Daniel Pelka Focus and principles for the serious case learning review

1. Daniel PelkaFocus and principles for the serious case learning review Sarah Stokoe Designated Safeguarding Teacher Networks October 2013

2. New Working Together 2013 • Professionals fully involved without fear of blame for actions that are in good faith • Understanding context and complexity of circumstances at that time • Use of best practice and evidence to improve outcomes

3. Serious Case Review – School Concerns (1) • Key Indicators (SCR 7.17) • During 2011-early 2012 school noted injuries on Daniel that had not been caused by any accidents in school • The lack of recording of them by the school was a concern in itself as well as the fact there were two books to record concerns about a child. • (SCR 4.72) At trail evidence presented included severe mark to nose like a dent, a black eye and blood spots on face – In January or February • A bruise to the centre of the forehead was logged by teaching assistant but unsure if this was before or after Christmas.

4. School Concerns (2) • One of the injuries was recorded in the book for the reception class but none were recorded in the school book for this purpose • It was clear the school did not have clear protocols to enable the compilation of information and concerns. This meant there was lack of clarity about when injuries were seen, how many there were and the response to them.

5. School Concerns (3) • Within the criminal trial school staff gave conflicting accounts, particularly about when the head teacher was involved who was designated teacher. • It appeared there were many injuries, in the trial one teacher said it was in her view one of the injuries was caused by someone trying to strangle Daniel, and said she thought his mother had done this.

6. School Concerns (4) • On one occasion the Head teacher asked Anna to explain a particular injury and in response had said Daniel had been pushed over on the way home. Then followed some muddled communication to arrange for the class teacher to speak to Mrs Luczak who was not on duty at the time so this did not happen.

7. School Concerns • SCR 4.71 Mother said food he would take home would give him diarrhoea staff talked about how he would look for food, eat whatever he would get his hands on, despite poor engagement with peers he managed to get children to take him food to eat in the toilets. Tried to eat beans being planted and raw jelly taken from a sandpit.

8. School Concerns (5) • SCR 7.18 With the mounting concerns about Daniels weight , obsession to seek out food ,as well as poor growth and weight loss it was very concerning and surprising schools missed to raise this at a child protection level. SCR 4.82 One teaching assistant said she was very, very concerned he was becoming a “bag of bones” It is difficult to understand why a school did not co-ordinate concerns. The schools system to respond to safeguarding concerns was therefore dysfunctional at this time.

9. School Concerns (6) • 4.75 The learning mentor discussed with the new EWO possibility of completing a common assessment framework , although it was noted because the SENCO was working with parent this would be sufficient.

10. School Concerns (6) • The schools safeguarding policy does not make it clear what the internal arrangements were for reporting and recording concerns. • SCR 4.83 On 2nd March 2013 Daniel was logged as unauthorised absence - school made a call home and there was no reply. • Against the backdrop that the school apparent view that Daniel had a medical condition, which coincided with the lack of enquiry or consideration that neglect or abuse at home were possible factors in his life.

11. School Concerns (6) • An additional explanation may well be lay on that the situation was influenced by the small size of the school, which may have relied on staff talking with each other on a regular basis about the concerns they had, but this may have led staff members into a false sense of security that they were doing more than they actually were.

12. Covey • Zone of control • Zone of Influence • Beyond our control or influence

13. Table Activity • In your packs you have 4 tasks – Decide which task you would like to work on. 1 or all 4. • Use Flip chart Pens / Post it notes. • In 15 minutes I need your table to display your findings on the wall alongside other tables. • Please put all materials back in the packs from tomorrow evening.

14. Potential local barriers – DSCB practice review group findings • Delay in messages being received to and from professionals • Disconnection from each other • Poor Information • Communication • Engagement with services • Perception and priority at correct threshold • Feedback and Review missing with original referrer

15. Designated Teacher Future Developments • There will be feedback from the practice review group • We are in talks with Rosie2 a neglect training aid • Public Health / Dieticians training available – Contact Steve Presley • Download new thresholds and also neglect toolkit • New model LA safeguarding policy (adapt or adopt) • New website • New Induction for staff / safeguarding induction pack