Council and democracy

Agenda item

Learning from the Serious Case Review of “Julia”

Minutes:

The Head of Children’s Social Care advised Members of the process of the serious case review, following which the Business Manger reported that Regulation 5 of the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board Regulations 2006 set out the requirement for a serious case review to be undertaken in instances where abuse or neglect of a child was known or suspected, and where either the child died or was seriously harmed and there was cause for concern as to how the Authority, their Board Partners or relevant people worked together to safeguard the child.

 

The Committee were advised that this case had been referred to the Thurrock Local Safeguarding Children Board Serious Case Review Panel and they were satisfied that it met the specified criteria, following which a case review had been undertaken using the SCIE Learning Together Methodology.

 

A Member questioned how all agencies had been notified of the serious case review and whether this had included the Chief Executive of Thurrock Council.

Members of the Committee were concerned that this case had not been highlighted to Elected Members earlier, until details were released in the local press.

 

The Director of Children’s Services reported that the case review had been included on the Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee work programme, and that it had been referred to the next available meeting after the report had been published online.

 

Members were advised of the SCIE review process and that it used the case to identify where processes could be improved so that it was learning specific.

 

The Head of Children’s Social Care advised Members in detail of the seven specific findings of the serious case review, which were outlined in the report.

 

Members indicated that there was no doubt that the young person was let down a number of agencies and her family, and observed that it was evident that there was a lack of good communication and no oversight or coordination between the different agencies who were involved.

 

The Head of Children’s Social Care highlighted that information was being shared; however there was not sufficient analysis of the information or challenge when matters were not progressed.

 

Councillor Halden was alarmed at the fact that on a number of occasions there was no record of a response by Children’s Social Care. The Head of Children’s Social Care shared this alarm at the poor recording and reported that the service was auditing cases to ensure accurate recording.

 

Councillor Halden further reported his concern regarding the mistaken belief that the young person could not be seen without her mother, and questioned whether further training for Social Workers was required. In response officers explained that they did not believe this was a result of a lack of understanding but agreed that this needed action.

 

Councillor Kerin highlighted that the role of GP’s was critical, as everyone was registered with a GP and they played a valuable role in the reporting of missed appointments. He further questioned whether there was a Safeguarding GP for Thurrock and felt that if there had of been the outcome for the young person could have been different.

 

In response the Committee were advised that each GP surgery in Thurrock had a designated safeguarding lead and GP’s regularly attended meetings of the board, as well as other work that included regular slots on GP forums and a training programme for doctors to become Child Sexual Exploitation Champions.

 

Councillor Snell highlighted that despite having identified the young person was having difficulties at school the case was closed and felt that the case should have not been closed as non-engagement by the mother was not a valid excuse. He added that if Social Workers had identified this further harm could have been prevented.

 

In response the Head of Children’s Social Care explained that the purpose of the review was to identify where improvements could be made, and assured Members that one single Social Worker could not close a whole case, rather this was a whole system response.

 

Members raised concerns regarding the reporting process of the case to Elected Members in general and Overview and Scrutiny in particular, and felt that the serious case review should have been actively brought to Members attention earlier.

 

Members questioned how there were no concerns identified for the young person’s half-sibling, despite the fact that she would have been exposed to a similar level of risk. In response officers explained that this was why it was important to produce a single assessment for a whole family in order to take a holistic approach, rather than a single method of assessment on individuals.

 

Members asked how the service would tackle non-engagement of a parent in future, to which the Head of Children’s Social Care explained that a Children in Need Plan would be established and firm targets set so that if these were not met by a parent the Children’s Social Care team could escalate the case as required, whether to a Supervision Order or a Court, in order to illicit change.

 

Councillor Curtis asked whether Children’s Social Care had enough powers to elicit necessary change, to which the Director of Children’s Services explained that powers rested with the Court, but that it was important the case was escalated by the service to enact these powers.

 

Rev Barlow observed that there was much preoccupation with the mother and questioned whether the reason why the case was not escalated was due to a high workload of the Social Workers. Officers felt that the workload of Social Workers was reasonable, rather the issues identified were regarding the lack of appropriate escalation of the case from a Children in Need plan to a Children Protection Plan and ultimately to the Court.

 

The Committee feared that the same problems could happen again in future and were concerned whether this was an isolated case or an inherent structural problem. The Head of Children’s Social Care explained that everyone remained vigilant and that mechanisms were in place to ensure that concerns were identified and acted upon as soon as possible. He further added that he could not guarantee that similar instances could not occur again in future, however he was confident that the same mistakes could not be made again as there were new mechanisms in place and greater awareness cross-agencies.

 

Members were sobered to learn that over twenty professionals had been involved in the young person’s case, and were concerned that sufficient measures were not in place to prevent the same mistakes in future.

 

The Committee were advised that every agency involved in the case had contributed to the action plan and inter-agency training had been delivered to overcome the challenges identified. The Director of Children’s Services added that all individuals involved in the case had also contributed to the review to establish the learning points.

 

Members stated that the report was upsetting reading but was well contextualised and presented, and requested that it be easily accessible.

 

Councillor Halden requested that officers undertake a Peer Review to ensure that lessons could be learned.

 

The Chair proposed a number of new recommendations to which the Committee agreed; as it was felt it was not adequate to simply note the report.

 

RESOLVED:

 

1.         That the Committee welcomed the paper from the Local Safeguarding Children’s Board, but Members were extremely concerned with the findings. 

 

2.         That officers be instructed to refer a protocol to the Corporate Parenting Committee, detailing procedures for informing members and the relevant Overview and Scrutiny Committee of such serious issues  in future.

 

3.         That officers be instructed to prepare a report for Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee regarding a form of a comprehensive peer review for Thurrock’s Social Work team based on the findings of the report.

 

4.         That the Committee requests that the Cabinet Member to make a statement to the full council to explain what action the Council will take to prevent such corporate failings happening again.

 

5.         That the multi-agency action plan be referred to the next practicable meeting of Children’s Services Overview and Scrutiny Committee.

Supporting documents: