Social workers for Baby Peter admit misconduct but launch attack on media

Two social workers have admitted serious failings in their handling of the case of Baby Peter Connelly and believe that the allegations against them amount to professional misconduct, a hearing in London heard yesterday.

On the first day of their General Social Care Council conduct hearing, social workers Maria Ward and Gillian Christou were said to be “devastated” by the death of 17-month-old Baby Peter, who died on 3 August 2007 at his home in Haringey after a series of injuries inflicted while he was in the care of his mother Tracey Connelly. Unknown to the authorities, her boyfriend Steven Barker and his brother Jason Owen were living in the same home.

Neither Baby Peter’s allocated social worker, Ms Ward, nor her team manager, Ms Christou, attended the hearing, but in a statement read out by their representative Nick Toms both said they “deeply regret” what happened. However, he added: “They feel unable to attend this hearing because of the way this case has been dealt with by some in the media and their fear it will happen again.”

Both social workers accepted all the allegations being considered by the conduct committee. Ms Ward admitted she had not recorded visits on Haringey’s electronic system and had failed to follow the child protection plan by visiting Baby Peter’s home at least every two weeks. When Baby Peter’s childminder withdrew just 11 days before his death she did not find a replacement, nor did she establish his whereabouts for a period in July 2007.

Ms Christou admitted recording only one supervision meeting on the electronic system from the time Ms Ward took over the case in February 2007 and having no evidence of a risk management plan. Nor did she ensure that Ms Ward had carried out her duties in relation to Baby Peter.

Both social workers were sacked by Haringey Council last year, but are appealing against their dismissal.

GSCC representative Marios Lambis told the hearing that Ms Ward had been misled by Tracey Connelly, who gave the appearance of being a loving mother.  This disguised compliance meant that her parenting capacities were never adequately assessed and her deceit went unrecognised. Baby Peter suffered a catalogue of injuries, yet each injury was considered reactively and no one looked at them “cumulatively and proactively”.

Although the child protection plan specified both announced and unannounced visits, most of the visits were announced and were not undertaken with the required frequency. “Had more frequent unannounced visits been undertaken it is likely that further injuries would have been discovered, alarm bells raised and Tracey Connelly’s disguised compliance exposed,” Mr Lambis said.

After receiving one report of bruising to Baby Peter, Ms Ward discussed it with Tracey Connelly but did not see the child himself, and the mother was nearly always present during visits. It meant, said Mr Lambis, “she could provide false accounts of injuries and control what was seen in the family home by Ms Ward”.

Crucially, the mother was able to conceal the fact that her boyfriend and his brother were living with her. Mr Lambis added: “If Ms Ward had ventured into the premises beyond the kitchen and the living room, and done the unannounced visits, it would have been apparent that Steven Barker and Jason Owen were living in the home and that Peter was being abused.”

He said that Ms Christou’s inadequate supervision records made it “all too easy for responsibility to be shirked and accountability to be lost,” while Ms Ward’s four-month backlog of recordings was “not a manner in which any competent social worker would conduct their cases”.

Accurate records would have exposed the mother’s repeated claims that Baby Peter had injured himself as “blatant lies” and “could have prevented his tragic death”, he added.

Mr Lambis conceded that Ms Ward had had a high caseload and that problems in her department had been exacerbated by considerable numbers of agency workers leaving at short notice, but said that both social workers had to take some of the blame for an “eminently avoidable tragedy”.

The conduct committee will reconvene on Tuesday to decide whether the allegations constitute misconduct and what sanctions should apply.

In a damning opening statement on the role of the media in the case, the social workers’ representative Nick Toms said some of the media coverage had gone far beyond what was necessary or legitimate in the public interest. “It should not be forgotten that at the heart of this case is the tragic death of a little boy,” he said.

“An individual case such as that of Peter Connelly should not be used as a political football. Nor should Peter Connelly’s death be commercially exploited by privately owned media companies as a means of selling more newspapers or gaining more viewers, with each media organisation desperately attempting to outdo their competitors in their search for new angles to keep the story going.”