General Chat

Over many many years governments of all persuasions have been aware of our antiquated laws relating to the protection of vulnerable children and in my opinion it is high time that government got their fingers out and stop talking about it and take action to stop the abuse and neglect of children.

The Prime Minister David Cameron did not miss a single opportunity at his party's recent conference to tell everyone how compassionate and caring his government is, that being the case, he should, without any further dilly-dallying, bring in legislation to ensure that social workers and the police have all the powers they need to enable them to act swiftly to protect vulnerable children from neglect and abuse. They should also, in regards to the funding that they give to local authorities for social care, ring fence an adequate amount for the protection of vulnerable children so that the money does not get siphoned off for some other purpose.

As can be seen from the article below in the telegraph on 07 Feb 2013 the government is fully aware that current legislation is inadequate.

Extract from the article in the Telegraph:-

Baroness Butler-Sloss, the former President of the Family Division of the High Court, is leading a drive to overhaul the current laws, which date back to Victorian times, completely replacing the notion of neglect with a new crime of “child maltreatment”.

For the first time, inflicting emotional and psychological harm on children would be treated as seriously as causing physical injuries or abandoning them.

It follows a string of cases in which the authorities have failed to step in early enough despite warning signs of neglect and abuse, including the Baby P case and the Edlington torture scandal.

Baroness Butler-Sloss, now a cross-bench peer, has helped draft an amendment to the Government’s Crime and Courts Bill, which is currently being considered by a committee of MP's, to overhaul the neglect laws, with the support of the charity Acton for Children.

The current law on “willful neglect” is governed by the Children and Young Persons Act 1933.

Risk assessment is something we all do all the time. If grandchildren are visiting, I suspect most grandparents have a quick risk assess - is that pan handle round right way, are there knives on edge of work surfaces that could fall, is the garden pond covered if they play in the garden, is the gate secure?

Same with visitors to homes, like care workers. In 15 minutes, they should be able to see if any risks in that home have significantly increased (the client might say that she accidently forgot to lock the door the previous night, or that her closest friend who came and had a cup of tea with her every day and a chat had died).

Anyway, back to Hutton family. No one could even get access to that home. Now that must be a huge risk factor for all those children.

those points you highlight could occur in any environment - council or private, and probably do - and when you say "risk assessment" - who exactly is going to carry out these risk assessments? Public services are being cut to the core - on the news just this morning it seems in England at least, only 15 minutes per client is allocated for carers who visit vulnerable people in their homes - that's to get them out of bed, wash them, dress them and give them some breakfast - not possible

I am staggered by that reply, Kay?? If you are right.

It would seem common sense to me to increase the risk factors for family neglect and abuse if any of the following occurred:

1. Domestic violence
2. Truency from school
3. Alcohol or drug dependency
4. No domestic stability (several partners)
5. Children in trouble with authorities
6. Property damage and neglect
7. KItchen and toilet areas not clean and hygienic

And a load of other factors that would lead them to monitor certain families very closely. OFITG mentioned District Nurses. They had a blanket approach and visited all children and babies in situ to see if help was needed. And risk assessment was done on those visits in an informal way. I would honestly be shocked if that was not happening now.

But, as so many are falling through the net (yet another death recorded by BRustler) you may be right. If so, it is an absolute scandal.

John the litle boy or any of Ms Huttons children had never been or were on any* at risk* list...!! only Ms Hutton for domestic abuse which resulted in her partner having a restraint order imposed on him..

Also there is no ***** more at risk**** list for where one lives and social services/childrens services do not use this method.!.

Sorry Kay!! I have absolutely no real idea what you are talking about.

I think you are probably arguing from a micro (individual) perspective (of course, this could possibly happen in any household in any locality). Abuse and neglect could happen in a palace.

And I am a talking macro (generalities). It is more likely it will happen in certain circumstances. And those circumstances include social deprivation and a whole host of other factors. There are risk factors that are used by social services.

Do you think risk assessment is not an important tool for the authorities to target their limited resources?

John ,,,,,,

If you have no inside dealings and /or knowledge,(some of us do!). then one cant generalise ,,,,,,,,,so you, them and lots are wrong.

You mean to say that the man living in green belt areas cant act and do things that someone of low income and a drinker and lives in rented houses can do,,,,,,,,,,,, smacks of snobbery.!

and what the hell Charles Booth has to do with it or insurance companies,living areas ?!!!!

Stop swaying and demeaning the thread away from its content!.

Many factors contributed to that heartbreaking outcome.

Oh dear, I must be wrong :-S :-S

So must the insurance companies who charge premiums by post code. So must all the authorities who increase risk factors for families in certain areas and certain types of accomodation. Booth was wasting his time when he drew up his social map of London. Those people who buy houses and say to the estate agent "I want to live in that nice place, not a mile down the road" are all wrong

In summary, we all must be wrong to generalise.

where someone lives - what type of property - has no bearing whatsoever on how their children are treated or how they look after their property

... OMG!!!...
Not another one please! :-(

A woman has been charged after a four-month-old girl died in a London hospital.

The 18-year-old woman faces charges of causing or allowing the death of a child and wilful neglect of three children, including the dead baby.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/woman-charged-over-baby-girls-death-144806056.html#SMWJ9B3

18yr old and three children?... Children having children... The mind boggles.
Mind you, it doesn`t actually say that all three are hers. It is possible I suppose, that she may be a child minder. (doesn`t take from the fact that a child has died un-necessarily though.)
All is speculative at the moment.

BeChaotic. Only way I know how to make these points without generalising to some degree is to actually give examples of what I mean. And that would be wrong - but rest assured I am speaking from quite a lot of experience of seeing lots of potential problems on a daily basis.

And if people have no family or friends who can support them locally, they find it very difficult to not be defeated by life. Homes get unkempt, doors and phones are not answered, bills are not paid, they dread tomorrow, they lose hope. It can be a very quick downward spiral - and is totally avoidable in many cases. Most of the symptoms are easy to spot and easy to address.

Any more sweeping generalisations you would like to make John?

There have been a lot of failings by a lot of people/agencies in this case. I wish I had the confidence to say that they will learn from it. Sadly, as has been shown in the past, I highly doubt they will.

You are right Hayley, that private house owners can neglect their property and families. But I would say it is rare. In one street in centre of Northampton of private houses worth in excess of £200k, an elderly man had a mental issue with rubbish. He claimed it was all an investment (including rotting food). It was a semi-detached and adjoining house was rat-infested. Eventually he was persuaded to move to a care home and the council took away masses of "investments", cleaned his house through and charged him (he had plenty of money and it cost a few thousand).

That happens far too often in rented property (council rented and private rented). And people seem to get away with it. They have little money so can't pay for clean up - we ratepayers pay. Or private landlords pay. Whatever we may think of landlords, no one deserves to have their property thoughtlessly trashed. And children are growing up in these horrendous conditions - what hope for their children in next generation?

Horrific story after horrific story. When will we all wake up and smell the coffee? They are families who need help, first and foremost. And they have never got any credit on their phones to wait for someone in authority to answer their phonecalls. So they let things slip, and think nobody cares about their problems.

If I had concerns about child neglect or abuse I would contact the N.S.P.C.C.

I have read that they are the only charity with 'unique' powers to intervene and go to the courts if they believe there is a child at risk.

Maybe this should have happened in some of the appalling cases that have been reported recently, rather than informing the police or social services.

On 'Any Answers' this afternoon, a recently retired Social Worker said that approx 85% of their working day was tied up with paper work.

Anyother said she was told that her priority was to protect her own back.

If the result of any enquiry adds to the paper-trail, then there will be even less time to meet and/or deal with familes.

John You didnt quiet put your concerns about council tennets in the same context as you have done today, thats why you were slated. :-D However I do not feel the need to harp on about a thread that was here a year ago there is simply no need whats said is said now and gone.

Back to the topic, not all Mothers of one parent familes are drunks and druggies and neglect their children and gardens, you can be a middle class and a GP and also be gulity of neglect but I'll say no more ;-)

Very interesting points, Janet. I just feel that this is a bit like an iceberg - six-sevenths of problems are below surface.

So many families now are living in similar conditions to Ms Hutton. Mothers have children by several partners, uncles everywhere, drugs and drink everywhere. Swearing, violence, aggression, out-of-control dogs, high debt, filth all over floors, gardens a death trap.

These families need help and support first and foremost. And perhaps a nudge, perhaps a kick now and again. I made a suggestion when I first came on chat last year that all council tenants should have a visit once a year to "snag check" their property and that the visit should not be announced. Those properties/families most at risk could then be visited far more regularly with a wide range of support/counselling etc.

Would it cost a fortune? No, because only a few households have real problems. Would it prevent more tragedies? I think so.

I was told last year I was a horrible person for targetting council tenants. But they are our responsibility as rate payers. We own their houses - we have a right to be nosy about what they are doing whilst they remain in social housing.

I have considered what would have happened in the past. For a start any woman with eight children and no father to support her children would have had them removed.

If a woman left her husband in the dark days, the children could be removed just because she had decided to leave the family home. Whilst we don't want to go back to pre/post War Britain, there were facilities, rightly or wrongly for the mentally ill patient. There were also children's homes where such children were taken. When the institutions were removed the basic back- up system went with it. The pendulum has now swung completely the other way.

If the woman had been removed to a unit (she would have been one of the lucky ones) to help her with the alcohol problem, then someone would have had to find at least six foster places for the younger children. So immediately this one family becomes seven problems. Whilst I am not pointing the finger at anyone, all cut backs are like a house of cards. Then one day everything collapses and people ask why this has happened. Voices in the back-ground will say that they have been trying to tell someone. If there is any problem in life it is virtually impossible to speak directly to a living person. Everything is automated, so people give up.

I can only look back at my own experience in the health service where forty five years ago if someone was not answering their door we spent time ringing their GP, checking the Burgess Book (electoral Rolls) telephone directories, checking with neighbours to see if the address was correct. It might seem ludicrous now the extent to which we checked. When I retired about six years ago, the young people’s attitude was if there was no reply, so what?

2 years is long time not to have contact with your child you claim to be so concerned about. What I am saying is if he was that concerned he would of shouted long enough until his voice was heard, he is quick enough now to be voicing his concerns to the press. Pity he didnt take the same stance whilst his son lay dying staving.

A friend of the mother was shown on the news last night saying that the mother was an alcoholic and need help. If she was a friend, how come she didn't notice the smell in the flat and do something about it.

At lease the father says he tried to see the children but that the mother wouldn't let him in, nor open the door and he had asked the police to investigate. Lots of fathers when they separate from the mother take little or no interest in their children.

As others have said, we all need to be aware of the children around us and take action if we feel that something isn't right.