Michael Chambers QC, prosecuting, said: "When Joshua was admitted to hospital on Friday October 26 2007 'alarm bells rang' with doctors, social workers and police officers who attended.And so, with the child now safe, the authorities swung into action. Right?
"In this case there were all the signs typical of systematic child abuse.
"For that reason rather than be sent home after his left arm was put in a plaster cast as would usually be the case, Joshua was admitted to a paediatric ward at Warrington General Hospital.
Not exactly:
"On the following Thursday afternoon Joshua was discharged from hospital and allowed to go home with his mother rather than be admitted into the temporary care of social services.I'm not sure why they make a point of saying that a factor in their mitigation is that the family weren't known to the SS, when we've seen time and again that even when they are, the SS still fail to act.
"The doctors, social workers and the police involved had held a number of meetings.
"Joshua's family was not previously known to social services.
"They accepted at face value the explanations they were given.
He added: "However, the prosecution do say that those who made that decision were to some extent deceived by the actions of Nichola Bowman and her family.You mean, child abusers lie to the authorities? Say it ain't so!
So, what sort of people were these, to so cunningly pull the wool over the eyes of the 'professionals'?
...on October 31, while Joshua was in hospital, Bowman sent Mr Jones a message reading: "Let me no wen social services have bin.Well, of course not.
"r u hoin c mention his black eyes coz if you do they mite not let him home. i NOT told them u take coke."
Mr Chambers said: "This could be construed as a threat: 'I won't mention you take cocaine if you don't mention the black eyes'."
He added: "So when Nichola Bowman took Joshua home she knew perfectly well what had been happening to him at the hands of the defendant Wayne Davenport - or at the very least ought to have known, yet did nothing to protect him.
What's her child's health and happiness, when set against the wishes of her latest drug-abusing live-in sperm donor?
What saddens me about these cases is a complete lack of interested parties. Surely this child has a father and four grandparents?
ReplyDeleteI suspect they probably fall into two categories:
ReplyDeletea) whole family are as bad as each other, or,
b) grandparents have done their best, but been ignored by the authorities