Will lessons be learned from the murder of Daniel Pelka?

In the months before his death, four-year-old Daniel had been locked in a dirty room, starved of food – aside from being force-fed salt – and was routinely beaten.

When he evenutally died of a head injury in March 2012, those who came into contact with him reported that he had looked like a concentration camp victim. One teaching assistant said he was like a “bag of bones”.

A serious case review into his death published on Tuesday found that Daniel was practically “invisible” to those professionals he came into contact with, despite teachers’ concerns that he was “wasting away” and 27 police visits to his home.

There must be a culture change from process driven over-optimism, to one of professional curiosity. NSPCC

Police have admitted that they missed the signs, and should have done more to protect the four-year-old, in the midst of numerous domestic violence complaints, or speaking to Daniel without his parents being there. Magdelena Luczak, and her partner Mariusz Krezolek (see below), were sentenced to 30 years in prison for his murder and torture at Birmingham crown court in August.

But Children and Families Minister Edward Timpson said legislating so that professionals have a legal duty to report suspicions of child abuse is “not the answer” to protecting vulnerable children.

The serious case review by the Coventry safeguarding children board called for a “review of the systems which currently exist for the notification and sharing of information in respect of domestic abuse incidents within families”.

A petition calling for the law to be changed to force teaching and health professionals to report suspected abuse, which now has over 50,000 signatures, has also sparked debate about mandatory reporting.

Legal change ‘not the answer’

However Mr Timpson ruled out government support for such a law. “Mandatory reporting is not the answer,” he said. “Guidance is already crystal clear that professionals should refer immediately to social care when they are concerned about a child.”

He added: “Other countries have tried mandatory reporting and there is no evidence to show that it is a better system for protecting children. In fact there is evidence to show it can make children less safe.”

His comments about a so-called “Daniel’s law” were also backed up by the NSPCC. David Tucker, head of policy, said that mandatory reporting in itself is no guarantee that a child will be protected.

“We want to see a system where all professionals working with children have the correct training to spot abuse and not only follow process and procedures, but most crucially take decisive action as necessary when they are concerned that a child is suffering abuse,” he said.

“Professionals must put the wellbeing and needs of the child above all else. There must be a culture change from process driven over-optimism to one of professional curiosity, a willingness to question excuses and a resolve to take decisive action to protect a child.”

Recommendations

The serious case review by Ron Lock made 16 recommendations on changing the way abuse is flagged up and dealt with across social services, and including in schools. But no-one was identified as being primarily to blame for his death.

“No one professional, with what they knew of Daniel’s circumstances, suspected or could have predicted that he would be killed,” said Mr Lock.

He said that Daniel’s mother “seemed plausible in her concerns” and that his siblings appeared to be well cared for.

“But if professionals had used more enquiring minds, and been more focused in their intentions to address concerns, it’s likely that Daniel would have been better protected from the people who killed him,” he added.