A “HOUSE OF HORROR” was how The Press referred to it, last June. Three young York children, all aged under five, were forced to live in almost unimaginable squalor by their own parents.
Photographs showed the filthy, stinking conditions in which they were kept.
Jailing the parents last June, Judge Stephen Ashurst told them their children were “not so much living, rather surviving, in that dark, insanitary and squalid house”.
All three were dirty and unkempt, the judge said. “They had, variously, cradle cap, severe nappy rash and other areas of inflammation. The two older children (including a four and a half year-old) were still in nappies. They were prisoners in their own home, unable even to play in the garden.”
The children were put into caring homes, and are now said to be doing well. But cases such as this remain deeply shocking. They dispel any comfortable notions that child neglect and abuse is something that happens elsewhere, not here in York.
For people such as former social worker Joe Cocker, whose working life has been dedicated to protecting children from abuse, there are always lessons to be learned.
On the morning I arrive at his office, the 50-year-old father-of-one and manager of the city’s Safeguarding Children Board is fresh from a case review meeting.
There were two cases, both involving child neglect, on the agenda. One is still awaiting evaluation by Ofsted. Mr Cocker cannot talk about it at all.
The other was the “house of horror” case. What troubles child protection workers about this case so much is the fact that it was not flagged up sooner.
The neglect had continued for months, while the children’s condition deteriorated. This was despite contact from child protection workers and health visitors, who had raised “low-level concerns”.
A review into the case by the Safeguarding Children Board indicates the parents were uncooperative. They were “unable or unwilling to engage with the support and preventative services”, the report says. “Such families pose a dilemma for all agencies, as there is no basis to impose services on them… Only persistence, persuasion and the building of trusting relationships with non-threatening sources of support are likely to break down the barriers.”
None of which is an excuse. Agencies should have been able to intervene sooner to prevent the situation deteriorating, Mr Cocker admits. When the full extent of the neglect came to light, there were anguished questions asked. “The question really was ‘how did it get to this point of extreme neglect?’ We need to try to understand why.”
As manager of the city’s Safeguarding Children Board, part of his job is to try answer questions such as this.
He and his board are there to challenge procedures, and to ensure that all the agencies involved in child protection work effectively together.
That is precisely why “learning lessons” reviews such as that into the “house of horror” case are held.
One of the conclusions of the review was that there is a need for better cooperation between the various agencies – health visitors, social workers and others – responsible for protecting children.
But there was another lesson, too: that neighbours, relatives and friends can have a vital role in bringing suspected cases of child abuse or neglect to light.
In the “house of horror” case, a member of the public living nearby raised the alarm. Their call for help allowed the police to break through the excuses made by the parents to try and discover what was going on inside that house.
The family kept themselves to themselves. But even so, neighbours became concerned that they had not seen the children for some time. “They notified the authorities,” Mr Cocker says. “The police were sufficiently concerned, they went around, and they took the necessary steps.”
Whenever there is a harrowing, high-profile national case – such as the death of Baby P or of Victoria Climbié eight years ago –social workers tend to take the brunt of public anger.
It is natural that, following such cases, society should wish to examine the processes we put in place to try to protect children, including the role of social workers, health visitors or the police.
But the “house of horror” case demonstrated that we all have a responsibility towards children living in our neighbourhoods. “Safeguarding children is everybody’s concern,” Mr Cocker says.
It is not always easy, especially if it is a friend, neighbour or relative you are drawing attention to.
“Emotionally, it is a very difficult step to take. You sometimes question yourself: did I really see what I saw? It is very easy to find a way of explaining it away to yourself.”
But most of us have an instinct for when something is not right. “The thing is to trust your instincts, not try to explain them away.”
If you are still unsure, there is a question you can ask yourself, Mr Cocker says. “Would I want a child of mine living in this situation? And what might the consequences be of not taking action?
With some of these big national cases, you have to think if you had been in a position to take action, might that child have survived?”
Thankfully in York we have not had a case like that of Baby P. Even cases such as the “house of horror” children are rare.
But that is not to say children in the city are not being abused or neglected.
At the moment, 77 children in York are subject to a child protection plan. In the past six months alone, no fewer than 25 children have come into care as a result of abuse or neglect – although in most cases, this was done with the agreement of parents. It is rare for a child to be removed without the consent of parents, Mr Cocker says.
Statistics from last September revealed a quarter of the children subject to a child protection plan were on the plan because of neglect, nearly one in five because of physical abuse – and there were nine cases of sexual abuse, all within the City of York Council area.
“It is more common than people might think,” Mr Cocker says. “It can happen in families just like ours.”
The last thing anyone wants is for us to turn into a society of snoopers, constantly spying on friends’ and neighbours’ children, Mr Cocker says.
But if you are seriously concerned, reporting your worries is not an act of betrayal.
Families where neglect or abuse is occurring often simply need help. It is rare that the police go racing round with blue lights flashing: rare, even, that children need to be removed from the family home. “The best place for a child is with the family, except under extreme circumstances.”
It may simply be that a series of visits, from social workers or specialist drug or alcohol workers, are needed.
But some parents do try to cover up abuse or neglect. Their children do need help. And it can sometimes be up to us to make sure they get it.
Signs that a child may be suffering abuse
THERE are clear signs to look out for that children might be subject to neglect or abuse. They include:
Neglect:
• The child frequently appears hungry
• The child looks consistently dirty, untidy, or inappropriately dressed
• The child is not receiving medical attention when needed
Physical abuse:
Bruising is a concern, especially when bruises:
• Can be seen on parts of the body not normally harmed during play
• Appear in or around the mouth (especially in young babies)
• Appear to be of different ages and hence are a different colour) in the same area
• Look as though they may have been caused by a stick or belt
Emotional abuse:
Signs that a child is starved of love and attention, or is consistently rejected or criticised, include:
• Very low self-esteem
• Excessively clingy, attention-seeking behaviour
• Anxiety and watchfulness
• Withdrawn or socially isolated
Sexual abuse
Signs include:
• Sexually explicit talk or play
• Inappropriate sexual behaviour
• Sexually provocative relationships with adults
If you have a cause for concern about children you know, you can phone the York Safeguarding Children Board in confidence on 01904 551900 or 0845 0349417. To find out more about the board, or about the signs to look for if you suspect neglect or abuse, visit saferchildrenyork.org.uk
Board that monitors child protection services
THE City of York Safeguarding Children Board, managed by Joe Cocker, is made up of senior managers from key child protection agencies in the city, including the police, the health services, the city council, schools, the NSPCC, the Council for Voluntary Services, the youth offending team, Askham Bryan Prison, and drug and alcohol misuse services. A schools adviser has just been appointed to the board.
The board is independent of local authority control, though supported by it. Its job is to monitor child protection activities in the city, to ensure organisations work effectively together, and to review cases where things went wrong so lessons can be learned.
“The idea is to try to prevent tragedies from happening, rather than plugging the gaps afterwards,” Mr Cocker said.
Some things do go wrong in York. “But overall I’m hugely impressed with the way the way the various agencies work together. There is real commitment on behalf of all the agencies to safeguarding our children.”
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules here