By Sheila Mckenzie-
Social workers in Manchester have been criticised for failing a baby who was caught up in a shameful case of domestic abuse within a family where the mother subsequently assaulted her baby.
A case review found that the abuse led to the bleeding on the brain of the baby.
The investigation by Manchester Safeguarding Partnership discovered that professionals from children’s services and other agencies consistently made false assumptions that the father of a particular child was the only perpetrator of violence within the household, despite opposing evidence.
Greater Manchester Police were alerted to the incident of an injured child struggling with breathing after an ambulance and commenced an immediate investigation into the circumstances of Child W’s.
A review conducted in relation to the approach to domestic abuse and how needs were assessed and met examined the extent to which the assessment followed a strengths based model and consider the approach to building resilience within the family unit.
It also examined the extent to which the presence of drugs and alcohol and mental health factored into any assessment and planning?
Opportunities to “holistically assess” the family’s situation were missed, exacerbated by safeguarding partners not being involved in assessments and case conferences. This led to a child protection plan being inappropriately focused on neglect rather than physical or emotional abuse, the report said.
Following a subsequent serious domestic abuse incident which concluded that the child’s parents caused a breach of the plan, the response was not sufficiently robust.
“This review has evidenced that while there are structures to support an efficient and collaborative response to domestic abuse in Manchester, there were a number of deficits in the timeliness and rigour of interventions with the family,” it concluded. Among a series of recommendations, the review said child protection planning should approach domestic abuse from a “gender-neutral perspective”.
The family had been known to children’s social care for around four years prior to this, with S1’s school making a referral relating to attendance and home conditions in 2014 that resulted in a professionals’ meeting. Between 2008 and 2012, meanwhile, Child W’s father, ‘WF’, had been convicted of a number of offences, including threatening behaviour, and, in 2017, started receiving support for ADHD, following concerns over his anger management.
Challenge
Social work supervision offered ‘no challenge or direction’ in case of suspected child sexual abuse
Inadequate special guardianship assessment condemned girl to ‘Dickensian’ cruelty, review finds.
Murdered teen ‘served poorly’ by lack of guidance around county lines victims found away from home area
During 2015 and 2016, several more referrals were made to children’s services in relation to substance misuse, her mental health and an incident in which she and her sister had allegedly attempted to assault him and police officers.
In September 2017, the school again contacted children’s services after came to collect her children apparently under the influence of alcohol, resulting in an assessment highlighting concerns “regarding WM’s mental health, challenging and violent behaviour and ‘potential’ alcohol and drug use”.
During a meeting on October 2017, the the Social Worker recorded that WM was acting erratically, in a way that was consistent with amphetamine use. The school had also recorded at this time that there were concerns regarding WM’s presentation, that she sometimes appeared “manic
or high”, but that, “she is different to other parents and assumptions can be made that has taken something”.
“There were at least two occasions where was distressed and had indicated suicidal ideation,” it said. “This does not appear to have triggered an assessment of the family’s circumstances, and in particular the impact of WF’s presentation and mental health on the children, which, given the history would have been appropriate.”
At the end of the month, Greater Manchester Police informed children’s services of other reports of domestic abuse at Child’s home, which came in the wake of the apparent breakdown of the relationship. Under police interview, the review noted, WF had denied one of these assaults and had made counter-accusations against WM, including that she had broken his nose earlier in the year.
“Given the previous referral history, the concerns regarding alcohol and cannabis use, WM’s resistant, volatile and challenging behaviours and lack of engagement, the concerns regarding WF’s mental health and the level of domestic abuse already taking place within the family home, this would have been an opportune moment to undertake robust safeguarding enquiries and to holistically assess the family’s circumstances,” the review said.
However the investigation found no evidence of this happening, with section 47 enquiries only being initiated following another serious incident in late August, in which WM sustained bruising after WF allegedly threw stepladders at her.
During this period, the report said, there was already further evidence – including by his having attended A&E – to suggest that WF was not simply the perpetrator of domestic abuse in the household. But factors including WF’s non-attendance at conference, and his “aggressive and challenging” behaviour, reinforced professionals’ “prevailing view” of him, the investigation found.
“Information provided to [the review] suggested that both….the fathers of S2 and S1 were frightened of WM and that this had impacted on dynamics within the family and arrangements regarding contact with the other children,” the report said. “This was not considered as part of the assessment provided to the ICPC and while [S2’s father] was present at conference, in a capacity to support WM, this was an issue that could have benefitted from further exploration.”