Elsie death case was gross incompetence

RE ‘Missed chances to protect baby murdered by adoptive father’.

It is very easy for readers to skip over this item, especially as it is such distressing reading – an expert panel convincing us that there will be better communication and lessons will be learned. We have heard all this before but it is certainly worth reading the item in full.

However, for a panel to spend months coming up with phrases like ‘professionals looking at the adopters through “a positive lens”’ or ‘not having “professional curiosity”’. when the words ‘gross incompetence’ would be equally as appropriate, is inexcusable.

Child protection procedures are pragmatic and usually work well, and it is common knowledge that adoption social workers move away from the febrile front line protection work because they prefer the ‘tick box’ adoption processes.

However, in Elsie’s case, the adoption worker “vouching” for the carers put this little girl at great risk.

For professionals to see a head injury on a child and to not invoke any procedure, or even to note the injury, should surely provoke action by the Social Care Registration Council?

What is also concerning is that young children like Elsie are much sought-after by adopters, who often have to wait months or years for a suitable match, yet Scully-Hicks was being introduced to Elsie one month after approval. Was this the Vale council flexing its diversity credentials, favouring single-sex couples?

The Chair of the review was keen to point out distress felt by staff, but if there is No Further Action, this is an insult to Elsie’s memory.

A Shelton

Penarth