COUNCILLORS will today discuss how the life-threatening injuries suffered by a four-week old Coventry baby could not have been ‘prevented’.
The education and children’s services scrutiny board will be discussing the outcome of a Serious Case Review examining the case of ‘Baby F’.
The baby was admitted to University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire three years ago and still needs continuous care to stay alive – after being found with a serious bleed on the brain.
The child’s father was convicted of grievous bodily harm with intent and sentenced to 18 years in prison – while his mother was convicted of cruelty and neglect for failing to get the child treatment.
Today’s meeting will consider the recommendations and assess the progress made since the review began in 2015.
Baby F’s family – including the other siblings – were said to be known to Coventry City Council’s children’s social care department.
The Coventry Safeguarding Children Board commissioned independent author Daryl Agnew to deliver the three-year review into the services and support available to the child.
The main questions of the review were:
– How well did services respond to various incidents that arose during the specified period? Was this appropriate?
– Is there any evidence from the siblings or any other source that the parents posed a risk?
– Did services engage effectively with the family and identify subsequent risks and interventions?
The review found there was little contact with child protection agencies even despite Baby F’s family being known to authorities.
Its accompanying report states: “In the few weeks prior to Baby F’s non-accidental injury, there was limited contact with agencies other than midwifery and his subsequent admission to hospital.
“There were missed opportunities for health visitor contact as a result of mother’s failure to undertake the primary visit in his home.
“However, early midwifery visits report that both mother and baby were well.
“Baby F was gaining weight well and mother was reported to have ‘excellent family support’.”
It added: “There is no evidence from the review to indicate that this injury could have been predicted or prevented by agencies working with the family.”
But the report analysed the care of Baby F’s older half-sibling, Child V, who was admitted to hospital with faltering growth.
The analysis revealed serious concerns about the mother’s parenting – with Child V rapidly gaining weight on leaving hospital.
It was revealed the mother had previous history of anxiety and depression and had been offered counselling and anti-depressants by her GP.
A school family support worker investigated bruises which Child V’s father had reported.
And a social worker visiting the family home encountered a strong smell of urine and learned Child V ‘wet the bed nightly’.
The concerns raised by neighbours, teachers and agency workers about Child V are believed to be indicative of the difficult environment Baby F was born into.
A number of concerns will be raised to councillors, outlined in the conclusions of the report.
These include considering poor quality and inconsistent record keeping within children’s social care and the lack of accurate information, professional concerns as well as an absence of the ‘voice of the child’ contained in assessments.”
The recommendations of the report into Baby F include ensuring an improved safeguarding approach and appropriate reviewing and recording of primary visits.
