Petition:

As a survivor of the Haringey social services system in the 1980s, I am calling for an investigation into why the system failed me and countless others. It is time for accountability and transparency from those responsible for protecting vulnerable children.

The failures of Haringey social services have been well documented, with high-profile cases such as Baby P and Victoria Climbie highlighting systemic issues within the department. However, these cases are just the tip of the iceberg. Many more children were failed by this system, including myself.

I was placed on the at risk register at a young age due to neglect by my parents Sanjay was born in London on 4 October 1976. He has an older step sister and a younger brother. He lived in North West London with his parents until he was eight years of age when he came to live in Leicester with his maternal grandparents. Much of his education was subsequently in a residential school for children with special educational needs. In 1991 he was accommodated by Social Services under the provisions of The Children Act 1989. Thereafter he spent time in both foster and residential care. Eventually he attended a residential training centre in Staffordshire and then resided at a variety of addresses in Leicester. In June 1992 he was referred to the specialist psychiatric services for children and adolescents. Some of his subsequent offences resulted in him spending time in various penal establishments both on remand and in custody. He also received community sentences including formal supervision by the Probation Service in 1995.The case conference concluded that until further information was available no decision could be made about placing Sanjay on a child protection register. On 31 January 1983, when more information was forthcoming about the extent of family difficulties generally and the incident resulting in Sanjay's injuries, it was decided that Sanjay's name should be placed on the register. Furthermore, it was considered that Sanjay's parents should receive help in meeting their children's needs and that a referral to the child guidance service for Sanjay should be made. A recommendation was made that the case conference should be reconvened in three months' time. The inquiry panel has needed to form a view on incomplete case notes as it has not been possible to access, from any source, information about further case reviews if, indeed, they did take place or any details about the implementation of the care plan.

 

It is known indirectly that Sanjay's name was removed from the Child Protection register on 10 September 1986. Well before this time Sanjay had moved to Leicester to live with his maternal grandparents. The reason for the closure of the case has not been determined.

 

It appears that Sanjay's name was removed from the Child Protection register in Haringey without his current whereabouts being established. Because of this, it appears that no arrangements could be made to ensure his well being in Leicester or to arrange for any involvement of the Social Services Department there.

 

The panel has made extensive enquiries of Haringey Social Services Department in attempting to secure the records to expand our understanding of this period in Sanjay's life. Unfortunately, the passage of time and the consequences of reorganisations of that Department in the intervening years, have removed all trace of those records. Furthermore Haringey Social Services Department is unable to confirm whether Leicestershire Social Services Department received relevant information from them around the time of Sanjay's removal to Leicester. The Social Services Department in Leicestershire has no record of receiving such information. The panel has seen references to difficulties which Sanjay was experiencing at primary school in London but it has not been possible to verify, from the records that we have been able to obtain, the primary source of such information. Sanjay was received into primary education in Leicester on 28 August 1985.

 

Apart from the information received from witnesses, much of what we know about Sanjay's early life and that of his family was gleaned from the general practitioner record which was transferred from London to Leicester. The general practitioner record is the only document which contains any substantial amount of information about Sanjay's early life. All other records available to the panel were compilations of information from various sources which are mostly unidentified. The original

 

social services and education files from this period were not seen as they could not be located for the panel. The panel is aware that issues concerning the retention, maintenance and transfer of records have been commented on in a large number of past child abuse inquiries.

 

We now turn to consider in more detail the work of the various agencies involved with

 

Sanjay and his family.

 

C. AGENCY INVOLVEMENT WITH SANJAY AND HIS FAMILY

 

1. Life in London (October 1976 to July 1985)

 

From a very early age Sanjay had contact with the primary health care team and the specialist paediatric services. The significance of these early contacts is not evident. The first specific child and adolescent mental health problem displayed was that of nocturnal enuresis. There appears to have been a family history of this particular difficulty. While appropriate help was sought for, and received by Sanjay, there was some inconsistency by the parents in bringing Sanjay for appointments.

 

In January 1983, Sanjay was examined by his general practitioner, whose attention had been brought to injuries and bruising he had sustained. On 24 January 1983, given the nature of these injuries and the possibility of non accidental injury (NAI)', Haringey Social Services convened a multidisciplinary case conference. Prior to the case conference, Sanjay's parents were visited by a social worker to discuss these matters. Mr Patel openly admitted that he had struck Sanjay a blow across the cheek and head because Sanjay had been very naughty while travelling in the car with his younger brother.

 

I am not alone in this experience. Many other survivors have come forward with similar stories of neglect and abuse at the hands of those who were supposed to protect them.

It is time for answers. We demand an independent investigation into why Haringey social services failed us in the 80s and continued to fail others for decades after. This investigation must be thorough and transparent, with all findings made public.

We also call on Haringey Council to provide support and resources for survivors who have been impacted by these failures. This includes access to counseling services and compensation where appropriate.

The children who were failed by this system deserve justice and closure. It is time for those responsible to be held accountable so that no child has to suffer like we did again.

Sources:
- BBC News: "Baby P: The background"
- The Guardian: "Victoria Climbié inquiry report"
- Survivors UK: "Haringey Social Services"