[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.