It continues to shock me the extent of child abuse cases that I am hearing on a daily basis that is resulting to death of lovely, innocent children who see their parents or carers as their protectors. The one who cares, loves, provides safety and the needs for children to grow strong individuals with confidence and self-esteem. But not in the case of Arthur and Star.
At the age of six, Arthur suffered abuse that led to his violent death in June 2020. And this was at the hands of his father and stepmother who physically assaulted, poisoned and dehumanised him over a number of months during lockdown. By the time he died, he had more than 130 injuries on his body. There is much that was shared through the court case which highlighted the extent of child abuse through the voice recordings, videos, records from services and professionals to give everyone an overview. The findings through the court case evidenced that the usual professionals that should have been involved in safeguarding a child were not involved because of the lockdown. The lead police officer on the case went on to say that “You would hope in this day and age that all the professionals work together to make sure that something like this can’t happen, and it shouldn’t happen.” Although, it did and she added that the lockdown restrictions could also have affected the level of involvement of Dickens Heath community primary school, which Arthur attended. Some professionals or services were seen as the core element in their failings, leading to the death of Arthur but, it is very important to note that they all sit in a multi-agency arrangement. Therefore, yes, the lockdown was out of anyone’s control but individuals, professionals or services working with children should have their policies and responsibility in place immediately in case of any changes on how to support children and keep them safe. It could be argued that this was not effective due to the extent of the safety concerns for those professionals themselves but it is important to identify other strategies to ensure that children are seen and kept safe.
Whereas, Star was just 16 months old, who was killed at the hands of her mother's girlfriend Savannah Brockhill - a woman her mother Frankie Smith brought into the home. For most of Star's short life, Brockhill beat and tortured the toddler, leaving her with injuries doctors likened to those caused by a car crash. Star had several fractured bones and broken ribs on the day she died. Her fatal injuries though were shown to be internal bleeding caused by severe and forceful blows either through punching, stamping or kicking her abdomen. There were also healed fractures too, showing Star had been beaten time and time again. She became a baby often seen with bruises, that were dismissed by Smith and Brockhill as clumsy falls but defined by doctors as brutal attacks and they didn't go unnoticed by Star's wider family. Friends and family had reported concerns about the toddler's welfare five times in the eight months before she died. Several voices of concern were raised and shared from family and the baby sitter, but unfortunately, this was again not actioned in a serious and timely manner. Overall, this questions what is causing this not being serious but also making services or professionals being effective in their roles. We need to consider the holistic dilemma in this for all involved and not only one perspective, although not drawing away that children are slipping through the net, resulting to death.
Since the deaths of Peter Connelly (Baby P), Daniel Pelka and, sadly, many others, the Government has established stronger multi-agency working – putting a shared and equal responsibility on police, councils, education and health in local areas to work together to safeguard and promote the welfare of children, alongside a role for schools. However, where is it going wrong? What is causing professionals and services not taking their duty in safeguarding children? The continuous neglect of children who need intervention recognises that there needs to be improvements made. There will be ongoing changes in the working context from people to policies but it questions how quickly professionals or individuals adapt to this change to make the right decision such as the impact of Covid 19.
The number of reported incidents of children dying or being seriously harmed after suspected abuse or neglect rose by a quarter after England's first lockdown last year, figures indicate from NSPCC (2021). The Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel received 536 serious incident notifications in 2020-21, which is up 87 compared to 2019-20. This is the largest increase in the total number of serious incident notifications occurred during the first half of the year (60 compared with 27 in the second half of the year). Furthermore, compared with a year earlier, notifications relating to child deaths increased by 35 to 223 in 2020-21 and notifications relating to serious harm increased by 31 to 284 in 2020-21. Although the highest proportion of serious incident notifications continues to be for children under 1. These may be an increase but realistically, the data informs us that these figures and statistics are based on what is reported within the period, NOT the number of incidents that have occurred in the period. Therefore, it is arguably deceiving on what is realistically happening behind closed doors and not being reported or seen.
We have many policies and legislations that provide us guidance and protect us personally and in a working context. For children, Article 12 of The United Nations (UN) Convention on the Rights of the Child (1989) states that children have the right to have their opinions taken into account and their views respected in decision-making that affects them (UN, 1989). But following the death of Arthur Labinjo-Hughes, Dame Rachel de Souza stressed again that the voices of children must be listened to and protected. With this, I feel that there needs to be continuous training and time for reflections with individuals to enable the capacity and communication skill to explore and understand what is happening within a family rather than making assumptions or accepting things at face value such as the how Hughes and Tustin manipulated the system to avoid their abuse being detected. For instance, they allowed Arthur to play in the garden on the day of a social services visit and told them the bruises on his body were incurred from playing. But why not see the child outside playing and join in play by talking to him and letting him share his thoughts and feelings through play. Arthur had a voice but it was just not listened to. Professional curiosity needs to be inbuilt in daily practice where the focus is based on the need, voice and “lived experience” of the person or family. It is about looking deeper that what is at the surface level.
As a society, we all need to take notice and move the narrative away from one particular service or professional of ‘stealing’ or ‘failing’ children by working collectively in identifying children who are at risk and protecting them. With this, we need to be also looking at the “systematic and societal issues” including bureaucracy which allow deaths like these to happen. With this change of narrative, then only can we move towards a society where all, including our children who form the future of this society to be safe and happy. Furthermore, we need to recognise the thousands of other children who are kept safe and supported but unfortunately, they are not highlighted as much.
"Hope in the future but the power is in the present"
References
NSPCC (2021) Statistics briefing: child deaths due to abuse or neglect. Available on: https://learning.nspcc.org.uk/media/1652/statistics-briefing-child-deaths-abuse-neglect.pdf (Accessed 15/12/2021)
CONNECT WITH ME
FOLLOW ME ON:
© Bina Parmar's Blogs
SEO, SMO, SEM, SMM and website by:
