Post by fionan on Nov 7, 2011 9:05:11 GMT 1
I've just had a quick look at the Executive Summaries of Serious Case Reviews carried out by Lancs Safeguarding Children Board.
www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/web/?siteid=3829&pageid=20753&e=e
The Council does not have a good track record in the area of "safeguarding" . Schools do not necessarily keep children "safe." Professionals do not share information related to either to a child at risk of significant harm or to a child in need of services.
" During the Review Process attendance of professionals at Child
Protection Review Conferences was poor. This resulted in
Conferences being cancelled on a regular basis and reports not being
made available. Core Group Meetings were also poorly supported and
record keeping of certain agencies has been recognised as being less
than acceptable."
"Child F’s health continued to decline. Comments from child F’s school
5.12
indicate that misbehaviour was an issue and at one stage child F was
subject to a short term of suspension. Record keeping in the school
was highlighted as being poor with basic information such as the fact
that child F’s name had been on the Child Protection Register not
being passed on to Heads of Year."
Did the family receive sufficient help to cope with the full time care of
child F? The answer to this is probably not. Child F should have been
identified and considered as a Child In Need as defined in the 1989
Children’s Act. This requires the Local Authority to afford specific
assistance to the individual by way of services. There is no evidence
within this Review that indicates that the family of child F were
9
receiving any assistance other than a blue badge for disabled parking.
This may be because the family themselves declined assistance. If this
is so, this fact is not recorded in any documentation that has been
offered to this Review. It may have been refused on the grounds that it
did not fit well within the accepted culture of the family. This was never
explored
6.17 The financial strain alone cannot be understated in this case. Good
nutrition is an important factor for a person with this illness to stay well.
Child F’s parents were expected to provide a cooked breakfast each
day and other cooked meals together with items such as gold top milk
and snacks. The family dynamics together with the financial strain must
have been immense.
6.18 Child F was indeed a Child In Need and the level of support offered to
parents would have been important if the level of care was to be
effective. There was clearly a supportive role for Social Care to play
during the life of child F. The Individual Management Review of that
agency does not supply any evidence of support to child F or F's family
in this case. It may well be that if assistance was offered it was refused
but if that is the situation the offer of assistance has not been
documented or identified."
[Child F www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/web/viewdoc.asp?id=65954 ]
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Council needs to get its own house in order and to deal with far more urgent priorities for "safeguarding" .
www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/web/?siteid=3829&pageid=20753&e=e
The Council does not have a good track record in the area of "safeguarding" . Schools do not necessarily keep children "safe." Professionals do not share information related to either to a child at risk of significant harm or to a child in need of services.
" During the Review Process attendance of professionals at Child
Protection Review Conferences was poor. This resulted in
Conferences being cancelled on a regular basis and reports not being
made available. Core Group Meetings were also poorly supported and
record keeping of certain agencies has been recognised as being less
than acceptable."
"Child F’s health continued to decline. Comments from child F’s school
5.12
indicate that misbehaviour was an issue and at one stage child F was
subject to a short term of suspension. Record keeping in the school
was highlighted as being poor with basic information such as the fact
that child F’s name had been on the Child Protection Register not
being passed on to Heads of Year."
Did the family receive sufficient help to cope with the full time care of
child F? The answer to this is probably not. Child F should have been
identified and considered as a Child In Need as defined in the 1989
Children’s Act. This requires the Local Authority to afford specific
assistance to the individual by way of services. There is no evidence
within this Review that indicates that the family of child F were
9
receiving any assistance other than a blue badge for disabled parking.
This may be because the family themselves declined assistance. If this
is so, this fact is not recorded in any documentation that has been
offered to this Review. It may have been refused on the grounds that it
did not fit well within the accepted culture of the family. This was never
explored
6.17 The financial strain alone cannot be understated in this case. Good
nutrition is an important factor for a person with this illness to stay well.
Child F’s parents were expected to provide a cooked breakfast each
day and other cooked meals together with items such as gold top milk
and snacks. The family dynamics together with the financial strain must
have been immense.
6.18 Child F was indeed a Child In Need and the level of support offered to
parents would have been important if the level of care was to be
effective. There was clearly a supportive role for Social Care to play
during the life of child F. The Individual Management Review of that
agency does not supply any evidence of support to child F or F's family
in this case. It may well be that if assistance was offered it was refused
but if that is the situation the offer of assistance has not been
documented or identified."
[Child F www.lancashire.gov.uk/corporate/web/viewdoc.asp?id=65954 ]
It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the Council needs to get its own house in order and to deal with far more urgent priorities for "safeguarding" .
