Child Y SCR
Croydon Safeguarding Children Board has today published the Serious Case Review of Child Y which was commissioned in September 2017.
Child Y, 15, was the victim of a fatal stabbing on 8 August 2017. Although the stabbing was deemed to be gang-related and a group of young people were convicted of his murder, Child Y was not thought to be connected to either of those gangs; he did have childhood friends who were said to be gang members.
Child Y had a close loving family, he lived with his hardworking father and devoted older sister, and his wider family provided unconditional support. His mother had long-term health problems which prevented her from looking after him during his childhood. His father described himself as strict and described Child Y as a fun-loving, affectionate and charismatic child who enjoyed spending time with his family.
During Child Y’s adolescence the father and son relationship came under real strain from a variety of incidents; which included Child Y coming into contact with the police, him going missing, suffering a stab injury and being excluded from school. Child Y became very disillusioned when he learned he could not return to his school and was transferred to a pupil referral unit.
Whilst Child Y is the sole subject of this serious case review, his whole life experience is reflected in the CSCB-commissioned Vulnerable Adolescents Review published in February 2019. The findings and recommendations of the Vulnerable Adolescents Review are relevant to him and are referenced within this review.
Di Smith, Independent Chair of Croydon Safeguarding Children Board, said:
“The tragic death of this child, who was dearly loved by his family, is so difficult for all to comprehend. In conducting this review in conjunction with the wider Vulnerable Adolescent Review we have sought to understand the factors that led to such devastating consequences for Child Y. Also to identify important lessons that will help services in Croydon keep children and young people safe.
“While many practitioners from different agencies worked to help Child Y and his family, there were some missed opportunities. More could have been done to support Child Y with preventative work at an earlier stage, and build on his strong family network.
“Later, certain events were of pivotal importance – for example, his exclusion from mainstream school – and we must ask what interventions might have worked more effectively at these key points to deter him from his trajectory.
“It is not possible for us to say what difference it would have made to Child Y. But
both the case of the Child Y and the Vulnerable Adolescents Review clearly highlight the importance of strengthening families, building their resilience at an early stage and the importance of education in children’s lives.
“The learning from both will be invaluable as we go forward, as a strong and cohesive partnership determined to take a preventative approach by strengthening families and helping our young people to make positive choices.”