Abrogating Responsibility….

On Monday, May 13, the Croydon Safeguarding Children Board (CSCB) published a Serious Case Review of the boy, referred to only as Child Q, which was commissioned in September 2017 to investigate his death.

The report states: “Mother, aunt and grandmother are extremely angry and upset that an electronically monitored curfew was not requested at his final court appearance and strongly believe that if the curfew had been reinstated on that day, Child Q would not have travelled to London and therefore

would not have lost his life.”

His family believe that professionals did not do enough to address emotional and behavioural challenges the teenager expressed throughout his life.

What, exactly, did they do themselves…?

His mother does not accept that her son was a gang member

Oh, of course not!

The in-depth report details how the boy had an unstable background.

Growing up, Child Q lived with his mum. His dad was in and out of prison throughout his life.

Typical…

At the age of nine, Child Q’s school made an urgent referral to CAMHS (child and adolescent mental health service).

But after attempts were made by CAMHS to contact the family, the case was closed.

Funny how they never seem to get around to taking up the offers of help they then whine about, isn’t it?

Di Smith, the independent chair of the CSCB, said that the review asks whether more could have been done to keep Child Q safe.

It should, yes. But not necessarily by the State.

The chair added that it is not possible to know what difference this would have made but notes the importance of strengthening families and education in children’s lives.

You can’t ‘strengthen something’ that doesn’t even exist