Wednesday, 24 March 2010

These Professionals Aren’t Just ‘Stuck’…

…they are actively and deliberately looking the other way for politically correct reasons:
A baby boy has starved to death despite being under the care of at least nine doctors, social workers and health visitors.
That first sentence, something’s missing. What could it be..?

Ah, yes, right. The word ‘another’ as in ‘Another baby has..’.
The helpless 10-month-old wasted away in his pram at his mother's flat even though he was seen at least 15 times in six months by care professionals.
I’m not sure the ‘even though’ is relevant there. Would anyone really be surprised at this, after the others?

So, how was this one allowed to do what she did?

Well, would you believe that political correctness played a part? Well of course you would. You know who we’re dealing with, after all:
Police began a murder inquiry and Saymon's 29-year-old Eritrean-born mother Yirgalem Michael was arrested for child neglect.

She had avoided contact with care workers by complaining that her human rights would be breached if they used an Eritrean interpreter to question her - in case her close-knit community found out she had HIV.
/facepalm

Is that all it takes these days? That’s all you need to back a ravening social work team down?
Despite this and the fact that there were concerns about her parenting skills, she was allowed to keep Saymon and his four-year-old sister.

She had already admitted 'hearing voices' and had expressed fears for her baby's health.
Clearly, she posed less of a risk than someone a little bit slow on the uptake. Except to a social worker’s career, that is, and we know how they value those above all else…

And there’ll be no justice for the child (again):
Miss Michael spent only an hour in police custody before being taken to St Mary's Hospital in Paddington, West London where she died two days after her son from a rare brain condition linked to her HIV.

The family are believed to have come to Britain from East Africa several years ago and settled in the West Midlands.

They immediately came to the attention of social workers and the daughter was placed on the at-risk register.
Was there ever a more aptly-named system than the ‘at risk’ register system? Except for those instances when it should be called the ‘file and forget’ register…
But the girl, who cannot be named, was later removed from the register and the mother moved to Birmingham where she had her son, Saymon, last year.

In September 2009, she was rehoused in London after she claimed she had been beaten up by the children's father.

A series of visits by health visitors and social workers from Westminster City Council followed. But despite a growing file of evidence that all was not well, nothing was done.
Why bother collecting that evidence at all, then? For the inevitable ‘lessons must be learned’ review?
Two health trusts were responsible for the family, and a source with knowledge of the case said: 'It is completely unacceptable in modern Britain that a baby can starve to death while supposedly under the care of a dozen or so professionals.'
No s***, Sherlock…

The inevitable scenes are being played out:
Michael O'Connor, Westminster City Council's director for children and young people, said: 'Neither of the children were on the child protection register and there is no suggestion that they were at risk.'
Apart from, that is, all the evidence in the file no-one bothered to actually act on..?
Terry Bamford of Westminster's Local Safeguarding Children Board, said an independent serious case review would take place.
Oh, how nice – biscuits for twenty in the main meeting room, only soya milk for the tea, please…
Central and North West London Trust refused to comment and Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust said it was carrying out its own inquiry.
Why bother? Your earlier report has already concluded that this was a bolt from the blue, unforeseen and unforeseeable…
…a confidential report on the case - seen by the Daily Mail - concludes: 'Are there any lessons to be learned from this preliminary investigation?
'No. Are there any immediate actions that need to be taken? No.'
‘Will anyone be sacked?’

What do you think?

8 comments:

Angry Exile said...

" Clearly, she posed less of a risk than someone a little bit slow on the uptake."

In fairness Kerry Robertson wasn't that slow. After all she did see what was coming and had the sense to do a runner, just not far enough unfortunately. No doubt she'll be reading this story with great bitterness and an inability to understand why her son was taken from her and why she couldn't marry his father when someone who hears voices can keep their baby right up until someone pronounces the poor mite dead from starvation. Kerry Robertson will not be the only one because sure as fuck I don't understand it either.

patently said...

She had avoided contact with care workers by complaining that her human rights would be breached if they used an Eritrean interpreter to question her - in case her close-knit community found out she had HIV.

Could someone explain to me how - if an interpreter was needed - she communicated this fact to the social workers without using an interpreter??

Or, if an interpreter was used in order to inform the social workers that she was not willing to use an interpreter, how did that not either (a) prove that she was wrong and that there was at least one interpreter capable of acting with discretion or (b) show that it was too late, they must already know she is HIV+ ?

Duh.

Trevor said...

'..someone a little bit slow on the uptake."

Our self-appointed guardians decree that certain people lack the formidable intellect required to change a nappy. If only they applied an equally robust test to entry to their own ranks.

Anonymous said...

I suspect that the young woman who was persecuted because of her low IQ, simply fell into the ethnic balance trap. The "at risk" registers must be racially balanced, after all.

Just like the security trap at the airport, when they have to put some old white granny through the third degree, just to keep the statistics right.

allcoppedout said...

My experience has been even worse than this. Most cops, social and housing workers have no idea how to get evidence, and will beat up on complainants rather than go about getting it. The exceptional cases reaching the news are the tip of an iceberg, not exceptions.

JuliaM said...

"Kerry Robertson will not be the only one because sure as fuck I don't understand it either."

Ditto!

"Could someone explain to me how - if an interpreter was needed - she communicated this fact to the social workers without using an interpreter??"

Good point!

"I suspect that the young woman who was persecuted because of her low IQ, simply fell into the ethnic balance trap."

Also having a new-born, non-disabled white child (eminently adoptable) helped too...

"The exceptional cases reaching the news are the tip of an iceberg, not exceptions."

Now, that's a scary thought!

kenS said...

complaining that her human rights would be breached

Who decides what is a breach of human rights? The courts? Or social workers? Was it really the case that the social workers suggested an interpreter and the Eritrean woman communicated (somehow) that she considered this to be a breach of her human rights, so the social workers said, "Right you are miss" and toddled off?

Furor Teutonicus said...

In September 2009,.... she claimed she had been beaten up by the children's father.

Through a "human right breaching Eritrean interpreter", I presume?

Woolworths, as the closed, obviously sold the "pick and mix" section to the "human rights" lobby.