This brief is based on the findings from a Rapid Review undertaken by the Leeds Safeguarding Children Partnership. The purpose of a Rapid Review is to identify and act upon immediate learning from situations where a child has experienced abuse and neglect.
What happened
A Rapid Review was undertaken following a disclosure by Henry (not his real name), of sexual abuse which had taken place over several years. Henry is a child of primary school age.
The sexual abuse had been perpetrated by a registered sex offender (RSO) who had previously been in a relationship with Henry’s mother. Both the perpetrator and Henry’s mother had told agencies that they were no longer in contact, despite him having regular contact with the family.
There was a history of sexual abuse within the family with Henry’s maternal grandfather having sexually abused his mother when she was a child.
Henry’s older sibling had shared concerns in relation to the perpetrator and Henry.
What did the review tell us?
1.The need to hear, acknowledge, and appropriately respond to the voice of the child.
Henry’s older sibling had clearly told professionals that her mother and the perpetrator were back in a relationship, as well as expressing concerns for Henry, however her voice was lost at points and not always acted upon.
- Practitioners should ensure that they provide opportunities for children to talk to a trusted adult and that they respond to concerns children are expressing, either about themselves or someone else.
- Practitioners should seek advice if they are unsure about appropriate courses of action.
2. The need to adopt a Think Family, Work Family approach where there has been an identified need or safeguarding issue for one person within a household, as they might have an impact on another family member. Adopting a Think Family Work Family approach will enable the practitioner to consider, understand and appropriately respond.
There were differing identified needs for each of the family members. The needs of each would have impacted on other family members. Although support was provided for each individual, there was not a consistent joined up approach which considered and responded to the needs of each person, in relation to those of others, and how they might have impacted on the ability of individuals to safeguard others within the family.
The impact of the mothers physical and mental health does not appear to have been considered by the GP in the context of Henry’s wellbeing.
Where practitioners were made aware of a new partner for mum their details were not explored and documented.
Although there is reference to Henry in his sibling’s records, there was no reference to any potential safety / welfare risks, given the knowledge of the family circumstances and the information provided that the perpetrator was in contact with the family.
- Practitioners should ensure that they are aware of all family members and any potential needs. These should be considered holistically in relation to the impact on other family members, including the ability to safeguard others. Where there are multiple needs which impact on others, these should be considered in a multi-agency approach.
- Practitioners should ensure that they explore details of any new people within a child’s life / family setting and consider any potential needs or risks for the child.
3. The need to be aware of the potential for disguised compliance, including how to explore it through professional curiosity.
- There was an over reliance on what the perpetrator and the mother were reporting to agencies in relation to contact with each other. Professional curiosity and the consideration of disguised compliance would have allowed for exploration of the relationship between them and levels of contact.
- Practitioners should be aware of the concept of disguised compliance (the appearance of co-operating with professionals in order to allay concerns and stop professional engagement (adapted from Reder et al, 1993)) and use a professionally curious approach to understand what is happening in a situation, to establish what life is like for individuals.
4. The management and monitoring of RSO’s including how what is being reported by either an offender or someone associated with an offender, is collaborated, and informs risk assessments.
- Although known to the Police due to his RSO status, as well as other agencies via the sibling’s testimonies, agencies working with the child and their family were unaware of the perpetrator’s ongoing contact with the family, until an assessment following a physical altercation between the child and their sibling. A strategy meeting, including the Public Protection Officer (PPO), following the physical altercation between the child and their sibling would have enabled information to be shared with respect to the perpetrator and any potential risk considered.
- Practitioners should be aware of how inter-familial sexual abuse manifests, can be normalised within family settings and how it is assessed and understood and responded to in order to ensure family members are protected.
The review identified the following good practice:
- Henry was a child in need of additional support. The school provided Henry and his mother high levels of early help support to support Henry’s attendance and engagement in school and ensure appropriate support for his additional needs via the SENCO.
- Henry was offered a place at school during the COVID 19 Pandemic lockdown.
- During an assessment following a physical altercation between Henry and his sibling the Social Worker appropriately challenged the mother with regards to her relationship with the perpetrator; specifically asking Henry if he knew the individual and providing opportunities for the child to disclose. At the end of the assessment the Social Worker reiterated messages about telling a trusted adult if Henry had any concerns.
- The Health Visitor challenged the mother with regards to her contact with her father and potential risks to Henry.