The terrible story of Elsie, a toddler killed by her adoptive father, has understandably caused outrage, but a deeper issue lies at the heart of this distressing case which suggests that the council who placed her could be to blame for her death.
Matthew Scully-Hicks, Elsie’s adoptive father, was jailed for life this week with a minimum term of 18 years for murdering the 18-month-old toddler.
Elsie’s biological family fought to take care of Elsie before she was eventually adopted. Her birth grandmother, Sian O’Brien, launched proceedings in the family court to become her legal guardian when she was two months old, but was turned down because social services said she would not be able to cope. Ms O’Brien was already looking after Elsie’s two teenage siblings, and felt that it would be best for the children if they were all together.
There is no indication from any media reports that social services considered offering Ms O’Brien help so that the children could be together, despite this being a required consideration before taking the frowned upon step of separating siblings.
And yet, despite the adoption, the family had hoped that Elsie would be returned to their care. They were not informed of her death until four months after she had been murdered.
Elsie’s grandmother, speaking about the case:
“A person who had been deemed by the authorities to be a fit and proper person to bring up my granddaughter was responsible for her death, and they took her from me telling me I would be unable to cope.”
Scully-Hicks will now be sent to prison for the fatal injuries he inflicted and an independent review will examine the circumstances of Elsie’s death and whether social workers and doctors could have prevented it, but another more pressing question is being ignored. Is the local authority who placed Elsie with her adoptive parents also responsible for her death?
A recent landmark ruling suggests it may be.
In October of this year, the Supreme Court made history by confirming that local authorities were vicariously liable for children suffering abuse at the hands of their foster parents. Whilst the ruling distanced itself from connecting the local authority’s pivotal role in recruiting, selecting and training the foster parents to any duty of care, the judgment makes it clear that councils who “provide[d] care to [a] child as an integral part of the local authority’s organisation of its child care services,” are liable for any harm suffered at the hands of ‘parents’ they select to care for that child.
Though foster parents and adoptive parents are in some ways distinctly different – mostly in relation to the duration of time they care for a child – there are several, important similarities which build a strong case for local authority liability in cases likes these.
Whilst some adoption agencies run independently of local authorities, most are part of the local authorities’ children’s services. What this means in practice is that those agencies who are not independent, are effectively part of a local authority.
And just like fostering agencies, adoption agencies are also tasked with preparing and supporting prospective adopters. It is their duty, then, to make sure whoever they select and train to adopt a child is competent to do so.
This post is primarily concerned with local authority run adoption agencies, because we are assuming for now that it was a council that placed Elsie, but that’s not to say voluntary agencies should not be potentially liable for child injuries or deaths arising from their placements.
If we were the O’Brien family’s legal team, not only would we think about pursuing a claim against the local authority, both for Elsie’s death and the added trauma they may have suffered by not being told of her death until months after she passed away, but we would also seek to set a new precedent which matches the recent ruling handed down by the Supreme Court.
Whether a foster carer or adoptive parent, the roles are the same. And so too, must be the rules protecting children who experience either.
Credit:PA
Researching Reform 
Reblogged this on | truthaholics and commented:
Any instance of state sanctioned harm to a child is appalling. Any impunity must be replaced with full accountability. It beggars belief that liability can be evaded when after non-conensual child removal the state harms any child through its staff to whom it should do better not worse than its birth family.
Each time a judge rubber stamps a local authority request without proper scrutiny marks a failure by the judiciary too to respect established birth family life.
How many more tragedies will it take for judges to address their flawed tickbox approach which favours strangers and their selective blindness towards rampant local authority prejudice and antisocial work against capable birth family parents?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would like to know why the baby was taken from the mother and why the “SS” refused permission to the grandmother to care for the child instead.
Oh my goodness of course we can’t know that as it’s private and if the reasons were revealed that poor dead baby’s privacy would be breached !!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Grandparents in Britain have no rights that is the law, so who made this law and why HA YES money talks wish i could tell all
LikeLiked by 1 person
As i run the helpline for children screaming to be heard.com i have spoken to many many families who lost their children to the care system all on lies from S/W and the doctors it goes back to kids are worth money, amazing kill a baby and serve a few years in prison, Governments have known for many 100s of years what is happening to kids taken into care so on a magical day Governments make another army the social workers to rule the nation starting with the kids and i know 100 percent of the corruption, why does the Governments keep wanting millions for meetings and meetings to have more meetings into child abuse so steal the kids sell them via the agencies, kids in care are constantly moved from carers to carers or adopitive parents and of course the agencies get paid every time, Governments say thousands of children run away from care, OH really or are they trafficked by the Government, if i am aware of what has happened to our children then why does Governments not know, well of course they know, and how come Governments get an amazing wage then want more millions to look into the abuse of kids in care when they know all, is it any wonder they threw an old dear such as I out of the commons, i could write a lot more truths but i have been threatend that if i speak out i will go to prison for 7 years and here we have a so called father who killed a baby and will serve only 18 years.So much for the British Justice/
LikeLike
I hope the family does sue. Not out of vindictiveness but as a warning to other Councils and social workers; families should be kept together whenever possible, and if necessary should be helped to do this. I do fear that this baby’s placement was partly down to political correctness on the part of the Council, as she was adopted by a gay couple, and this maybe was seen as more important than the baby’s welfare or the grandparent’s wishes. Striving for ‘equality’ may have over-ridden any other concerns, and legal action by the family would help establish whether or not this was the case. A truly tragic case, which could and should have been prevented.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on World4Justice : NOW! Lobby Forum..
LikeLike
Natasha, Special Guardians need to be added to the list alongside foster carers & adopters.
I think we all know that social services favour adoption for babies and under fives above all else so it comes as no surprise to hear the grandmother was rejected on the basis of being unable to cope. No doubt due to age, but they can’t be ageist, so ‘unable to cope’ will fit the bill.
Shortsighted reasoning as either of the now teenage girls may have taken responsibility at a later date if careing for Elsie became onerous. Families tend to stick together when adversity strikes.
What befell Elsie was the culmination of a series of red flag incidents of harm over the short period of her life. Why on earth weren’t they picked up?
I am reminded of what a Surrey Social Worker was filmed saying in a TV Documentary that once they (the child) were off their books then whatever happens won’t come back onto them! Elsie was off their books! I am please the law has changed because they should be held responsible for this poor child’s abuses & death. They obviously had no follow up checks and they gave the killer the victim!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Reblogged this on Musings of a Penpusher and commented:
Someone made this crass decision – to put a baby girl with two gay men. Nothing legally wrong with a gay couple wanting to be parents to an adopted child, but surely it make sense that the child should be of the same sex as the prospective parents?
LikeLike
Adoption used to be a comparatively noble industry. Needy children were regarded as the customers, and would-be adoptive parents the commodity supplied to them. In those days, agencies tried to find the best adoptive parents they could, for their clients. Now, children are seen as the commodity, and would-be adopters as customers, who enjoy Equality Act rights not to be discriminated against, in the supply to them of this mere commodity. That is the paradigm shift in adoption that has claimed this child’s life, and which will continue to harm and to kill children until sanity and morality are restored.
LikeLike
why did it take 4months for the family of the little girl to be notified of her death.why were the girls family refused as her foster carers,how could the authorities get it so wrong again,
LikeLiked by 1 person
Yes they are to blame. This is such an upsetting story. Her grandmother wanted her!!! She should off been allowed her grand daughter with assistance from social services!!! Absolutely appalling and I would fight them all the way!!!!!! It is there fault as they placed her there.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This story has absolutely broke my heart.
I can’t get this childs face out of my mind.
As a grandmother the same age as “Elsie’s” grandma and a precious grandaughter the same age. I can only imagine the pain this family are going through.
I thought social services fought to keep familys together.
How could grandma not cope ? She has “Elsie’s ” teenage siblings who could’ve helped out.
That poor child suffered at the hands of that monster.
Damn right social services have blood on their hands.
How can they sleep at night?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I thought social services fought to keep families together.”
They should, Jo, but they frequently do the exact opposite.
See also:
What about Liam’s dad?
https://johnallmanuk.wordpress.com/2017/06/24/what-about-liam-fees-dad/
LikeLike
Reblogged this on Site Title and commented:
Authorities should be Held accountable “Child protection “ that failed Baby “ Elsie “ just 18 months (Shayla O Brian birth name “) taken at 5 days old.
LikeLike
Pingback: New Ruling Blocks Abuse Survivors From Suing Councils – Here’s How To Reverse It. | Researching Reform
Pingback: Question It! | Researching Reform
careworkers and nurses abd drs are liable if someone dies whilt in there care frim negligence and council should be held fulky responsible when they place a child as safeguarding rules are closely supposed to be followed so yes they should
LikeLike
The adoption industry used to be child-focused. The children who needed to be adopted were its customers. The commodity supplied to them was adopters. The customers were entitled to the best available.
That model has been reversed. Adoption is now adopter-focused. Nowadays, children are regarded as the commodity, and the would-be adopters as the new-model adoption industry’s customers.
Consequently, adopters, who used to be a mere commodity, nowadays have all the consumer rights, including (relevant in this case) the right not to be discriminated against in the supply of the commodity they demand, and the commoditised children offered to adopters on the new, back-to-front adoption market, no longer have any right to the best adopters available.
I say that that wicked paradigm reversal in how the adoptions industry conceives (back-to-front) of what commodity it supplies to which customers, provides one vital piece of the jigsaw, for building up a full picture as to how (to put it euphemistically) Ellie ended up with second-class, maladjusted adopters one of whom murdered her, not with the best adopter or adopters she could and should have had, probably her own bereaved grandmother.
If the adoption continues to treat children as the commodity, and the adopters as their customers, instead of returning to the old ways, more and more children will have poor upbringings, and many of them will be killed by their adopters.
LikeLike