With monotonous regularity, cases crop up in the USA of children who were not at school and are subsequently killed by their parents or carers. Many of these deaths have similar features. Apart from non-attendance at school, there is the fact that the children are usually black, often fostered or adopted and the adults looking after them are very frequently religious maniacs. A quick trawl through the internet will throw up any number of child homicides bearing two or more of these features.
There are signs that crimes of this sort are beginning to cross the Atlantic. Where America leads, we follow! The most famous such murder was of course that of Victoria Climbie. Here you had all the classic elements of such crimes. The child was black and not being sent to school, she was being informally fostered and, significantly, the woman caring for her, Marie-Therese Kourao, was devoutly religious. She always carried a Bible in the dock during her trial for murder. The Khyra Ishaq case had three of the warning signs; a child who was black and not attending school, combined with parents who were weirdly religious. Although it didn't ultimately end in death, the Eunice Spry affair fell into the same general pattern. There you had children who were not being sent to school and who were being fostered by a woman who was an enthusiastic member of a fringe religious group. In 2010, there was another death with three of these features; in addition to non-attendance at school and being a member of an ethnic minority, the mother in that case, Satpal Kauer Singh, was also pretty religious.
It strikes me that children who have more than two of the factors which I list above, might very well be at increased risk of abuse or death. Not going to school by itself may not be a risk factor, but combined with more than one of the things that I mention here, might be enough to indicate a child at hazard.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Victoria Climbie/ Khyra Ishaq and Eunice Spry where all know to the authorthys Webb who then failed to take positive action these children could have been taken into care.The Khyra case the children where seen looking in dustbins for food this was reported to SS and nothing was done to help help her,
ReplyDeleteTwo thoughts- just knowing about increased risk factors doesn't produce an automatic solution. For examples you have already stated that one of the main risk factors for under 5s is having a non biological father ( ie step parent) in the home - so what do you do about that - ban such relationships?
ReplyDeleteSecondly in nearly every child protection death or serious injury n the UK,( not HE) social services already know the family. In Southampton two weeks ago there were 3 inquests into child deaths ( 4 children in all)- in every single one lots of outside agencies knew the families - yet all 4 children died.
'For examples you have already stated that one of the main risk factors for under 5s is having a non biological father ( ie step parent) in the home - so what do you do about that - ban such relationships?'
DeleteNo, but we could bear it in mind as something which is often found in cases where a child is deliberately harmed. That doesn't mean that all step-fathers are cruel and abusive; merely that an awful lot of carers who are cruel to children are not related to them.
'Secondly in nearly every child protection death or serious injury n the UK,( not HE) social services already know the family.'
True, but massively irrelevant. For each death that does occur, there have been hundreds of others which were prevented. Much of this prevention consists of spotting dangers to children and nipping them in the bud before they have a chance to cause serious harm. Some of this work is done by social workers and others noticing a combination of warning signs and then acting upon them. I have remarked before that a child having special educational needs is one of those things which flag up a concern. Single mothers picking up with men who are not related to their children is another of these warnings, as is religious zealotry. Not sending a child to school is just another of those factors which, taken on its own probably means nothing, but combined with special needs, religious mania and an unrelated male in the house, might make social services take a little more notice than usual.
And no, Julie, I do not think that being a Calvinist or Witness is enough by itself to call in social services!
Julie wrote:
Delete"Secondly in nearly every child protection death or serious injury n the UK,( not HE) social services already know the family."
Simon replied:
"True, but massively irrelevant. For each death that does occur, there have been hundreds of others which were prevented."
On the contrary, Julie's point is highly relevant; the most common factor in the small residual number of deaths that are not prevented seems to be the failure of social services, rather than home education. This happens regardless of whether the child was in school (e.g., Daniel Pelka) or not.
The dominant parental attribute seems to be step-parent/partner or some other non-biological involvement, followed by ethnic/religious attributes, but these are common in the overall population involving deaths that are prevented. Social services failure is the additional factor, and that's why they're keen to white-wash the problem by blaming other factors such as home education.
Home education is a convenient scapegoat, both for politicians who are too scared to alienate people who might be in the bigger risk groups, and failing social services who prefer to tackle an easy proxy for the real problems.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-coventry-warwickshire-24106823
ReplyDelete"Not going to school by itself may not be a risk factor, but combined with more than one of the things that I mention here, might be enough to indicate a child at hazard."
ReplyDeleteSo registering and monitoring all HE children will create a list of mostly low-risk cases that would waste time and effort, while missing the high-risk cases that would be picked-up if one instead registered and monitored the people in the high-risk ethnic/religious and non-biological carer/parent groups.
' registering and monitoring all HE children '
DeleteNo mention at all of home education in the above post; let alone monitoring or registration! Try reading it through again, only a little more carefully this time.
Simon wrote:
Delete"No mention at all of home education in the above post; let alone monitoring or registration! Try reading it through again, only a little more carefully this time."
Yes I read it very carefully and saw no indication that you've changed your stance on new regulation for home educators. Should we now assume something different - have you seen the light and understood that such regulation is pointless?