abuse or neglect were know or suspected or when a child died or was seriously injured. The importance of having an independent Chair of a SCR was explained, and it was noted that the focus was on learning not apportioning blame. Since the case of Baby Peter OFSTED had produced further guidance on SCR’s and reviews were now graded. The exercise was a complicated but robust one. They should be self critical with a good action plan.

Good social work was about being clear about the risks, not being uncompassionate but keeping the priority and focus on the child. Child protection work was complex and assessment was a process constantly under review.   In Baby Peter’s case it was known from the outset that there were indicators of risk and later it became known that every agency had not taken the opportunity to review their assessment. The facts had been reduced in significance in the face of adults’ apparent willingness to comply and professionals’ willingness to believe. Agencies needed to be authoritative, to create challenge and to share information appropriately. Files across the agencies had to be accessed and research into a family’s background should be seen as part of a core assessment for a social worker. Good child protection involved all agencies and child protection plans had to be clear about what a task was intended to achieve and who was responsible for what. A background of abuse could suggest vulnerability. It should be accepted that parents told lies, often based on a fear that their children could be taken away, Authorities were told what they wanted to hear. However social workers had to be sceptical of the accounts given and should test thoroughly against the facts. Also they should not confuse an apparent good adult/child interaction with a strong attachment. Nor should willingness to comply be confused with an actual willingness to accept the need for change. A proper assessment of the quality of attachment took time and required expertise. A seen child should not be considered a safe one; the social worker had to have empathy with the child.

The presence of domestic violence in a household was another indicator of risk, and where there was domestic violence in a family with a child under 12 months old (including an unborn child) a single incident of domestic violence should trigger a child protection investigation. In Haringey there were many vulnerable families and it was easy to be too tolerant of levels of neglect and miss the individual risk indicators. The Committee noted that the Council’s Domestic Violence Co-ordinator was working on awareness training for all front line staff and a workshop was to be held on the issue. Also there had been a raised level of awareness and around 20% of referrals were related to domestic violence.

Members noted the checklist of expectations for all professionals working in this field.

The Committee were advised that in order for the situation to improve there had to be adequate time, training, and supervision.

RESOLVED:

That the Local Safeguarding Children Board’s child protection handbook be given to all Councillors.