[Angus]

I have to admit I cried my eyes out when I read this story today - it just beggars belief that supposedly educated people in a profession that is allegedly there to help the most vulnerable of all, babies, allowed this to happen.


"Baby whose mother strapped him in front of fire for three days died after social services missed 17 chances to save himBy Jaya Narain
Last updated at 2:07 PM on 3rd February 2011

'Scene of unimaginable horror' when police broke into home
Former pharmacist, 39, jailed after admitting neglect
Mother had been drinking alcohol since she was eight
She admitted to drinking six bottles of wine a day
A baby was found dead in his pushchair in front of a blazing gas fire – his body charred and burned – after social services missed 17 chances to save him.

Alex Sutherland, aged 13 months, had been dead for at least three days, according to a harrowing report published yesterday.

He had faeces on his hands, legs and buggy, had severe nappy rash and had bruising on his head and body.

Tragic: Tracey Sutherland (left) was jailed following the horrific death of her baby son, Alex (right)

His mother, Tracey Sutherland, 39, a former pharmacist, was found nearby by police walking in the rain in her pyjamas and smelling of alcohol.

She later admitted neglect and was jailed for 27 months.

Yesterday a Serious Case Review found Alex died despite numerous calls to social services from relatives, friends, police, nurses and a childminder.

The report states there were 17 separate occasions when fears were raised over his welfare.

Yet he was not placed on the ‘at risk’ register and was allowed to continue living with his mother at their home in Wythenshawe, Manchester, even though she admitted drinking up to six bottles of wine a day.

The case echoes that of Baby P – Peter Connelly – a 17-month-old boy who died in 2007 after suffering up to 50 injuries over eight months, despite being repeatedly seen by Haringey Children’s services and NHS professionals.

In March 2009 a review by Lord Laming said a higher priority should be given to child protection.

He said there was a lack of communication and joined-up working between agencies and he highlighted problems, with under-trained social workers and a ‘tick box’ mentality.

The findings were published as Alex’s suffering – and the failures surrounding his case – were heading towards their tragic conclusion. Yesterday’s Serious Case Review spells out a catalogue of occasions when the authorities could have taken action.

The report, by Manchester Safeguarding Children’s Board, condemned health and social workers, saying Alex’s case was ‘poorly managed throughout’ and his neglect was ‘both predictable and preventable’.

Referring to Alex as Child T and his mother as Mrs E, it said: ‘Child T was known to agencies because of Mrs E’s misuse of alcohol, yet 17 expressions of concern (four of which alleged she was drunk) failed to trigger a reconsideration of the initial assessments that the likelihood of future significant harm was low.

‘No single agency was responsible for failing to protect Child T from the chronic neglect which he suffered at the hands of his mother, but rather he was the victim of the multiple failures of all those agencies … to recognise the risks to which he was exposed and to take appropriate action.’

The report went on: ‘There were a number of contacts made with agencies by Mrs E’s family and friends expressing concern about her drinking behaviour and the impact it had on Child T.’

It said the mother-of-two had had an alcohol problem throughout her adult life after being introduced to drink by her step-father at the age of eight.

By 2007 she was drinking six bottles of wine a day and drank throughout her pregnancy. Just three weeks after Alex was born in October 2008, police were called to the house to find him lying on the floor in front of a gas fire while Sutherland staggered around drunk.

He was returned to his mother just nine days later after Sutherland insisted she would deal with her alcohol problems. After his death, Sutherland told police: ‘This is horrible, I’m a disgrace, an absolute disgrace. I didn’t mean to harm him at all, absolute disgrace I am, sick in the head. Do I go to prison now?’

She was jailed at Manchester Crown Court in April last year.

Laura Roberts, chief executive of NHS Manchester, said: ‘We are very sorry that we…did not fully recognise the extent of his neglect.’

Pauline Newman, the city council’s director of Children’s Services, said it was clear ‘there were areas where we could have done better’.

She added: ‘We have carried out an extensive programme of work since this little boy died to ensure that staff fully understand the lessons that need to be taken on board from this tragedy.’

‘We have also further trained staff to be assertive and challenging to parents who abuse alcohol.’
Enlarge
Agencies defend action, claiming 'we were trying to do something'Ian Rush, the chairman of Manchester Safeguard Children's Board hit back at claims they did nothing to prevent the child's death.

He said that Sutherland hid the true extent of her alcohol abuse from them.

'The report is clear in saying that the level of neglect this little boy was experiencing was preventable, had things been different at certain points and had people assessed the situation in a different kind of way,' he said.

'It is important to stress that it's not as if agencies and organisations weren't trying to do something to support this mother, they were.
Judge Clement Goldstone, who jailed Sutherland, criticised social services for their 'lack of urgency'
'She was denying to them that she was drinking as much as she was and was playing down the impact that alcohol was having in her life.'

Pauline Newman, the city council's director of Children's Services, said they could have done more for the boy.

'It is clear there were areas where we could have done better,' she said.

'We have carried out an extensive programme of work with staff since this little boy died to ensure that staff fully understand the lessons that need to be taken on board from this tragedy, in particular the need to sharply focus on the experience of the child, and to understand and act upon the impact of parental alcohol abuse upon them.

'We have also further trained staff to be assertive and challenging to parents who abuse alcohol.'

Laura Roberts, chief executive of NHS Manchester, said: 'The death of this little boy was a tragedy and we offer our sincere condolences to his family and friends.

'We are very sorry that NHS Manchester, as one of the agencies involved in his care, did not fully recognise the extent of his neglect.

'The Serious Case Review clearly identifies a number of areas requiring improvement within our own organisation, and in the way we work with other agencies.

'We have also further trained staff to be assertive and challenging to parents who abuse alcohol.'


FFS, who in their right minds would ever leave a helpless baby with a self confessed alcoholic? I can't bear to think how he suffered - RIP little Alex, you're better off out of this wicked world.:unhappy:

[Zippy]

How can any woman with a bad alcohol problem ever be trusted with a child? They can't even look after themselves or even know what theyre doing a lot of the time.

Social services can't always get it right but cases like this are still shocking as it seems like a glaring case where intervention was needed. Her sentence seems pathetic too.

[Angus]

I just can't bear to think of a baby suffering like he must have - I can't get the image out of my mind. I put the blame firmly with Social Services who were well aware of this woman's alcohol abuse. What sort of morons are they employing? They should all be sacked.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by angus58

I just can't bear to think of a baby suffering like he must have - I can't get the image out of my mind. I put the blame firmly with Social Services who were well aware of this woman's alcohol abuse. What sort of morons are they employing? They should all be sacked.

I think family and friends need to take responsibility here too. They know her problems better than social services. How could they sleep knowing that child could be suffering?

But her light sentence suggests more to this story.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Zippy

I think family and friends need to take responsibility here too. They know her problems better than social services. How could they sleep knowing that child could be suffering?

But her light sentence suggests more to this story.

Yes, you're right - If I had been a relative or friend I would have risked removing the child from the house myself - I doubt the drunken waste of space of a mother would have even noticed. I find it truly shocking that kids have died, and will continue to do so in the future, because of the incompetent bureaucracy of the system..

[BB_Eye]

I couldn't read more than a few sentences of the description of what she did.

Sounds like a recurring pattern of abuse/neglect. The mother herself was brought up in a debauched, amoral environment with a father (probably a sociopath) that made her drink alcohol at the age of eight.

Social services should be the one lifeline that children (who aren't lucky enough to have human beings as parents) have. It's nothing short of a tragedy when they no longer work.

[Livia]

Personally I think the first thing they should have done is spay her like the bitch she is. While Social Services must shoulder some of the blame, there is only one person here to blame. Some people should just be banned from reproducing.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Livia

Some people should just be banned from reproducing.

Hell yes. All Jeremy Kyle guests for starters.

[Beastie]

The woman herself should be chucked into a fire.

[Pyramid*]

Covered in the news a few days ago -----

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-12367201

The baby's badly charred body was found at his home in Baguley, Wythenshawe, early on 10 November 2009, after his mother dialled 999 and told an operator she had a dead baby in her house.

When the hell are Social Services and our supposed 'authorities' going to stop all the pussyfooting with seriously 'at risk' cases like this, leading to such an horific death.

Unbelievable.

[Kerry]

Oh no

[Angus]

Hi Pyramid - I did a thread on this a few days back:
http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=171349

It's truly shocking and distressing. Couldn't stop thinking about poor little Alex for days. Some kids don't stand a chance do they?

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by angus58

Hi Pyramid - I did a thread on this a few days back:
http://www.thisisbigbrother.com/foru...d.php?t=171349

It's truly shocking and distressing. Couldn't stop thinking about poor little Alex for days. Some kids don't stand a chance do they?

Hello you! sorry, I didn't see it - perhaps the mods would merge it?

Hellish beyond belief - the thought of the absolute pain, slow agonising death that this little boy endured - and 27months was the punishment. I'm not the maternal sort and apart from the horror of this, the thought of so many others out there absolutely desperate for a child of their own - and there are deaths such as Alex's - I couldn't begin to imagine how those people must feel on reading reports of this nature.

Awful, simply awful.

[Angus]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

Hello you! sorry, I didn't see it - perhaps the mods would merge it?

Hellish beyond belief - the thought of the absolute pain, slow agonising death that this little boy endured - and 27months was the punishment. I'm not the maternal sort and apart from the horror of this, the thought of so many others out there absolutely desperate for a child of their own - and there are deaths such as Alex's - I couldn't begin to imagine how those people must feel on reading reports of this nature.

Awful, simply awful.

I'm not diminishing the mother's responsibility, but she's been an alcoholic since she was 8 years old, and was well known to Social Services who had had several calls from worried relatives and other agencies, but still did nothing. What led them to believe that an alcoholic who drank several bottles of wine a day could look after a goldfish, let alone a baby? I have a grandson around the same age, and the thought of anyone neglecting him like that, or laying a single finger on him, would drive me to murder, I swear.

[Vicky.]

She later admitted neglect and was jailed for 27 months.

--

27 months is an absolute pisstake.

[Zippy]

Originally Posted by Vicky.

27 months is an absolute pisstake.

she'll serve half that

then she could have another baby

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by angus58

I'm not diminishing the mother's responsibility, but she's been an alcoholic since she was 8 years old, and was well known to Social Services who had had several calls from worried relatives and other agencies, but still did nothing. What led them to believe that an alcoholic who drank several bottles of wine a day could look after a goldfish, let alone a baby? I have a grandson around the same age, and the thought of anyone neglecting him like that, or laying a single finger on him, would drive me to murder, I swear.

for what ever reason - 'cutting her slack' or whatever - she was certainly no fit mother, now or in the past or the poor little mite wouldn't have not have been on the 'at risk' register. Unfortunately, it didn't stop her breeding - but that's were the Powers that Be, the authorites are meant to step in and act they can't interfere with her breeding capabilities, but they certainly have a responsibility to ensure the safety and wellbeing of the little one born to someone clearly unfit to care for baby. It sickens the heart out of me it really does that those with the power to do something - for whatever reasons - don't (can't? red tape etct). Scandalous.

Originally Posted by Vicky.

She later admitted neglect and was jailed for 27 months.

--


27 months is an absolute pisstake.

That's the thing - she was clearly aware that she couldn't cope. Was the death of this toddler (and a most horrific one at that) worth her finally admitting that - christ, she must have known that a long time ago that she couldn't care for the child.

Originally Posted by Zippy

she'll serve half that

then she could have another baby

This pisses me off no end, on so many levels. As you rightly point out, short of her electing to put herself forward for a hysterectomy - there is every chance that she could fall pregnant again when she's already through neglect, killed a child of her own.

[Angus]

I think what really sickens me is that there will always be people who will support this useless mother's 'rights' to breed and have custody of her child. The very least they should do when she is released is sterilise her - it's not as if she's remotely interested in anything that isn't in a bottle.

[billy123]

Dumb sensationalist thread title its a horrible thing to have happened absolutely sickening but you lay the blame at the door of social services?!?! really? get a bloody grip man.
Social services do an amazing job they stop thousands of things like this happening every year but when something like this happens you post they "fail again" how often do you hear about the thousands of times they have succesfully stepped in and potentially saved a childs life? never and would you make a thread praising them for it? no would you hell.
A sense of perspective is whats needed Angus if you dont have one i hear this rag is read by such people

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Dumb sensationalist thread title its a horrible thing to have happened absolutely sickening but you lay the blame at the door of social services?!?! really? get a bloody grip man.

Social services do an amazing job they stop thousands of things like this happening every year but when something like this happens you post they "fail again" how often do you hear about the thousands of times they have succesfully stepped in and potentially saved a childs life? never and would you make a thread praising them for it? no would you hell.
A sense of perspective is whats needed Angus if you dont have one i hear this rag is read by such people

I'm not entirely sure which 'man' your telling to get a grip!

you might want to actually read the facts, and not get all dazzled by the supposed sensationalism that you mention - or indeed, have a go at Angus for linking a DM report. In case the DM isn't to your taste, perhaps one from the BBC which I quoted earlier in this thread will help you.

Few things here. 4 social workers involved in the case have been taken to task regarding this case. Social Services themselves admit it was not handled well.

It is clear from this that there are areas where we could have done better, and as a result four members of staff have been subject to disciplinary investigations.
"Two of the staff members (social workers) are now being brought before formal disciplinary hearings, and the other two staff - while not facing formal disciplinary hearings - are now subject to management instruction and oversight of their work."

The baby had previously been taken off the mother, but then given back to her - despite there being no evidence to say the mother had improved on her previous position of being unable to care for the child - the very reason they took baby from her - but still, that didn't stop them giving her the child back and signing his death warrant. Nor did 17 expressions of concern from the public made to social services, alert them to addressing the problem.

The baby was briefly taken out of her care but returned to her after social workers ruled the likelihood of significant harm was low.Alex was subject to a Child in Need plan until June 2009 when Sutherland was judged to be able to offer a "good enough" standard of care, "despite a lack of evidence of progress", the review found.

It also found she had missed health appointments, that Alex's weight had plummeted and there were concerns about her alcohol use.

The review added it was of "particular concern" that 17 expressions of concern from members of the public failed to trigger a reconsideration of initial assessments of Alex's care, despite agencies knowing of Sutherland's alcohol misuse.

What amazingly good job did social services do in this case then, apart from botch it up in no small way, which ultimately, cost this child, on the 'at risk' register, his life. Yes, wonderful service from them eh.

Social services are there to do a job, they are trained and paid to care and look after those who cannot do so themselves - and let's be honest, cases such as this are becoming more prevailant - not less.... so let's not pretend all in the garden is rosy. Certainly not when this particular division of Social Services have ADMITTED it could have been handled better and admitted they failed.

[joeysteele]

Originally Posted by Zippy

she'll serve half that

then she could have another baby

That the next tragedy of the whole thing too, not content with a minor punishment for this baby's suffering, as you say she could in less than a year and a half be having another child, there should be something done to ensure she canot have children especially since the torture of this child.

Crazy,just crazy.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I'm not entirely sure which 'man' your telling to get a grip!

you might want to actually read the facts, and not get all dazzled by the supposed sensationalism that you mention - or indeed, have a go at Angus for linking a DM report. In case the DM isn't to your taste, perhaps one from the BBC which I quoted earlier in this thread will help you.

Well seeing as i named angus in my post and also referred to the thread title as my bugbear i would of thought it obvious that i was indeed talking about angus maybe you need to re-read my post.

I wasnt actually aware that the original report was from the daily fail but does that suprise me? well i will leave that up to you to decide.
Short of social services providing a care worker to sit and observe a baby and its parents 24 hours a day what do you suggest?

They have to make a decision in the very limited time they have do you think you could get it right 100% of the time? you only hear about the tiny percentage of the time they get it wrong.(so in my book they must be doing a pretty great job)

If you have a better system that is completely 100% foolproof then please enlighten society with it because social services would love to know about it

I look forward to hearing all about it.

edit: please pyramid dont take that as personal criticism (as i really like your posts) but complaints should come with constructive alternatives otherwise they are just noise.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by bobnot

Well seeing as i named angus in my post and also referred to the thread title as my bugbear i would of thought it obvious that i was indeed talking about angus maybe you need to re-read my post.

I wasnt actually aware that the original report was from the daily fail but does that suprise me? well i will leave that up to you to decide.
Short of social services providing a care worker to sit and observe a baby and its parents 24 hours a day what do you suggest?

They have to make a decision in the very limited time they have do you think you could get it right 100% of the time? you only hear about the tiny percentage of the time they get it wrong.(so in my book they must be doing a pretty great job)

If you have a better system that is completely 100% foolproof then please enlighten society with it because social services would love to know about it

I look forward to hearing all about it.

edit: please pyramid dont take that as personal criticism (as i really like your posts) but complaints should come with constructive alternatives otherwise they are just noise.

I was under the impression that Angus was female - which is the reason I asked! I also asked because they were not the only person to have the same opinion - I happen to share it - and it could also have been directed at me - given that I also started a thread that was merged. 2 fairly understandable reasons for my asking which 'man' you were referring to.

What do I suggest? I suggest that Social Services do what they are specially trained to do, are paid to do: and that is their job. If anyone else failed to such a degree in their paid employment would be booted out on their arses - bearing in mind the amount of failings that surrounded this case. 17 alerts from the public. Baby handed back without any signs of the unfit mother mending her ways. Being aware that baby was losing weight, being aware of the unfit mother's continuing problems - yet none of this, none of the 17 public alerts were enough to flag up,"Hey..we'd better keep a close eye on this one....". How much prompting do they need? How many times do the public have to express their concern (over a child that had already been taken off the mother previously due to her inability to look after him).

Regardless of which job role is being discussed: a great many don't mean that failing will result in the loss of a life -and in the most horrific ways (as in this particular case). - so it's all the more important that social services get it right. Get it wrong is far higher a price to pay. As I say, for all of the reasons that I meantioned above (which I also mentioned in my earlier post) - that's why I don't feel this division of SS should be beyond critisism or beyond reproach.

How many 'red flags', how many alerts, warnings, triggers would they have needed before they decided to go check on things. If ever there was the case for making an 'on the spot' decision to protect this child, it appears they had plenty of opportunity but still failed to do that.

As I say, the price of the them getting it wrong is death - and as this case shows: not only did they get it wrong - they had so many valid reasons for acting - yet STILL failed to do so.

It seems as though Soc Serv haven't really moved on or learned that much from the horrible suffering and neglectful death of Baby P.

[Pyramid*]

Originally Posted by joeysteele

That the next tragedy of the whole thing too, not content with a minor punishment for this baby's suffering, as you say she could in less than a year and a half be having another child, there should be something done to ensure she canot have children especially since the torture of this child.

Crazy,just crazy.

This is one of the scariest parts of this. This woman at the time of all this was 39 - and the toddler was 17 months when he died. She was in her late 30's and still was not able to show responsibility for birth control - it also shows that even at that later stage in life, despite the alcoholc abuse etc: her body was still healthy enough to fertilise and nurture a developing baby.

Given that she wasn't even able to take care to prevent falling pregnant, and once baby was born, he was taken from her for a period of time, she then accepted the responsibility of the child being given back to her - she clearly is unable to take on any basic responsibility.

In cases such as this, I'm afraid to say that this is the prime example of where I am in favour of compulsory sterilisation. She's already managed to kill one child, I'd say she's had her chance at motherhood and the responsibility to have another (even non intentionally), should be taken out of her hands, and that decision being made along with the prison sentence.

Oh.. I should add, that although I'm clearly disgruntled - it's not directed at you or Bobnot as in my last post ... it's at this shambolic situation - Soc Serv have a specialised role to fulfill, and it seems that more and more often, that when they fail, they manage to do it to the most spectacularly apalling degree. That's my beef, not you.

[billy123]

Originally Posted by Pyramid*

I was under the impression that Angus was female - which is the reason I asked! I also asked because they were not the only person to have the same opinion - I happen to share it - and it could also have been directed at me - given that I also started a thread that was merged. 2 fairly understandable reasons for my asking which 'man' you were referring to.

What do I suggest? I suggest that Social Services do what they are specially trained to do, are paid to do: and that is their job. If anyone else failed to such a degree in their paid employment would be booted out on their arses - bearing in mind the amount of failings that surrounded this case. 17 alerts from the public. Baby handed back without any signs of the unfit mother mending her ways. Being aware that baby was losing weight, being aware of the unfit mother's continuing problems - yet none of this, none of the 17 public alerts were enough to flag up,"Hey..we'd better keep a close eye on this one....". How much prompting do they need? How many times do the public have to express their concern (over a child that had already been taken off the mother previously due to her inability to look after him).

Regardless of which job role is being discussed: a great many don't mean that failing will result in the loss of a life -and in the most horrific ways (as in this particular case). - so it's all the more important that social services get it right. Get it wrong is far higher a price to pay. As I say, for all of the reasons that I meantioned above (which I also mentioned in my earlier post) - that's why I don't feel this division of SS should be beyond critisism or beyond reproach.

How many 'red flags', how many alerts, warnings, triggers would they have needed before they decided to go check on things. If ever there was the case for making an 'on the spot' decision to protect this child, it appears they had plenty of opportunity but still failed to do that.

As I say, the price of the them getting it wrong is death - and as this case shows: not only did they get it wrong - they had so many valid reasons for acting - yet STILL failed to do so.

It seems as though Soc Serv haven't really moved on or learned that much from the horrible suffering and neglectful death of Baby P.

A female called angus thats a strange one!
You still havent described how you personally would come up with a 100% system of securing a childs safety!

Social services do an amazing job and i dare say make a hell of a lot less mistakes in their job than you and people in your proffesion do whatever that may be.

Please enlighten us mere mortals how 100% perfection can be acquired have you never made one single mistake in your job? no i doubt it but that mistake doesnt make national news does it.