I did not know this! Good that it happens but sad that Preston was still failed despite it.
- Status
New to Tattle Life? Click "Order Thread by Most Liked Posts" button below to get an idea of what the site is about:
Thanks Nelly's Mum for confirming that an automatic referral is made when a looked-after child goes to the ED. I'd assumed something like this was the case, assumed also that there's some kind of flag put on children's ED visit records so that repeated visits raise further flags and I'm hoping that frequency, timescale and nature of injury is taken into account.
But then what? Whose judgement prevails on deciding what to do about the multiple visits and deciding whether they are sinister? If, as you think IGiveUp22, the medics decided the injuries weren't intentional how do they know? Because the adults who brought the child in said so? How are they qualified to know?
And I agree Kabukigirl that middle-class 'professionals' can be good at balls-speak but surely that shouldn't count in an area like this, the safeguarding professionals should be armed against it and they can't be if there is bias or deference or uncertainty that 'the system' will back them.
Why didn't the fact of the frequent ED visits alone (given the age and circumstances of the child) automatically trigger a deeper investigation, not just 'visits' and chats.
I am a broken record, I know.
But then what? Whose judgement prevails on deciding what to do about the multiple visits and deciding whether they are sinister? If, as you think IGiveUp22, the medics decided the injuries weren't intentional how do they know? Because the adults who brought the child in said so? How are they qualified to know?
And I agree Kabukigirl that middle-class 'professionals' can be good at balls-speak but surely that shouldn't count in an area like this, the safeguarding professionals should be armed against it and they can't be if there is bias or deference or uncertainty that 'the system' will back them.
Why didn't the fact of the frequent ED visits alone (given the age and circumstances of the child) automatically trigger a deeper investigation, not just 'visits' and chats.
I am a broken record, I know.
The increase in frequency of visits to A&E after he had started living with JV and JMF should have been picked up, surely if he was susceptible to breathing issues, seizures etc then he would have suffered these when he was with his foster mum, yet she had reported that apart from his reflux and sleeping issues he was pretty healthy
I wonder if some of the ED visits were red herrings. Where they took him even though he recovered or they knew he was ok but it helped create the image of them being ‘worried new parents’ who were overly cautious and inexperienced.
I think they did this too, as some of the things they didn’t rush straight to the drs or A&E, they messaged the social workers and in their group chat and things.
I definitely think the frequency of visits and the fact he didn’t attend at all (?) or having any of these issues he suddenly started presenting with should have been picked up and was the red flag imo.
To answer @Marcolf I don’t know, we’ve had a pathologist and a dr on the stand who both said the force needed to cause that fracture would point to it being non-accidental. I am not sure why it wasn’t flagged as a concern by the attending A&E doctor - maybe it does come back to how JV and JMF presented themselves at the time or the middle class bias or maybe that dr had a different opinion to those on the prosecution. It’s hard to know.
I think the chest infections, breathing issues and potential seizures are harder to flag as non-accidental by medical professionals imo. This should have sparked more questions about how these things have suddenly come on etc but I don’t think the first thought would have been intentional harm. It’s possibly things were attributed to his biological parents or if he was born addicted (can’t remember if that has been confirmed or not) that these things could be due to that.
It genuinely is baffling that more questions were not asked and a proper investigation not done by either drs or social services, especially when you look at the time line.
Giving all the professionals grace in this situation, you'd think at the very least there would be increased contact from SW either to provide help and support to inexperienced parents, or to monitor the situation to inform a view of whether there is something negligent going on. The SW that basically said "I questioned whether it was strange but decided it wasnt" (paraphrasing badly here) should had gathered more info to inform that opinion before just trusting a feeling.
No worries. I don't want to come across as a know it all, but their journey to adopt sounds pretty normal. If we take out the fact that they are monsters of course!!
I’m arguing with myself over who should have been more pushy/curious. The SW can take the medical professionals word for it that an injury is accidental but should use their judgement on the circumstances when they do a follow up visit. Should the doctors/nurses have taken a bit more time to assess things? Should the social workers have stepped up involvement given Preston’s previous clean bill of health? It seems like each has relied on the other to be the authority. A bit of a poor analogy but when I was nursing you would countersign for certain medications and for blood transfusions and there was a push to have single sign off, the rationale being you would be more vigilant if you didn’t have someone else sharing accountability. I do think there is, or will be, an element of buck passing here for following up on a worrying pattern (if anyone had taken the time to look). Especially with the fracture. If it had been escalated he would have had a full physical and they would have noticed the signs of abuse.
No I hear youYour input is interesting & helpful as I guess it's not a field in which many will be aware of the finer details unless going through the process themselves BUT & there is a but.... the time scale is concerning.
These 2 men barely knew one another.
They met & set up home within a year of their relationship.
They passed all backgrounds checks & were gifted the joy of a precious child.
Within 4 months that child was dead.
Those 4 brief points combined are catastrophic. Maybe the system is too fast rather than 'fast tracked'.
IDK what the right answer is, who does, but I hand on heart think the hospital staff & SW did not raise individual concerns or join the dots & liase with one another because IF they had Preston would still be alive albeit damaged due to the 'care' these monsters gave him.
RIP precious Preston
and it's perfectly valid what you are saying.Thousands of adoptions happen every year under the same process, all of which are social worker success stories. These pair are awful. Whether the process was 18 months or 18 years, they'd have still committed the crime.
Hospital staff and social workers should have definitely been more curious as to what was going on. Theyd have had 3 social workers, Preston's, their own and the IRO who oversees the adoption holistically. I'd love to know where the other two social workers were as we've only heard about love heart lady.
It really stays with me the amount of people affected by the actions of these monsters. Preston at the heart of their actions but you've got the foster family, the birth family, JV and JMF's family, the hospital staff, the social workers, friends, school teachers, the paramedics that had the trauma of performing CPR on the already passed child, the pathologists having to see how horrifically abused this tiny soul was, the police officers, the judge, the jury, the solicitors and barristers involved, the public, gay couples wanting to adopt for the right reasons, anyone wanting to adopt... the list is endless.
A whole life order still doesn't seem long enough.
A whole life order still doesn't seem long enough.
Does anyone think they will be found not guilty? And what happens then? Surely they'll never know peace? They will be guilty in everyone's eyes.
I've worried about JMF being found not guilty as a lot of the evidence we've heard focuses more on JV. I have no doubt in my mind that JV will be found guilty, but I feel like the prosecutions closing comments are going to have to really spell out the evidence of JMF's guilt to help mitigate potential doubt
I think they will both be found guilty.
Let's hope so, for Preston's sake 🩵
I think they will both be found guilty. We can see they are just from the evidence reported in the media. The jury have been completely immersed in this. They've seen the awful pictures, heard the medical experts in person etc. I have faith in them.
The prosecution are yet to question JV & depending on his answers they may reveal information on JMF that could incriminate him (they're likely in a pact but one can hope the cocky swine slips up)
My cousin broke her wrist playing netball when she was about 8/9 and her parents were questioned so intensely by multiple different people at the hospital as to how it had happened. This was many years ago and you'd think safeguarding practices would only have improved since then.
I'm finding it so hard to understand how the multiple injuries didn't flag anything especially with social services so closely involved. I understand that their explanations were obviously believed/credible but this isn't an active child playing sports, he was a baby
It's heartbreaking
I have some experience of these processes (in a work capacity) and know how the Drs interpretation of an injury seen depends massively on the history reported by the care giver. Often it’s the ones that have no explanation that trigger the most intrusive processes. In JVs safeguarding capacity at work he will have sat in meetings about children who were open to social care potentially for reasons such as non accidental or unexplained injuries - that
, his adoption training and his ability to concoct a story will have massively influenced how he manipulated medical professionals.
even if a Dr had had suspicions re the arm fracture and triggered a safeguarding medical examination it really only looks for outward signs of abuse (bruising) and can pick up older fractures but in this case we think that was the first and only. His bottom if visibly injured might have been picked up but I don’t think they would have taken the risk at presenting him to hospital if that was the case. Unfortunately systems are stretched but so many children are supported and safeguarded that never make the news snd those that do, like this one, had two very clever people capable of unthinkable harm pulling the wool with tragic consequences.
Maybe that’s why they waited until the next day to get it checked, and made such a fuss about an X-ray.
- Status