The lessons of Daniel Pelka

Daniel Pelka was murdered by his mother and her boyfriend. They have been convicted for his murder and are serving very long prison sentences. Too many children die at the hands of their parents – 50 every year in the UK is typical. Many of these I can understand if without much in the way of sympathy – the drunken rage at a crying toddler, the drug-induced paranoia of the addict. But I can’t pretend that I start to understand in any way the sadistic and sustained torture of a little boy, leading eventually to his death.

Fortunately cases like Daniel’s are rare – though one is too many, and we must do all we possibly can to avoid them.

In Daniel’s case, what are the real lessons? The report shows that workers in several of the key agencies – health, the police, and above all the school – failed to “think the unthinkable” and take action. And that was compounded by Daniel’s lack of spoken English and a willingness not to talk to him.

However, there is a danger in “thinking the unthinkable” – action may be taken and investigations carried out on evidence that is flimsy at best, and in some cases terrible injustices are done to families. The number of children in care rises after every high-profile tragedy like this, and scarce resources are used on a broad target without always – as with Daniel – identifying the most vulnerable.

There is, however, one common factor in all the recent serious case reviews – that more than one agency has had concerns. The previous administration had spotted this and started to implement ContactPoint – I still have the mug, and it says ‘ContactPoint will be the quick way to find out who else is working with the same child or young person’. Michael Give cancelled ContactPoint, and in retrospect – and even now – I think he was right to do so – it was a huge national IT project and the implementation record of such projects is not at all good.

But, and again thinking about it with hindsight, what would I do if I were still a director, or was advising ministers? I would seriously consider implementing a simpler local IT system where any professional interacting with a child where there was any concern would record that. The threshold for concern would need to be low, without requiring judgments of serious concern to be made. Only if more than one record of concern was made would the IT system flag the child to a reviewer who would be tasked with evaluating and “thinking the unthinkable”, and, where appropriate, setting action in train. Of course, none of this would absolve any professional from taking immediate action on their agency’s behalf – or from listening to the child – but it would better pick up the most serious cases.

At a national level, I’d want regulations to require local authorities and their statutory partners to set up and to deploy such a system, and to require, through professional standards, all professionals in contact with children to use the system.

Would this always work? Of course not, systems are fallible and so are people. But it would help pick up more of the most serious abuses, those where workers in several agencies have concerns.

John Freeman CBE is a former director of children's services and is now a freelance consultant