The Life Support Machine Is Turned Off

This has been submitted by local parent - Eddy Parkinson

Case No: WR19C00221 26th March 2021

Chris Baird, head of Hereford child services, unlawfully decided to turn off the life support machine of a dying child. At this point Mr Baird had been the fourth head of child services in 18 months. Mr Baird and others apologised for the ‘error of judgement’. Bad legal advice they said. The child had heart issues I’m told.

A commonality among victims of injustice in social services is heart issues. Stress tachycardia is usually associated with torture or death camp survivors. The horror and upset of having a child taken unlawfully, not unusual in Herefordshire at this time, or being a child taken unlawfully causes health and mental issues. 

Arrested mental development in the taken children is so common it’s a cliche. Kids who go through care, fostering or adoption fail dramatically in every metric and die sooner than kids from households in crisis who receive support. 

The life support machine was turned off while the mum was paying for her parking in the hospital car park on her way up into the hospital room to say her final good bye. The council knew the mum was on her way. Callous and totally in character for this council at this time. Gossip is the timing of the turn off was due to Mr Baird wanting to go home. I do hope that’s not true. 

If anyone reading this knows the story of what happened when Chris Baird and the social workers involved turned up at the child’s funeral I’m all ears. ‘Regrettable’ apparently. 

Re YY (Children: Conduct of the Local Authority)

Microsoft Word - HCC v YY judgment.doc

originally read this early on in my time on this subject and didnt make notes, its good to gain perspective of just how arrogant, incompetent and callous Hereford council has been.

To be fair i feel that since late 2023 new referals and complaints have been handle better than previously but thats from a horrifically low metric. 

Item F from appendix 4 

(f) From early 2019 onwards there was a tacit assumption made by many of the social workers within the Children’s and Fostering teams that there should be SGOs and the May 2018 Child & Family Assessment said as much. The local authority’s practice of drafting SGO support plans in advance of an SGO report contributed to the sense that SGOs were a foregone conclusion;

The council created a production line, better described as a 'conveyor belt'. The methodology of the childrens act guidance is junked to create a logical progression of managed steps. Easier to control the narrative, avoid complaints, and control outcomes. Once you’re on the conveyor you cant easily get off. 

A machine designed to deflect complaints and protect the councils reputation and its staff.

This clicks with a comment from a council insider id heard that referals got acted on or fabricated to meet partner agencies needs. Outcomes got decided day 1 before contact with families. So if a childrens home had a space then SWs would look to fill the space. Adoption company wants a baby? the SWs would get one. The paperwork was sorted in advance.

Worth noting career progression for SWs if you want a big wage is the private care, fostering and adoption agencies. A jobs for kids arrangement?.

No SW depravity would surprise me now.  

In the judgement appendix 4 item 2 we see with this case its not just the council amending, deleting documents, its an insistance on ‘paper only’ assessments to preserve a means of protecting a council narrative. 

In corrupt businesses you often see two sets of books. A hidden language often emerges. a tradesman may say 'cash?' or ‘cashcash?' to a trusted aquaintance to indicate on or off the books.

A phrase ive heard is the 'Hereford way'. Perhaps SWs would know how to conduct an investigation etc based on if they had been told to do it the 'Hereford way' or not. 

Item (a) The SGO assessment carried out by Kathryn Straughan after Child C’s death was inadequate in that – i. ii. iii. Kathryn Straughan, was instructed by her manager, Alison Forshaw, to undertake a ‘paper only’ assessment after Child C’s death; or Kathryn Straughan carried out a ‘paper only’ assessment without informing Alison Forshaw; or Alison Forshaw knew that Kathryn Straughan was carrying out a ‘paper only’ assessment but permitted her to continue and took no steps to intervene or direct that she should hold face to face discussions with the children or Mr and Mrs XX

We see in point 101 Judges summing up as explained in appendix 4, Docs amended to suit the councils narrative.

First SGO wasnt what the seniors wanted, author resigns, same report is subtly altered.

Item 101. During the course of this hearing, in circumstances which I shall describe later in this judgment, an issue arose about the provenance of the special guardianship assessment report dated 22nd October 2019. I heard oral evidence from the fostering social worker, Kathryn Straughan, the fostering team manager, Alison Forshaw, and from the Head of Service, Gillian Cox

Item 156. When it was suggested that save for the first updating report having been emailed to Ms Cox, Ms Forshaw had sought to suppress the first version, Ms Forshaw said she thought both the first and the second updated reports had been sent to the legal department. Only the second version was filed at court and served on the parties. I have not seen any evidence of the first version having been sent to the legal department. Indeed, the first the court and the other parties knew of the first version is when Ms Straughan’s statement of February 2021 was filed and served by the local authority

166.....When Mr Baird’s dismay at this state of affairs was put to Ms Cox, she asserted that the director of children's services did not know the usual practice adopted in Herefordshire.

Mr Chris Baird had no reason to be in that role. Was Baird qualified? who let him do the job? Did the councillors know? Having excellent interpersonal skills and wearing a suit doesn’t mean you’re up to the job of being a head of social services. 

Item 178. Ms Forshaw’s evidence about why she had sent an email to Ms Straughan on 11th October 2019 asking her to make a recommendation when, as she accepted, Ms Straughan had made a very clear and strong recommendation in her first version ofthe updated report, was most unsatisfactory. Her evidence leads me to only one conclusion, namely that she was directing Ms Straughan to produce a report recommending the making of SGOs.

no sh*t Sherlock. The whole enterprise is fraudulent. 

180. Likewise, the only credible reason for Ms Cox limiting her reading of the second version of the updating report to the recommendation is because she had got the answer she wanted, namely a recommendation in favour of the making of a SGO. Hence her subsequent email to Ms Forshaw that she was ‘pleased’ that Ms Straughan had been able to make a clear recommendation.

Not so much a lack of professional curiosity or confirmation bias. The councils reputation and best financial interest was prioritised. 

The council did the easy thing.

We not have a simple 3 word media friendly explanation to say what’s been going on at this council for 20 plus years.

Vulnerable people attract predators. 

We see time and time again police, care home staff, social services staff, NHS staff getting into jobs for all the wrong reasons. Living out fantasys of domination and saving kids from cults. 

Allegations peodophile rings in and around care homes are common. 

Huge volumes of cash have been used to separate innocent children from blameless households.