Whose fault is it that Daniel Pelka is dead? If you watched ITV News tonight, it's the fault of the (now retired) director of social work for Coventry. They want him called to account for his department's 'negligence'. Not that we know there was any. According to Daniel's grandmother, the social workers are at fault - her daughter, Daniel's mother, is a 'good girl'. According to the local MP, it's the fault of the social workers and the school. Amazement is expressed that Daniel's headteacher has gone on to a new and better job despite his 'role' in the death of Daniel.
How do these people know who to blame? Well, they don't. They are just so keen to find someone to blame, they'll happily point the finger at anyone who's around.
Here are the facts in the case that we know:
Till 6 months before his death, Daniel Pelka was a healthy, happy wee boy. Then his mother took a new boyfriend into their home.
In those 6 months, his headteacher reported his concerns about the change in Daniel's condition to the local authority and to his GP. The GP arranged to see Daniel and prescribed medication because of his 'failure to thrive.' The family already had a social worker who visited and tried to take action. Other agencies may have been involved but there's no way of knowing that till a case review takes place.
These cases are always complicated. Myself, I have a few questions. Was Daniel the scapegoat child, the one who always got the blame in the family? Or the son of another man who wasn't wanted by the new man in the family? Was the mother so desperate to hang on to this new man she ignored Daniel's ill-treatment? Are the mother and boyfriend child abusers, cunning and capable of spinning a good tale to keep 'the authorities' at bay? Did his father keep in touch once he left the family or was he too busy setting up a new family? What about Daniel's grandparents - did they have any involvement with the family? What did the neighbours see and do? And the other parents at the school?
It is frankly naive - if not stupid - to start by accusing the 'professionals' involved in Daniel's case. Unlike parents, neighbours and family, the professionals have procedures to follow - and, bigod, they'd have to be utter morons not to follow those procedures, given the bad publicity there's been over child abuse cases in recent years, some of it leading to professionals losing their jobs.
If you're a parent, imagine how you would feel if your child was referred to a hospital on the grounds of their 'failure to thrive'. This happened to friends of my family. They had two kids aged 5 and 3. Both small and light in weight. The kids were fussy eaters. Not surprisingly, so were their parents. The parents are also small and light. The parents were absolutely mortified, not least because the father was a senior social worker and the mother a classroom assistant. More responsible people you couldn't meet. They made their views of the referral known to the 'professionals' they had to deal with on this matter: paediatrician, hospital social worker, headteacher. They were articulate and angry but they cooperated. Twenty-odd years later, their kids are still small and slight but doing fine, thanks.
Now imagine dealing with parents in the same situation but where the first language isn't English but Polish so there can be misunderstandings, the parents seem to have an explanation for everything that's wrong (Daniel has an eating disorder, etc) and don't necessarily accept the right of 'the authorities' to meddle in their family's affairs or where the mother is afraid of her partner.
Or is that too complicated? Isn't it easier to blame the obvious targets?
No comments:
Post a Comment