Petition for poor little Arthur

I've just seen a short clip of a social services person (don't know who) saying that the grandmother should have alerted the gp that Arthur had bruises!!!!
Last year, during lockdown, this was.

Yet again meaningless sound bites to cover their backs and assuage the press. Seriously, even in normal times (if they ever return) what would a dr do? You’d have to get the child to the dr first and then they’d probably want parental permission plus advise you to contact SS. It really is so much piffle.

We really do need to stay angry and demand from the government that drastic change has to happen and please no labour/Tory comments as they’re all as bad and, more to the point - slow.

I don’t believe the father’s sentence was a minimum of 21 years, it was 21 years.

GSM I thought the father was also directed that he must serve the full sentence, but it seems I’m incorrect. I do understand people’s strong feelings about this case.

Yes, it is Hughes sentence that concerns me most, GSM.
He could potentially be out much earlier than the 21 years.
I can only hope he has a welcoming committee come to meet him if that's the case.

It would have been appropriate for a similar direction from the judge that he should serve the whole 21 years in my opinion.

Germanshepherdsmum

I'm not sure if I asked on this thread and may have missed the answer but what is the maximum sentence for inciting someone to murder?
Perhaps that charge couldn't have been proved in Hughes's case though

Sorry, mixed up my ^^ and **

Not so long ago the so called ‘black cab rapist’ was about to be released on parole until the press got hold of it and ran with it. That decision was reversed and he was kept in. No reason why Hughes’ sentence can’t be increased or he’s made to serve the full 21 yrs.

I’d just like to add that Charles Bronson has never murdered anyone. I believe his original sentence was 7 yrs but he’s being kept in because of his determination to fight the system. They can do what they want if they want. I doubt you’d find many people pleading their case if a Home Secretary told them they’re not coming out.

This is an awful case. Sadly it is not as rare as people might think.
Social services as ever trying to blame everyone else especially the grieving grandmother. It is my opinion that because social services did not step in sooner they are as equally culpable as the father and step mother. Anyone who allows any harm to a child to continue is as bad as those who inflict the harm.
Unfortunately I speak from experience. Baby P was 2007 and there were more before and after. When will it ever end? When will social services face the responsibilities of the job they took on.

maddyone
What this innocent child must have suffered and which could have been prevented and as you have said brings us back full circle to the social workers. I hope those who made the decisions, which were to lead to the death of this innocent child and breaks my heart to know, was all he asked, was to be loved.Can those persons sleep at night ?

maddyone

I think they’ve been given very long sentences and I think it likely that their time in prison will be quite unpleasant given their crimes. I don’t think we should be campaigning for longer sentences for these two particular people because in any case, there are plenty of other prisoners who have been convicted for vile and cruel crimes. The way forward, in my opinion, is to change the system that places great value on maintaining the parent and child relationship rather than the safety of the child. This little boy was left in an unsafe home despite evidence from his grandmother and uncle who raised concerns about his safety. He should not have been left in this home because he was not safe. This is what must be changed, the system that leaves a vulnerable child with his parent despite evidence that he is unsafe.

I agree this is the best way forward.

So many children are left in the care of neglectful or abusive parents because those parents have 'rights'.

Obviously there has to be legislation to protect parents from having their children removed because of malicious and untrue complaints , over zealous social workers, or families and authority figures forcing unmarried women to give up their children.

But there seems to be no balance now and a reluctance to admit that some new parents are not fit to keep their babies, who would have a better life being adopted. Or that some children would be better off being removed permanently from their parents, rather than being moved in and out of foster homes according to what is going on in their parent's life.

Not to mention the children like Arthur who are being left in abusive and dangerous situations because of reluctance to split up families.

There are some parents who don't deserve any rights to their child, and others who are just not capable of bringing up a child and the law needs to recognise this.

No Daisend I doubt very much that the social workers involved sleep at night. Or the police officers and doctors who have had similar failings laid at their feet. But don’t let that stop you all baying for their blood.

maddyone, what you are calling for is not just a change in a system and it’s values, but a complete overhaul of legislation including the Human Rights Act. This is way beyond the remit of Children’s Services Departments and your efforts would need to be directed at those who make the law.

What is that nightowl? That children should not be left in unsafe homes? Or that a judge can direct a minimum term for criminals?

maddyone the system you say places great value on maintaining the parent and child relationship. That is enshrined in the Children Act and parents and children’s rights within the Human Rights Act, amongst other legislation. The threshold for proving harm or the risk of harm sufficient to remove children has to overcome this basic starting point. I make no comment on criminal law.

Thank you for explanation nightowl. It seems to me that a child’s right to be safe trumps the right to live with his/her parents.

Yes I think it's the law that is at fault here. As I said upthread, this issue was recognised in Ireland a few years ago and the law changed to ensure the child's welfare was the primary consideration. It had to go to a referendum here as it meant a change to the Constitution and an overwhelming majority voted for the change.

I’m no expert on the Children’s Act, but if a child is suffering serious harm within the home then the existing law can be used to protect them. The social workers had the power to protect Arthur but proved woefully unable to exercise it, carrying out a cursory physical examination and ignoring the grandmother’s evidence.

Yes GSM I know you are right on that, but the fact still remains social workers have to begin from a starting point that says the importance of the child parent relationship, importance of keeping children within their families, and parents’ rights to keep professionals at arms length are all enshrined in law. This is why social workers can no longer speak to children without their parents’ consent, or alone unless their parents permit it, and the threshold to evidence harm is often hampered by these and similar factors. This is not a comment on little Arthur’s case, but a more general point about the day to day difficulties we face.

Personally I think social workers can use this as an excuse. If a child is being physically abused a crime is being committed. The entreaty to keep families together if possible doesn’t extend to families who are deliberately harming children.

We are here again in 2021 with the horrific death of yet another child who could do nothing about his miserable vile
life, everyday getting weaker and his strength ebbing away from him. I despair and weep for him and not only him but the children who have gone before him those such as Peter Connelly (Baby P) Victoria Climbie, Daniel Pelka. These
beautiful innocent children in our communities and there should have been so much more done for them. It is not just
the vile parent and his girlfriend who murdered little Arthur
it is also those other vile ones that inflicted such cruelty and suffering on the other children that have been murdered.
The government must make steadfast plans and stringent guidelines and rules for all the agencies that deal with the child once Social services have the family on it's books. There are so many agencies that are involved in the care plan with social services there is the social worker , the school, the police the health agencies all of them that attend meetings to discuss the child/children it is about time that all these external agencies worked for the good of the child and not just to keep families together in the hope things will improve. I would like to hear that Social Services went back to a house time and time again to check on the children and make sure everything was okay. Never let us hear that a poor child is on the other side of that locked door sick, neglected, beaten and dying and waiting just hoping for somebody to come to them. How many time do we have to hear the sentence "lessons must be learnt"? how many more children will die because this will never come to an end.
I just get lost for words.
"R.I.P little babes your sufferings are over nobody can hurt you now.

I see your point nightowl but the law needs changing as a matter of urgency so that the safety of the child supersedes all else.

In this case the father, who had not been the primary carer previously, was granted sole custody. He lived at an annexe at his parents' house who expressed a lot of concern and had misgivings about the relationship with Tustin. Arthur did have some problems at school because his mother had been sent to prison.
Hughes then left his parents' house and moved in with Tustin who was the one left with Arthur after lockdown while Hughes was at work.

So keeping "the family" together was a nonsense.

www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midlands-news/arthur-labinjo-hughes-murder-timeline-22347441

I am sorry that the whole ethos of the NSPCC has changed.

It's strange how things vary with different client groups. I worked with adults with learning disabilities and they often had children removed from their care as it was said the welfare of the child was paramount. Obviously not the case with Arthur.