Alison Carrigan

I made the most embarrassing error when posting this entry yesterday, which gave someone a laugh Apologies, severe lack of sleep but i stupid error nevertheless.

Freedom to Care          Return to INDEX

The Case FOR Lisa Arthurworrey

Liz Davies

Lisa Arthurworrey was Victoria Climbié's social worker from 02.08.99 until Victoria died on 25.02.00.

In April this year, I was teaching some social workers from Haringey Social Services (London, UK) who informed me that on the recommendation of the London Borough of Haringey, Lisa Arthurworrey's name had been placed on the Protection of Children Act List by the Secretary of State. I was aware of the serious implications of this decision, not only for Lisa but for all social workers: it set a dangerous precedent of an entry on the list being regarded as equivalent to a finding of 'poor' professional practice.

The Protection of Children Act 19991 (POCA) requires the Secretary of State for Health to keep a list of persons considered unsuitable to work with children. POCA specifies certain conditions, at least one of which must be satisfied in order for an organisation to be able to refer someone employed in a child care position to the Secretary of State for inclusion on the POCA List.

An example of one of the conditions which must be satisfied in order for an organisation to be able to refer someone for inclusion on the POCA List is:

'That the organisation has dismissed the individual on the grounds of misconduct (whether or not in the course of employment) which harmed a child or placed a child at risk of harm.' Section 1(2)(a).

POCA was a response to the report 'People like us - a review of the safeguards for children living away from home'2 which highlighted abuse of children within the care system. The spirit of the law was to prevent and deter child abusers from gaining access to children through employment within social care. Currently, the law allows inclusion on the POCA List on the broad grounds of gross misconduct as defined above. It is important to attempt to change this law in order to clarify that these grounds should not include poor professional practice that does not involve actual or suspected child abuse. The decision to refer to the list should be made on the 'balance of probabilities' level of proof following multi agency 'Section 47' investigation3 or after criminal proceedings and conviction for offences against children.

The appropriate route for consideration of a social worker's suitability for practice is the register of social workers which the General Social Care Council now maintains.

The POCA List should not be used for registration of professionals who are not suspected or actual child abusers, but the question might well be asked: why, given that Lisa's name (and that of one other former Haringey employee) are on the list, were the names of the social work managers, police, health professionals, councillors and others criticised by Lord Laming's inquiry not also included?

The relevant extracts from the Inquiry's findings are as follows:

'It is not enough to consider the omissions and failings of individual practitioners in Haringey without considering the context in which they were working at the time. It is also necessary to understand the extent to which the organisation in which they served and the working practices of the organisations can and must shoulder the blame for serious lapses in individual professional practice. The evidence on this in Haringey is in my judgement overwhelming. (Paragraph 6.2)

Although failings in Lisa Arthurworrrey's practice were many and serious, she was badly let down by her managers and the organisation that employed her. In particular, council members and the senior management of Haringey must be held to account for the yawning gap between safe policies and procedures and poor practice in the children and families service… '(Paragraph 6.3).4

Lisa now has legal representation for both the Industrial Tribunal (she won the right to a hearing after Haringey applied to strike the case out) and the POCA Tribunal. When I first met Lisa, she kept saying:

'Everyone said I should have known what was happening to Victoria.'

She had been through so much: the criminal trial of Manning and Koaou, the two Area Child Protection Committee 'Chapter 8 Reviews', the Victoria Climbié Inquiry and the disciplinary hearing, but most serious was the media  ilification of her - treating her as if she herself had murdered Victoria.

Because her home address was mistakenly disclosed at the criminal trial, she was hounded by the media and had to go into hiding. She was sick for a while and unable to attend either her disciplinary hearing or her appeal against Haringey's verdict of 'gross misconduct.' Unable to obtain legal representation, her father represented her at the appeal hearing. It is to her credit that she is now seeking justice. My overwhelming impression of Lisa is of a highly professional woman, conscientious and committed.

Much of the detail of Lisa's case has already been placed in the public arena through the Victoria Climbié Inquiry. As we now plough through the evidence against her, it is clear she was working within flawed procedures devised internally and not from the Area Child Protection Committee procedures and 'Working Together' Guidance.5

Advice from her managers was absent or wrong, she had little supervision (four sessions with three different managers during the time of this case) and a huge caseload - ten child protection cases and nine other serious child care cases. She had never conducted a 'Section 47' child protection investigation before and had no training in how to do so. After qualifying, she worked for another London Borough for only ten months before going to Haringey early in November 1998.

A social work diploma or degree does not train a social worker to conduct child protection investigations: practitioners require specialist multi-agency post-qualifying training - sadly often lacking now in many authorities. They should also initially joint-work cases with more experienced colleagues.

The case has been debated in every forum. But Lisa's own voice needs to be heard. Although Lisa is not a whistleblower herself, the use of the POCA List for poor professional practice has serious implications for all social workers and could easily be used against whistleblowers. Readers may remember the case of Neville Mighty, the Islington whistleblower whose name was placed on the POCA List: it took ten years to appeal successfully against that decision

Messages of support may be sent via my e-mail: e.davies@londonmet.ac.uk or by post to:

Liz Davies,

Senior Lecturer Children and Families Social Work, London Metropolitan University,

Ladbroke House, 62-6 Highbury Grove,

London. N5 2AD.

Notes

1. The full text of The Protection of Children Act 1999 is available at www.hmso.gov.uk.

2. Department of Health, 1997, 'People like us - the report of the review of the safeguards for children living away from home', London: DoH. No electronic copy available. Contact details for obtaining hard-copy: DoH publications, Department of Health, PO Box 777, London SE1 6XH.Telephone: 08701 555455.

3. Under Section 47 of the Children's Act 1989, local authorities have a duty to investigate where, for example, they '…have reasonable cause to suspect that a child who lives, or is found, in their area is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm.' S.47(1)(b) http://www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1989/Ukpga_19890041_en_1.htm

4. The full text of the Victoria Climbié Inquiry Report, January 2003, is available at http://www.victoria-Climbié-inquiry.org.uk/finreport/finreport.htm

5. Department of Health, 1999, 'Working together to safeguard children', London: DoH.

http://www.dh.gov.uk/assetRoot/04/07/58/24/04075824.pdf. As eligibility for services narrows, pressures on services become greater.

 

 

 

 

 

Victoria was never one of the thousands on a child protection register or

"looked after". Housing was the main reason her file was not closed on

12.8.99 when the S.47 investigation concluded there was insufficient evidence

of significant harm (very serious harm).

 

Having researched this further it is now clear that Lisa was successful in overturning this decision.  But it does highlight how one mistake can last a life time.  When reviewing material within the Victoria Climbie Inquiry, it is easy to become frustrated at the amount of times a little girl’s fate was in the hands of so called professionals, whom many times failed Victoria and are collectively responsible.

 

Lisa Arthurworrrey was qualified only 18 months and had limited experience.  She did however, liaise with other professionals.  Lisa made contact with various medical professionals who reported Victoria’s injuries were the result of “Scabies” and there was no concern the child was a child at risk.  There was no provision of photos or reports made until after Victoria death.  Lisa did attend the hospital with a WPC in order to interview Victoria, staff described her as “a ray of sunshine” and Victoria presented as a “happy child”.  Lisa, a relatively new SW, may not feel she could challenge the opinion of medical professionals, having no medical experience or training of Section 47.  Lisa, visited the home, to address housing need, which it would seem she did effectively, offering ideas and financial assistance, when K expressed they may return to France. When K alleged V was being sexually abused by Manning, Lisa followed procedures in arranging a place of safety, to a degree. It seems there was a lot of assumption, she took K word that she was researching schools and was not alarmed when she could not contact them following France, however when considering her level of professionalism and experience plus having double the workload and the pressure of management setting targets, it would seem she was indeed a victim of a system that failed her.  We are encouraged to work within a multi agent idealistic fashion, but when that breaks down, be accountable.  It appears indeed Lisa Arthurworrrey could have done more, but acted upon information she had, which was indeed flawed on every level, how frightening.

 

www.nationalarchives.gov.uk   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

623 Comments 21.2.07 17:40, comment

Alison Carrigan

Hello Everyone.

 

I am at home nursing my children who have Chicken Pox.  I am trying to keep track of what is going on in class, but it’s a clear as mud and this may be evident in the work that follows, however, when learning it was required to read about little Jamie Bulger, if I am honest my heart sank, I will be honest, I recall that terrible case well as it is one that a nation never forgets.  The horror that two boys could to such dreadful things to a toddler was unthinkable.  Yet, we followed every news bulletin and read every article learning about the events that lead to little Jamie’s eventual fate.  When researching material, I read an article in the Guardian.  It commented on the adaptation of James Bulgers name by the media to Jamie, as if to put emphasis upon the picture of an innocent adorable infant, but, whether James or Jamie, I speak as a parent, when I say, how I joined the nation in shock and disbelief.

 

 I now read the case again, as a student, to broaden my knowledge, to really look beyond the media, and see if I can learn something.  I am shocked to say I did, yet whether it is relevant to the course requirements or not, well that remains to be seen.  Maybe I have simply recognised something I did not in 1993 because I was a parent of a two year old, who became familiar with that little picture of Jamie that was shown around the world and caught up in the media frenzy upon the realisation that this little toddler had been tortured and left to die, a parent had been robbed of her only child and the perpetrators were just ten years old. Or am I as aware of my values as a Social work student, that I have been selective about my choice of reading material and broadened my perspective to look beyond the bare facts that surround the case and looked at it with more depth.  The difference in my own individual viewpoint for whatever reason interested me.

 

Proposed causes

[edit] Social and family background=

In court, details of the backgrounds of Thompson and Venables were not admitted. Thompson was one of the youngest of seven boys. His mother, a lone parent, was an alcoholic. His father, who left home when Thompson was five, was also a heavy drinker who beat and sexually abused his wife and children. Despite his quiet and friendly manner, Thompson came from a home in which it was normal practice for the older children to violently attack the younger ones, and Thompson was invariably on the receiving end.
Venables' parents were also separated. His brother and sister had educational problems and attended special needs schools, whilst his mother suffered psychiatric problems. Following his parents' separation, Venables became isolated and an attention-seeker. At school, he would regularly bang his head on walls. No effort was made to find the cause of his obvious distress.
Other media commentators blamed the behaviour of Venables and Thompson on their families, or on their social situation, living in one of the most deprived areas of the UK. The Liverpool Echo newspaper described the city, at the time of the murder, as 'a wounded city... The region's economy was on its knees, and unemployment was soaring'. A 2001 OFSTED report on Liverpool's schools said that 'the city of Liverpool has the highest degree of deprivation in the country'. Following the murder, the boys' mothers, Susan Venables and Ann Thompson, were repeatedly attacked in the street and vilified in the press.
Thompson's father had abandoned his wife and children five years previously, one week before the family home was burned down in a fire. Ann Thompson was a heavy drinker, who found it difficult to control her seven children. Notes (obtained by author Blake Morrison) from an NSPCC case conference on the family, described it as 'appalling'. The children 'bit, hammered, battered, {and} tortured each other'. Incidents in the report included Philip (the third child) threatening his older brother Ian with a knife. Ian asked to be taken into foster care, and when he was returned to his family, he attempted suicide with an overdose of painkillers. Both Ann and Philip had also attempted suicide in the past.
Venables' family was less chaotic; although his parents were also separated, they lived near each other, and he lived at his father's house two days a week. Both his older brother and younger sister had learning disabilities which were severe enough to make it necessary that they attend special schools for children too disabled to be taught in the mainstream system. Venables himself was hyperactive, and had attempted to strangle another boy with a ruler during a fight at school. The police had been called to Susan Venables's house in 1987, when she left her children (then aged 3, 5 and 7) alone in the house for three hours. Case notes from that incident describe Susan's 'severe depressive problem' and suicidal tendencies.

 

I have chosen to post this as I found it quite poignant.  I found this when reading about the case on Wikpedia. You will notice many of the words are highlighted as usual, for this particular sight, and in particular many are associated within the field that is “Social Work” but in this case, it really highlights the lack of support, in both boys upbringing.  When considering the “Systems Theory” both boys had such fragile foundations within their own childhoods.  When you read this article you could produce evidence on the effect of poverty, the rise in crime figures due to lack of employment, the effect on the family due to poor income and the “pressure of times”, in fact we could really draw upon text book knowledge when considering both boys background.  It opens up a mind field to us students.

 

2. Child in need (CIN)
Children in need are those who are disabled or whose vulnerability is such that they are unlikely to reach or maintain a satisfactory level of health and development, or their health and development will be significantly impaired without the provision of services. (section 17 of the Children Act 1989)
The social worker has lead responsibility, on behalf of Children and Young People Services for undertaking an assessment of the child's needs. The social worker also has lead responsibility for assessing the parents' capacity to respond appropriately to the child's identified needs within their wider family and environment. Usually children are safeguarded while remaining at home. This is achieved by Children and Young People Services working with parents, family members and other significant adults in the child's life to make the child safe, and to promote his or her development within the family setting.

Is this selective? What happened when considering Venables and Thompson?  What was the result of Blake Morrison’s NSPCC findings, I know this is something Tim touched upon and maybe something as a class you have since discussed.  I recall at the time there was emphasis upon the lack of family structure and they bare a degree of responsibility but where was the support.  When a child is branded as having a behaviour problem or constantly truants from school, what about the Education Welfare System.  When a mother is labelled as having “Mental Health issues” I found no history of support services she had in place.  Have I missed something? I have read for many hours, sometimes the same hard facts, but something about this article saddened me and I felt the responsibility for Jamie Bulgers death lay further than that of Thompson and Venables.  The crime was undoubtedly horrific and one regardless of circumstance they had to be made accountable for, but “The interest of the Child is Paramount”?  Their upbringing was never presented in court? Therefore the provision of services was never discussed. 

 

9 Comments 20.2.07 21:59, comment