Sharpe's Opinion

Usually I can resist blogs but not this one. I am not offering legal advice and I can only raise a certain number of issues. Well done, Blue Eyes, for raising this view in your blog (which I have also read). It reflects quite understandably issues that have given rise to widespread disquiet. Also I am indebted to Stuart, not for me sitting here but for highlighting it. What occurred or did not occur to be more precise to Baby P reflects the ills of our society.

I want to refer the Baby P case and then mention some weaknesses in the system as I see it.

The tort of negligence exists. (Although in this case the CPS could consider bringing a charge of corporate manslaughter against Haringey Council in my view. However, while it would be in the public interest, I doubt it will happen.) The difficulties with negligence is ‘making it stick.’ Did a duty of care arise? Undoubtedly yes. What was that standard of care? Well, this depends on the level of experience and skill of the person administering it and most front-line social workers are inexperienced where a lower standard may apply as that of being reasonable. Next is to show a the breach of this duty. This is where the obstacles start for the party bringing the case. It must be taken into consideration the awareness of magnitude of risk, seriousness of the risk, conduct of the parties, foreseeability and who was responsible for what. This case is ideal for buck passing. In truth, it is too easy to wriggle out on any of these factors.

I do not think causation is a problem given the conviction on other offences of the boyfriend. However, depending on the evidence, it may be shown that breaking Baby P’s back broke the chain of causation as this independently killed Baby P. The autopsy may be confusing/ inconclusive/ incomplete or inadequate as so many injuries were suffered. It might be shown that doctors should have been more responsible for helping Baby P, not social services. We then could discuss contributory negligence here. We now have to tackle the issue of remoteness whereby it has to be shown that those in charge should have been able to foresee the kind of damage suffered by Baby P. With hindsight, obviously yes, they should have known, but I understand that the social workers were not aware the boyfriend was living at the property and did not see him there. Those accused will plead ignorance and it may be difficult to prove otherwise. Then there are the defences that can be raised. BE, the costs of this case could be very substantial and what good is it really going to do in the bigger picture? It will frighten those in the profession and those going into it, where recruitment is already a difficulty. I will add that all those involved have to live the rest of their lives with their conscience about what they should have done and failed to do.

So, BE, negligence exists but it is based on fairness and it will be hard to prove in this complicated case with SO MANY professionals involved. Baby P was in a house with a psychopath and I do not know who knew what but in proving negligence you will be attempting to prove a deliberate act. I have not seen the notes but bear in mind it is always very hard to prove a negative.

Looking at the broader picture, in the system there are flaws which need to be addressed and you identify this.

Firstly, in my view there is too much middle management. They do not work at the coalface but have become very cosy. They are there because the service has been well funded for years and it is difficult to get rid of people in this industry. Personally I loathe middle management as it stops those in charge knowing what is going on, it prevents those doing the work getting full recognition directly from the top. It means that their every action is observed and commented on (middle management have to do something). I agree there must always be best practice and standard operating procedures, but middle management create too much bureacracy and are responsible for denying those who do the actual work and make home visits from having a reasonable amount of responsibility (middle management has to justify its existence).

My next bugbear is that social services, except in exceptional circumstances and often when new to the profession, fail to take a robust view. It does not pay for them to. They are up against very difficult parents who may constantly lodge complaints against them or lie. They have to justify their actions so it is often easier not to do anything; the thresholds for being satisfied that a child is ‘suffering, or is likely to suffer,’ harm become increasingly higher from the duty to investigate up to a Final Order being granted (quite rightly so). The onus of proof is on the social worker who may be lacking experience and support (as opposed to interference).

Finally let us look at Denmark where children in care have higher academic results than the national average. Foster parents and social workers are allowed to put boundaries on how parents must behave. The profession is held in far higher esteem from positive role models being promoted. Humanity exists there.

Baby P, or Peter to give him the correct recognition, is responsible for reducing the level of funding cuts being imposed on social services, although the costs of bringing a case to court have risen considerably. I hope Ed Balls lives up to his surname and tackles the reduction of the entrenched middle management. I repeat that they never seem to do anything wrong as they can blame their managers above them or those at the coalface. Yes, our system is lacking humanity because a culture has emerged where it never pays to stick your neck out.

Why, Mr Patently, thank you.

Social work has been a profession in decline coupled with the increasing difficulty of engaging those that need support. Mature women who traditionally did the work have been able to find less demanding better paid jobs elsewhere in the community. People in need have learnt to disrespect authority, resent being given unsolicited advice, and while they reflect the parenting they received, neighbours and family who previously would more readily provide assistance are no longer as available or willing. Social work also has focused on other issues such as reaching immunisation targets, breastfeeding education and accessing different cultures, so it is surprisingly easy for social workers to ignore a time-consuming case like Baby P (who had extended family, such as the maternal grandmother, living close by).

When a profession attracts less able candidates it has to impose beaucracy such as forms filling and operating procedures as well as ‘targets and “key indicators” to ensure that if challenged they can show everything has been done ‘properly.’ It has to teach people skills rather then find people who can use them effectively intuitively. This in turn detracts from the pleasure of the work so staff turnover rises. A vicious circle is created as new staff have to be more quickly inducted. Those who are ambitious reinforce the modern management culture of setting goals and writing reports in order to gain promotion and become middle management.

So what is being done? Mr Balls is reinforcing the quangos of child protection boards. Committees are not ideal for making difficult decisions and social work requires strong clear inspiring leadership.

Social services need to recruit personnel who are motivated towards this work and can empower those they meet or are able to stand up to them. The media needs to highlight children in care who have reached university despite hhaving early parenting that was appalling. A professional body with a royal charter needs to provide visible status to the work and help ensure standards are maintained. Social workers can gang up together like the police which is totally unacceptable. Patently, and yes, social workers must think objectively about what is adequate in every case. Even more critically, what they assess a situation requires should be carried through without onerous budget constraints and not subjected to the deepest scrutiny. They must have both confidence and pride in what they do, as this is essential in improving the effectiveness of their work. I hope the Report by Lord Laming tackles much of what I have highlighted.