09-10-2014, 06:19 PM
|
#1
|
We have to go back, Kate!
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Yorkshire
Posts: 25,964
|
From a 2004 report by Women's Aid:
Quote:
Women’s Aid has compiled details of 29 children in 13 families who were killed between 1994 and 2004 as a result of contact (and in one case residence) arrangements in England and Wales. Ten of these children were killed in the last two years. The Government has acknowledged that with regard to five of these families contact was ordered by the court.
|
Quote:
Findings
•
In three cases it is clear that not only did the court grant orders for unsupervised contact or residence to very violent fathers but that these decision were made against professional advice, without waiting for professional advice or without requesting professional advice. There was nothing to indicate that any court professionals have been held accountable.
•
It is clear that domestic violence was involved in 11 out of the 13 families. In one of the two remaining cases the mother has spoken of her ex-partner’s obsessively controlling behaviour (a characteristic feature of domestic violence) and in the other case there were concerns about the child’s safety.
Several of the homicides occurred during overnight stays.
•
Mental health issues (including depression and suicide threats or attempts) are mentioned with regard to 9 of the 13 fathers who killed their children.
•
In several cases where statutory agencies knew that the mother was experiencing domestic violence, the children were not viewed as being at risk of ‘significant harm’, even when she was facing potentially lethal violence.
•
In five cases it is clear that the father killed the children in order to take revenge on his ex-partner for leaving him.
•
Some professionals clearly did not have any understanding of the power and control dynamics of domestic violence, and did not recognise the increased risks following separation or the mother’s starting a new relationship.
•
In several cases professionals did not talk to the children and this meant that, in effect, there was no assessment of their needs. Sometimes this was because the perpetrator prevented any meaningful contact with the child.
•
With regard to the five homicide cases where contact was ordered by the court, we can only assume that the court did not follow the recommendation in the Good Practice Guidelines about ensuring the safety of the child and the resident parent before during and after contact. The guidance in Working Together to Safeguard Children about supporting the non-violent parent also appears to have been largely ignored.
•
No explanation was given for the failure to carry out Serious Case Reviews with regard to seven of the children who were killed
In one case a judge granted residence of two children to a very violent father without waiting for a mental health assessment of the father, although the Social Services report “outlined an expectation that [the father] would receive treatment for his mental health needs”. He had apparently taken an overdose recently and declined hospital admission. The court also determined “detailed direct and indirect contact between each child and the non-custodial parent”. The child, who chose to live with the mother, was subsequently killed by the father during an unsupervised contact visit. It was reported at the father’s trial that he had also left a note indicating that he intended to kill all three children to take revenge on his wife for leaving him. The Serious Case Review states that “with hindsight, it could be argued that the Court should have waited before making a final decision until all the recommended reports were placed before them”.
In another case the father was on bail, awaiting trial for injuring the mother during a violent incident. The executive summary states that “…no significant risks of a child protection nature were identified. Nevertheless the Family Court Welfare Officers had recommended to the County Court that the (children’s) contact with their father should not include overnight stays.” In spite of this the mother’s lawyer “encouraged her to make a compromise” and the judge “made the decision on contact, contrary to the recommendations in the Family Court Welfare report.” The children were killed during the first overnight stay.
In a third case two children were killed by their violent father after their mother was reluctantly persuaded at the door of the court to agree to a contact order by consent. The mother states that she asked in vain for reports from the police, the GP and a psychiatrist to be added to the court welfare report.
|
http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wp-conte..._homicides.pdf
Last edited by DanaC; 09-10-2014 at 06:33 PM.
|
|
|