Just days after the government wrote to all local authorities and local safeguarding children boards asking them to publish all future serious case reviews in full, Kirklees unveiled the summary of the review into nine-year-old Shannon Matthews, notoriously abducted by her family in February 2008.
The police operation that followed the abduction in Dewsbury was covered widely in the national press, eventually finding that Shannon's mother Karen, along with her step-uncle Michael Donovan, had taken and hidden the child. Both were jailed in December 2008.
Following the trial, a serious case review was launched amid claims that Kirklees Council's social services failed Shannon. But the review published last week concluded that the authority could not have foreseen the abduction.
As revealed first in CYP Now a fortnight ago, the government will publish the serious case reviews of past high-profile cases, including that of Shannon Matthews, insisting that full publication will help to boost public confidence in child protection systems, while allowing professionals to better learn from reviews.
Junior children's minister Tim Loughton argued that the move would help restore confidence in social workers and highlight failures in other agencies.
Appointing Dr Eileen Munro to look at strengthening the process of serious case reviews, he added: "There is an important balance to be struck between transparency and openness so that lessons can be learned about the protection and welfare of individuals."
While both the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats made their intention to publish reviews in full clear before the election, details remain scarce on how the anonymity of surviving children and families will be protected.
This has reignited fears that the identities of surviving children and families, such as in the case of Shannon Matthews, could be revealed.
Below, the NSPCC warns that requiring local safeguarding children boards to publish all future serious case reviews in full could place children at risk of harm unless there is clear guidance first on how to do so safely.
A note of caution: Why we must exercise great care before publishing serious case reviews in full
Jane Brooks, head of child protection assessment and review, NSPCC
The government's independent review of child protection in England is welcome. It provides a golden opportunity to bring children to the front of social work practice for the first time and have a more child-focused child protection system.
However, the NSPCC is concerned that the government has moved on its mandate to local safeguarding children boards (LSCBs) to publish serious case reviews in full without consulting widely on the implications for children and their families.
The NSPCC reviewed its position last November and recommended that there should be time for the new template for executive summaries to be assessed. We want to see if this delivers the necessary transparency and accountability. We also want all parallel proceedings referenced in the executive summary.
Without the necessary safeguards in place, full publication of serious case reviews stands to be a retrograde and counter-productive step.
Tim Loughton has said that serious case review reports should be published in full, except where there are "compelling reasons relating to the welfare of any children directly concerned". Yet the government has to date issued no guidance to LSCBs on how to establish what these "compelling reasons" should be.
The NSPCC is well placed to advise on the delivery of serious case reviews. Our experience as chairs, report writers, trainers and consultants has informed our call for greater transparency and accountability in the process - a call that affected the changes in the guidance the current government is retaining.
Before any serious case reviews are published in full, government should consult with a wide range of organisations as a matter of urgency.
In 40 per cent of serious case reviews, the child concerned has survived. And in many other cases, for example in the deaths of Baby Peter and Khyra Ishaq, there are surviving siblings. Clearly, there are large numbers of children and families involved in serious case reviews whose identity must be kept out of the public domain.
We don't believe the government would intentionally put their desire to restore public confidence in the child protection system above children's welfare. But serious case reviews are complex documents and editing them to fully safeguard children requires a high level of expertise.
Also, if extensive editing is required to prevent children being identified, the resulting overview report is unlikely to provide enough information for useful analysis and recommendations. Some serious case reviews will require so much editing prior to publication, the very transparency the government is seeking to achieve is likely to be lost.
The government should talk now with experts, abused children and their families to work out how best to achieve this. Public bodies need to exercise great care before they publish details of children's lives. The best interests of the children and their families must always come first.
