Heads must roll....
by Celia Hannon
It is clear that Sharon Shoesmith should have resigned as a result of the failings in her department (although she was entitled to wait for an inquiry to be carried out), yet the treatment she has received in the press is unacceptable. Vilified on an almost daily basis on the front page of The Sun; it was also reported today that she and her daughter have received numerous death threats along with emails suggesting she should commit suicide. It's particularly notable that much of the abusive material has been 'more personal than that aimed at the three found guilty' of the crime itself. It seem that this crime is so incomprehensible it is almost easier to direct hatred towards professionals rather than the perpetrators themselves.
Let's put this in perspective. This a woman who has also been described as a dedicated public servant (more than 60 local Head teachers wrote a letter in her support at the outset of this scandal). Social Workers are particularly vulnerable to exactly this form of media persecution - there is not a strong enough equivalent to the British Medical Association to speak on their behalf. Meanwhile, all of this will only serve to deepen the crisis in social worker recruitment (a shortage which was already found to have contributed to the failings in Haringey).
When terrible things happen, we look for catharsis. Yet the removal of Sharon Shoesmith and her colleagues from office will do nothing to address the deeper failings of the care system. If we want to learn the right lessons from this tragedy we need to remember that hard cases make bad law. As more children are put into care as a direct result of Baby P's death, we need to be sure that the care system is actually improving their life chances rather than damaging them.
Our national propensity to look for the scapegoat is distracting us from the real question - how can we remove the disincentives for social workers to take children into state protection in the first place?
Steph May
There can be little doubt that the media coverage following the publication of the case has been abhorrent. I think it is missing the point. Lest we forget that Sharon Shoesmith and her colleagues did not kill Baby P; his mother, her lover and their lodger did that over many months of abuse and neglect.
Social Services are clearly not free from blame but I cannot conceive that someone of Sharon Shoesmith's standing was conversant to all the facts of the matter at every stage of social services interaction with the family and encouraged, authorised or directed that Baby P not be removed from the family home.
The case demonstrates a (depressingly common) colossal breakdown of intra and inter agency communications. Sharon Shoesmith ought to have resigned following the inquiry, but the fact is that the fault here is systematic, not personal.
It is another example of impulsive and sensationalist reporting (by the usual suspects) and the rather unimaginative declaration that, by removing Sharon Shoesmith, the world will be a better place tomorrow and there won't be anymore Baby P's. At least, not in Haringey. Next week, the Sun will have a new campaign, having solved another of society's ills. And Sun readers will forget.
It is common in cases with frequent social services interaction over a significant period of time that a number of social workers will be involved with a particular file. Inevitably a lack of efficient communication between social workers and by the social services with other agencies who will have received referrals, such as the police etc. means that no one case worker can assess the situation objectively and make informed strategic decisions.
For my part, I do not believe that there is a reticence to place children within the social care system per se, but rather an inherent presumption that children are always better off remaining in the family home, even when it is clearly dysfunctional and abusive.
The rehabilitation of the family will often take precedence over the needs of the child and even when co operation with parents has broken down irretrievably and it becomes obvious that rehabilitation is impossible, the emphasis on rehabilitation persists.
Any minor (and often misguided) suggestion that parents are beginning to co operate, and utilise the numerous support services offered (for example psychological assessments of the family), only perpetuates the inclination to place further resources into rehabilitation over a longer period of time, thereby increasing the risk of further neglect and harm of vulnerable children.
I do not question the sentiment. Rehabilitation should always be considered, particularly in cases where parents have a low IQ and a limited insight into effective and responsible parenting. However, in cases of extreme abuse, such as that of Baby P, it ought to have been obvious had there been structured and open communication, that this was a hopeless endeavour.
The emphasis now should be on improving communications and inter agency co operation to educate social workers in discerning those cases where rehabilitative efforts will be unsuccessful, unhelpful and, in extreme cases, even fatal.
I cannot see how the vilification of one individual is particularly helpful here. Meanwhile, depressingly, reporting on those who should be justifiably vilified appear scant and rather confined to the footnotes.
Sonia Sodha
I agree. I also think the media reporting of this case throws up other issues - in particular, its morbid fascination with the intricate details of how the abuse happened. Of course the facts of the case have their place in the reporting of the story to some extent – they will be important in ensuring that lessons are learned for the future. But I find the way in which some sections of the media seem to have seen it as their role to construct blow-by-blow, sensationalist accounts of how and when the abuse happened for consumption by the general public incredibly distasteful – surely this level of detail can be reserved for the courts and the enquiry into how this was allowed to happen? Aren’t the bare facts of the case shocking, tragic and terrible enough: that a baby known to social services died after months of abuse in the hands of his parents and carers?