A needless death

IN a report synonymous with so many child abuse inquiries, the report into why Daniel Taylor, a paranoid schizophrenic known to his authorities, stabbed to death his nine-year-old brother, Jack, is riddled with bureaucratic jargon rather than plain language that may help prevent such tragedies from occurring in the future.

Recommendations by the Bradford Child Safeguarding Board include ensuring that “all first line managers across Children’s Services are skilled, child-focussed”. A lay person would contend that such staff were checked for their competence, and empathy with young people, before being appointed.

There will also be dismay that no disciplinary proceedings will follow this tragedy, especially as the Board’s report could not have been clearer when it concluded that “known risk factors” left “little doubt” that Taylor, a highly disturbed individual with a history of mental illness, presented “a significant risk of harm”.

This is re-enforced by the killer’s parents expressing their misgivings to their son’s child psychiatrist in late 2009 as well as contacting a community psychiatric nurse, and the family’s GP, in the days – and hours – that preceded Jack’s manslaughter.

There is, frankly, no excuse for this casualness, given that Taylor had spent four months in a psychiatric hospital in 2009.

Trained professionals should have accepted the family’s word, even if this meant following a ‘safety first’ approach, rather than leaving matters to chance.

They, and the wider public, might be comforted if lessons are learned from this preventable tragedy, including improved communication.

The report’s tone, however, does not offer much confidence as various agencies hide behind the language of bureaucracy rather than accepting that their collective decision-making ultimately led to Jack Taylor’s death.