Many of you will be familiar with the recent news that Tracey Connelly, the mother of baby Peter is set for release, after the Parole Board rejected a Government challenge to its’ ruling. Once released, she has requested a new identity and Police protection, at a cost of £1 million weekly to the British tax payer. She would essentially be free to go about her life and possibly have more children. As professionals, I have no doubt that this will draw very diverse views and we would welcome those views. I want to look at this case from an assessment point of view however, draw no firm conclusions as this is a debate that will attract and evoke strong emotions for some.
The facts of the case are that Tracey Connelly’s father was a convicted paedophile and she was raised by a mother addicted to drugs and alcohol. She was undoubtedly impacted by these early life experiences and went on to live a life of promiscuity and violence. As with Tracey, Children’s Services were involved with her children, with allegations of significant neglect, physical and emotional abuse and they were the subjects of Child Protection Plans. Baby Peter was Tracey’s fourth child and her first son however, his father did not fulfil a parenting role and from very early in Peter’s life, his mother had developed a relationship with Steven Barker, a man who is reported to be a sadistic neo-Nazi. He raped a 2 year old, tortured his grandmother and is suspected of further sex attacks on other children.
Additionally within the home was Steven’s older brother, Jason Owen, a crack cocaine addict, convicted arsonist and someone who had been accused of raping an 11 year old. It is difficult to comprehend that a more terrifying combination of adults could be entrusted with the care and welfare of an innocent young child. Of course Tracey concealed the presence of both men from professionals.
At the time of his death in 2007, baby Peter had sustained over 50 injuries. He had experienced injuries to his fingers, to include the deliberate removal of a fingernail, a fractured tibia, rib fractures, a broken spinal cord, bruises to his face, head and ears, injuries to his legs and feet, including forced removal of his big toenail, a blow to his mouth so forceful that he ingested a tooth and significant weight loss.
At the conclusion of the trial in 2009, Tracey was imprisoned for a minimum of 5 years. She was released on licence in 2013 however, recalled to Prison for a breech in her parole conditions. In evidence, she admitted to causing all of the injuries to her baby in an attempt to save her boyfriend from a conviction for murder and had essentially been prepared to sacrifice her son for him. She told the Court that he had been a good father to Peter.
So we ask ourselves now, what would happen if she conceives a child? A recent Judgement by His Honour Judge Clive Baker revisited the Resolutions Type Model. At ACCA, we refer to this as our AAA Risk Assessment, which involves a careful analysis of a parent’s support networks in circumstances where children have previously been injured. The assessment considers whether a child can be effectively safeguarded and whether the support around the parent can ameliorate risks.
These are however, extreme circumstances in which a child lost his life in the most horrific way. Peter will never again, have the opportunity to move on with his life and to experience a more positive narrative of family life. He doesn’t get to travel the world. have another birthday party or experience relationships and fatherhood. Throughout the 17 months of his short life, the family had been accessed over 60 times by professionals however, his mother’s lies and manipulation had successfully concealed the truth about the child’s torture at the hands of her boyfriend.
Research often identifies past behaviours as a predictor of the future and whilst this is something that many other professions would utilise within their own assessments of risk, it detracts from the underlying principles and values of the Social Work profession, which sets us apart and distinguishes us from all other professions. A core belief in Social Work is an individual’s capacity to change and in conducting our assessments, we do not merely rely on such defeatist attitudes. It would follow that all individuals who experienced poor parenting will inevitably become poor parents themselves without some kind of intervention. In reality, there are many successful parents, who have experienced traumatic and abusive childhoods and others who have turned their lives around.
But how do we measure this without falling into the same trap? How do we argue that these same family members, who were no doubt, also deceived, can now safeguard a child in Tracey Connelly’s care? Has Prison offered her an environment where she can heal the wounds from her own childhood and the opportunity to make meaningful changes to her life?
Are there limits to our forgiving nature and could anyone approach assessment of this mother in an open and non-judgemental way? These are the principles at the very core of our profession and highlight the challenge of Social Work Assessments. We are, after all, only human and the impact of our decisions can have profound implications for the families that we work with. Setting aside personal opinion, I always ask myself, ‘would you allow this person to care for your child?’ Well, would you?
