11am on 14 July. Victoria was seen by Dr Beynon within an hour of her arrival. Dr Beynon took a history from Ms Cameron which, together with the results of a basic examination of Victoria, concerned him enough to refer the matter to a paediatric registrar. In his view there was a “strong possibility” that this was a case of non-accidental injury.’ Such case as this allows one to think whether or not the professionals who were working with Victoria were not attentive as to what was taking place. The first signs that rose attention were after;
‘A number of Ealing staff who saw Kouao and Victoria together during May 1999 noticed a marked difference between Kouao’s appearance (she was always well dressed) and that of Victoria (who was far scruffier). Deborah Gaunt, who saw the two of them together on 24 May 1999, went as far as to say that she thought Victoria looked like an’ “advertisement for Action Aid”.
The United nations describes a universe suitable for the lives of children to be one in which ‘We will promote the physical, psychological, spiritual, emotional, cognitive and cultural development of children as a matter of national and global priorities’ (United Nations 2002, p.5). Such elected regions where purpose is necessary in order to put this world into being can recognized the same as: putting one into good physical shape, the provision of excellent education; protection from abuse, mistreatment and violent behaviour; and fighting against issues such as HIV/AIDS. Related aims and the process put into such areas form an important factor of policies considered to enable safeguarding and promoting the wellbeing of children in the entire signatories to the UN Convention. A child’s welfare cannot be promoted whilst been separated from others, because they will not thrive but for their needs been met equally by parents, or other key carers, and also by means of the environment in which they live. A definition used by the Government in regards to safeguarding children is said to be;
‘The process of protecting children from abuse or neglect, preventing impairment of their health and development, and ensuring they are growing up in circumstances consistent with the provision of safe and effective care that enables children to have optimum life chances and enter adulthood successfully.’
As Individual we have the right to live freely from violence and abuse. This autonomy is supported by the responsibility on public agencies that works under the Human Rights Act (1998) to intervene proportionately to protect the rights of citizens. Such rights include ‘the Right to life’, ‘Freedom from torture’ which may include humiliation and shameful treatment and ‘Right to family life’ to uphold the individual. The experience of abuse and neglect is likely to have a significant impact on a person’s health and well being.
‘On more than one occasion, medical practitioners who noticed marks on Victoria’s body considered the possibility that children who have grown up in Africa may be expected to have more marks on their bodies than those who have been raised in Europe. This assumption, regardless of whether it is valid or not, may prevent a full assessment of those marks being made.’
In the year 2009 October the 12th a new ‘Vetting and Barring’ scheme was produce whereby several new lists came into existence, one protecting individuals working with children and that of working with adults. The restricted files will be governed via a different body, which is known as the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA). Individuals found on such records within the ISA are obliged to be banned from a far wider range of keeping up performance than before. Harmonised actions will be reinforced generally to NHS and social care workers. The recent proposal is been established on a phased basis which comes into effect from July 2010. Individuals who are now working with children or vulnerable adults whom has changed professions will be forced to sign up through the ISA. At present district nurses in positions are obligated to register from 2011, so therefore all referrals are now expected to be made to the Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA).
‘The Independent Safeguarding Authority (ISA) was created as part of the Government’s Vetting and Barring Scheme (VBS) to help prevent unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults. It is a Non Departmental Public Body, sponsored by the Home Office’. They work in corporation along with the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) to assist in making certain there is no rationale for why individuals who wants to work or volunteer in the company of children or vulnerable adults should not do so.
As stated in the Safeguarding for Adults frame work article it says that the group of adults who are in subjective by the ‘No Secrets’ are individuals “who is or may be eligible for community care services”. In such groups, folks who “were unable to protect themselves from significant harm” are called “vulnerable adults”. Though the term “vulnerable adults” elevates the occurrence in maltreatment experienced by the individual or the group, at hand it is acknowledged that this
characterization is debatable. Therefore been labelled can mislead, because one can direct basis of mistreatment towards the victim, instead of placing accountability by means of conduct or elimination of others. The demand of safeguards to shield vulnerable adults and children was tainted by the Richard Inquiry (2004) shortly after the murder of Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells in 2002. Following the proposal of the Inquiry, the Safeguarding Vulnerable Group Act 2006 came to pass to make sure that there is a more forceful structure to safeguard folks at risk. The Act came into existence on the 20 January 2009, to improve procedures for safeguarding vulnerable adults from abuse or the possibility of harm by workers or volunteers whose employment allows them a considerable amount of access to such individuals. Emphasis is now placed on aiding adults to have admission to services of their own choice, instead of ‘stepping in’ to afford protection. ‘Better Government for Older People’ is a model of how the support of dynamic residency for all is been assessed as an investment on a fundamental position in avoiding risks to their independence. Meanwhile, the responsibility to offer protection to those who do not have the mental capacity entrance themselves has become clearer (e.g. Human Rights Act 1988, Mental Capacity Act 2005, Domestic Violence Crime and Victims Act 2004). In acknowledgment of the shifting context, earlier suggestions to the safety of “vulnerable adults” and to “adult protection” effort are currently substituted by the new term: ‘Safeguarding Adults’. This expression measures all toil which permits an adult “who is or may be eligible for community care services” to maintain independence, security, preference and their human right to exist in a life that is liberated from abuse and neglect. Such explanation particularly embrace individuals who are considered as being able to majority of the care services, as well as those in good health and are entitled for societal care services but such needs in relation to safeguarding is for admittance to normal services such as the police.
The children Act 1989 puts in place legal requirements for child protection practise. The Act introduces actions that are applicable for when a child may be at risk of abuse. Community and undisclosed guidelines correlated to children works under such law, in a progression of values overriding the performance and procedures, equally in and away from court. An important fundamental in regards to the requirements of the children Act, 1989, ‘is that the child’s welfare should be ‘paramount’ in making decisions about her life and property’. There is no exact description in the Act to say what is understood by ‘welfare’ nevertheless it is obvious in an attempt to clarify its meaning that by far it is a substantial and objective welfare and that it furthermore refers to the child’s emotional, social and moral well-being. Shortly after the Children Act of 2004 introduced a legislative structure intended for the support of the community to protect children within England and Wales. All organisations that came into contact with services to children, together with healthcare organisations, are required to cooperate to make sure that in implementing the purpose they safeguard and uphold the safety of children. Safeguarding children is dependent on the efficient professional work done in connection with the organisation and specialist with respect to their different job roles and expertise.
Baby peter’s death was very upsetting, it went quite far beyond been an exceptional crime. Too many children has been killed in similar situations which tallies up to 30 children in this country since that of Baby P and majority of them has died at the hands of a carer or parent. What raised attention to these cases was due to how many times the local authority, including Haringey who handled the case of Victoria climbie’ and was judged for neglecting the protection which was meant to be given to her several years earlier, such children were seen not be taken seriously therefore protection was not given. Whilst baby peter was alive he was taken to the hospital on many occasions with injuries shown and was seen to up to 60 times by different professional’s just months before he passed away. The guardian cited that couple of days before peter died he was seen by a paediatrician who did not realise that his broken back and paraplegia. A headline on the Article noted that ‘Baby peter was born into a nightmare of abuse, violence and despair, he never stood a chance’. It went on to say that snarled family life of Baby Peter is a realistic forewarning of the trails that many generations of abandoned and primitive abuse can visit on children.
‘Although children comprise one of the largest and most vulnerable groups in society, their needs are frequently not recognised or met’ (Cloke & Naish, 1992).
The Every Child Matters (2003) article places an interest that a child’s wellbeing and safeguarding of him or her from trivial distress is critical and the liability is that of the parents, carers and professionals working with children. ‘There is a shift in attitude amongst policy makers that suggests the welfare of children is the responsibility of everyone’ (DoH, 2002). During earlier period to current times, extreme cases that ranged from 197O’s to recent times where children have been abused or died by the direct hands of their carers, because of this the protection of children has become a soaring concern for the government. Cloke and Naish (1992) has reasoned that the nursing profession holds a definite input in tackling child abuse, from happening to them getting involved in an extended period local authority care. Professionals working within the healthcare plays an important position in making sure that children and families recieves the best care, assistance and services they require in request to improve children’s wellbeing and development. ‘Working together to safeguard children is the national framework for child protection practise and its guidance applies to everyone working with children and families'(DH,1999). This justifies how the child protection procedure works, appointing the duties of professionals and the measures to pursue whilst there are apprehension regarding a child. ‘One of the principles of working together and the accompanying framework for the Assessment of children in need and their families is that child protection practise should be operated within a broader framework of children in need'(DH, 2000). This take into consideration the requirements of children whom are been looked after, have a disablity, somewhat abused in the course of prostitution or suffer societal exclusion. ‘It is fair to state that the Laming Inquiry into the death of Victoria Climbie (Laming 2003) has resulted in much of this unprecedented governmental activity and that this is now driving national policy development even though other children have died through parental or carer abuse’ (DoH 2002a, DHSS 1991, DHSS 1982).
It is obvious that to hand is an overload of policy change are controlling how the society protects and safeguard children and vulnerable adults and this is more recognised within the health care. ‘The NHS has been subjected to the audit and inspection of child protection arrangements across all trusts (DoH 2002b, CHI 2003a, CHI 2003b) many following on from the Laming Inquiry’ (Laming 2003). This was also related to the rationalization of the duty carried out by higher administration at a level for safeguarding children, structured on overruling the guidance of Child Protection Responsibilities of Primary Care Trusts published in 2002. In addition to such proposal the Kennedy Report (DoH 2001) has asked agencies and folks to think about how they support and safeguard children in health care and this has develop into a crucial issue supporting of the Children’s National Service Framework (DoH 2004b). ‘Given all these initiatives it can be difficult for primary care practitioners, because of their diverse working environments and practice, to keep abreast of the changes that will be affecting their role and particularly if children and young people are not their designated client group’ (Thain 2000). In time it will be expected that primary health care practitioners needs to increase their awareness on the basis about safeguarding children, undertaking specialized training and to be able to take on challenges if and when necessary action is needed. Whilst the need for widespread child protection training and particular medical administration are fairly recent in the health service programmes, the accountability is for everyone to take it upon themselves to be aware of when a child may be at risk is the requirement of section 47 of the Children Act 1989 (DoH 1989). ‘This requirement is detailed within Working Together to Safeguard Children (DoH 1999) and the more recent publication What to Do if You Are Worried a Child is Being Abused (DoH 2003) sent to every practitioner on the NMC register’. Although the Children Act stands as, the Code of Professional Conduct is also there to identify the dependability of practitioners to ‘protect and support the health of individual patients and clients’ (NMC 2002, Robsbaw and Smith 2004). Therefore referrals of children who have a need or may be at risk of abuse should be pointed to the appropriate authorities whom are already surrounded by the protection of the code; on the other hand practitioners are compelled not to infringe secrecy except given the go ahead or within the public’s interest to do so.
The question is asked as to what safeguarding might be; a definition specifies that for one to develop and thrive, the youth should be tested of their ability the same as been kept out of harm’s way through the community contributing opportunities in order for them to grow. To safeguard young people it is more than just protecting them, it requires a complete action taken to ensure no harm is potentially placed in their way. ‘By its very nature abuse – the misuse of power by one person over another – has a large impact on a person’s independence. Neglect can prevent a person who is dependent on others for their basic needs exercising choice and control over the fundamental aspects of their life and can cause humiliation and loss of dignity’. ADSS, 2005