This presentation is the work of:-

fficeffice" /> 

Su Hu

Abdul Hussein

Richard Sutton

Christine Tansey

Jenny Walker

Nadine Willis

All Second Year students on the Social Work BA (hons) course at ffice:smarttags" />DeMontfort University, Bedford.

This presentation will look at the handling of the Victoria Climbie case, an eight year old girl who died on 25 February 2000 from the most appalling child abuse.  This work will examine how this case went so tragically wrong and highlight the lessons learned from Victoria’s story.

• The Children’s Act 2004 has created a holistic approach to child protection and a legislative spine for developing more effective and accessible services (B249).  The Act aims to create a culture of safeguarding children (B258) In addition Inspectors of Children’s Services were created.

• When considering what went wrong in protecting Victoria it is important to remember that the inquiry was established under three separate statutes; The Children’s Act 1989, The National Health Service Act 1977 and The Police Act 1996 therefore it wasn’t simply the social services that failed to ensure her safety.

• The first anonymous call from Ms Ackah was not followed up to check the truth, this was a failure to comply with the Children’s Act 1989 (sec.47. 1) (b).

• The Social Worker, Ms Arthurworrey visited Victoria twice and yet she never spoke to her, however, she was under the impression that she was well and even referred to her as “a little ray of sunshine” (‘Victoria’s Story’ www.victoria-climbie-inquiry.org.uk. 19/01/06).

• It would appear that social services were preoccupied with treating Victoria’s case as a homeless issue and time and effort was directed at accommodation matters.   In addition the Laming enquiry was critical of management in this case. There was a lack of supervision and an exceptionally high case allocation; in addition there was a failure to allocate Victoria’s case at the earliest opportunity.  The social worker allocated the case had complained that it was “very difficult to work with the volumes of cases, Victoria’s was just one of those cases”  www.everychildmatters.gov.uk 24/01/06).

• Unfortunately the conclusion drawn from this case study and the reports and enquiries it has generated, portray many failings on behalf of social services, both administrative failings and human failings.  Ealing social services were criticised for the weakness in their referral and assessment systems and they accepted that they had “failed to address Victoria’s needs as an individual and instead treated her as part of …Kouao’s homelessness” www.everychildmatters.gov.uk 24/01/06).

• There were gaps in policy and procedures affecting social work practice in Victoria’s case.  A failure to focus on assuring that policies to protect children were properly implemented.

• A failure to ensure that children and young people are consulted and listened to in relation to decisions about their lives.

• A failure to address the serious staff shortages to enable regulations to be complied with.

The second stage of this presentation will focus on how the Children’s act 2004 tightened up procedures including those regarding private fostering, in the wake of Victoria’s death.

• The Children’s Act 1989 sec 20.(4) clearly states that  “A Local Authority may provide accommodation for any child within their area …..if they consider that to do so would safeguard or promote the child’s welfare”.   On this occasion it appears that no one had taken this in mind to house Kouao and Victoria.

• If the Local Authority is to protect vulnerable children in our society they need to broaden the network of working closely together with other agencies and share information to help prevent such tragedies in the future.

• The system of the local authority failed because procedures for recording, supervising and keeping track of cases were inadequate.  Cases were allowed to drift.  The system within the office did not make provision to put in a plan and follow cases through in a systematic process.

• No overall coordination of child protection procedures across the country. 

•  Following Victoria’s case the Government passed the Children Act 2004 which allowed the creation of a national child database.  This records every contact make by a child under 16 with the police, NHS and Local Authority Services, thus preventing them from getting lost in the system.

• The enquiry highlighted a need for a more ordered social work profession.  This resulted in the Government setting up a regulatory agency called the General Social Care Council, along with the introduction of the new degree in social work.  Both of these promote higher standards of practice.

• The 2004 Bichard enquiry highlights the need for better recording, handling and sharing of ‘soft’ information i.e. life histories.

• Recommendation 11 of Lord Laming’s report stated “the Government should review the law regarding the registration of private foster carers. (paragraph 17.97)
  This prompted the government to insist on local councils enforcing the required levels of monitoring and supervision on private foster placements.  The main concern is that a number of children are fostered by someone other than a relative, or in Victoria’s case a very distant relative and everyone needs to be vigilante and work together to ensure the safety of these children.  The lack of a multi agency approach in the Victoria’s case meant that important information was either being lost in the many systems or simply not being directed to the relevant agency.

• It is important to understand that children in private fostering are protected by the Children’s Act 1989 in the same way as all other children residing in the UK and it is essential that local councils make regular visits to the child and observe the standard of care.

The next section will cover aspects of Anti Discriminatory Practice:-

• Culture issues, Victoria’s first language was French, yet the emphasis was put on allocating a black social worker not a French speaking social worker.  Victoria’s parents had assumed that they were sending their daughter to Europe to access a better education and way of life; this practice is not uncommon in Victoria’s parent’s society.

• Political correctness – fear of racism was an issue in that professionals were worried about accusations and this is racist behaviour in itself.  Standards of child protection in the UK must be applied to every child.

• The report suggest black and ethnic minority needs may not be fully addressed in an assessment, because assumptions may be made about culture e.g. a child  “standing to attention” was seen as a cultural issue relating to respect and obedience and not addressed as abuse

• No one should be discriminated against due to their colour, religion, belief, status or vulnerability of any sort.  While it’s clear in this case that the social worker was black just as Victoria, it would be foolish to ignore that no discrimination took place.  Why did staff at Ealing social services not challenge Kouao about the state of Victoria?  After all, they commented that Victoria resembled an “Advertisement for Action Aid”  Was this not challenged because she was the child of a black woman and this was deemed acceptable.  It was reported that one worker felt that the poor state of Victoria was a ploy to get more benefits.

• The social worker did not communicate with Victoria, is this because she did not speak English?  Why not use an interpreter to give the platform to express herself.  It is our duty to challenge any form of Anti-Discriminatory Practice.

• The Social Worker and Victoria were the same colour however they were from completely different backgrounds.  Neil Garnham QC stated “Assumption based on race can be just as corrosive in its effect as blatant racism”.

• During the social workers visits to the flat she never actually spoke to Victoria to obtain her views.  This is very disturbing as she should have bee at the centre of her concerns.  Overall it highlights the fact that as social workers we must obviously speak to the child involved but also recognise and facilitate the language of their choice. No one spoke to Victoria in her first language.

 Finally this presentation looks at how through hindsight, research and current legislation we can do things better.

• Be more vigilant, observant and practice inquisitive and persistent practice.

• We mustn’t shy away from sensitive cultural issues due to being afraid of causing offence, but research and try to learn more about the diverse groups of people we are working with and remember at all times the child’s safety is paramount.

• We must trust our judgement.

• Explore other options like seeking help when needed or share information with managers and work colleagues.

• Multi agency work is essential and following up on visits that have been unsuccessful – using the law to gain access to vulnerable children.

Word Count 1,456

Sources of Reference

www.nspcc.org.uk  (19/01/06)

www.everychildmatters (23/01/06)

www.societyguardian.co.uk 19/01/06)

www.jrf.org.uk (20/01/06)

Safeguarding Children (2005), The second joint Chief Inspectors’ Report on Arrangements to Safeguard Children. Crown Copyright.