Shannon Matthews Inquiry: 'Neglectful and chaotic' life for abduction girl

The Shannon Matthews case: Full coverage

Her mother Karen Matthews did not always maintain a comfortable home life, often failed to attend health care appointments with her children and, as they grew up, did not always ensure they attended school regularly.

She also struggled to prioritise the needs of her children over her own for relationships with a number of men.

Three of her children were placed on the child protection register because she failed to protect them from people who posed a risk of physical and/or sexual abuse, among other issues – such as ensuring they went to school.

Two psychological assessments of Matthews, in 1997 and 2004, found that she had a borderline learning disability.

The latest assessment found she was capable of meeting her children's basic needs with ongoing support.

"However," the Kirklees Safeguarding Children Board review found, "evidence of this mother's own emotional vulnerability meant that her choice of male partners and relatively short-lived relationships with men interfered with her ability to concentrate on meeting her children's needs and to prioritise them over her own needs."

Shannon's home life and that of her siblings was not always unpredictable – periods of neglect were contrasted with times of stability and adequate parenting, in which some children were placed on the child protection register for short periods and then later removed.

Review author Dr Carole Smith told a Press conference in Huddersfield yesterday that Matthews was "attached to her children and her children were attached to her".

She said: "There was a bond of affection between them."

But Dr Smith said Matthews had difficulty translating her affection into good, practical parenting.

When asked where she would put Matthews in the "pantheon of motherhood," Dr Smith said: "We are looking at a fairly common problem."

Review chairman Bron Sanders told the Press conference systemic failings were not found but added: "There are plenty of things that could have been better."

One of Matthews's children was placed on the child protection register because of "evidence of parental neglect" and concern about their physical safety and well being, but was removed 20 months later.

This child and Shannon were later made subject to inter-agency child protection plans and placed on the child protection register. An unborn child was subsequently placed on the register because of the risk of neglect.

Two of these children were later removed from the register despite still being recognised as being "children in need" and requiring monitoring.

The third child, who was displaying "challenging" and "disturbed" behaviour, was also later taken off the register.

In 2005, Matthews's lifestyle continued to concern professionals, and all the children in the household were classed as being children in need.

Yesterday's report admitted the historical background of the family could suggest the children should have been taken into care.

It added: "However, it must be recognised that periods of family disruption and inadequate parenting were interspersed with periods when this mother, and sometimes her partners, provided adequate parenting and met the children's needs."

Mystery over why nine-year-old had taken drugs

TOXICOLOGY

Joanne Ginley

NO REASON has been found to explain how or why Shannon ingested prescription-only drugs prior to her abduction.

Yesterday, members of the serious case review panel said they had wanted to speak to Karen Matthews to get to the bottom of the issue, but she had declined to co-operate. And they had been advised it was not in Shannon's interests to speak to her about the matter.

Bron Sanders, independent chair of the panel, told a press conference in Huddersfield: "We would have liked to put this to Karen herself through the review but Karen chose not to participate."

She said the panel had wanted to understand how the schoolgirl could have had access to the drugs. But the reports says: "The Panel was unable to identify any explanation regarding this matter."

Supt Michael Wharton, of West Yorkshire Police and board member, said police had found initial evidence of drugs and "further studies indicated that they had been in her system at least 12 months before that".

Earlier it has been revealed that after she was recovered, Shannon was found to have traces of temazepam and travel sickness medication meclozine in her system.

A forensic toxicologist told the jury at the trial of Shannon's mother Karen and her co-accused Michael Donovan that hair samples from the schoolgirl showed she had taken the "potent hypnotic" drug temazepam for about 20 months, not only during the 24 days she was reported missing.

Craig Chatterton told Leeds Crown Court that he found traces of the drug and meclozine, the active ingredient of Traveleeze medication, in Shannon's urine after she was found.

That meant the drugs would have been ingested by her up to 72 hours earlier before the sample was taken.

Temazepam is a prescription-only sleep-inducing drug, while meclozine causes drowsiness.

But he told the jury at the

hearing in 2008 that hair samples from Shannon were also sent for analysis and they showed the drugs had been taken over a much longer period.

He said: "I can conclude from that the findings indicate temazepam was present in Shannon's body over an extended time period dating back round about 20 months."

Matthews asked for child to go into care

SOCIAL SERVICES

Joanne Ginley

KAREN Matthews asked for one of her children to be taken voluntarily into care – but social services chiefs turned her down.

The Panel criticised the decision saying it was a "significant omission".

Alison O'Sullivan, chair of the Kirklees Safeguarding Children Board and director for children and young people at Kirklees Council, said the board acknowledged the omission in relation to the child "who could, or possibly should, have been offered a voluntary period in care when behavioural issues became a problem".

But she added: "We must equally stress that the threshold for taking any of the children into care – for removing them from their mother was not reached. The Serious Case Review confirms this fact."

The Panel concludes children's social care should have met Matthews's request for local authority accommodation.

"This could have provided the child with some stability and enabled professionals to work with the child in relation to problems associated with their family circumstances and relationships," their report said.

"The Panel also questioned why children's social care had not considered admitting this child to local authority care at an earlier stage in the family's history when the child's difficulties were escalating and other services were having little impact on the presenting problems."

It says that although weighing up the potential benefits against possible harms of local authority care can be complex, there is no evidence that care proceedings or the offer of accommodation in relation to the child were considered.

Council 'will do its utmost' to publish report in full

KIRKLEES

Tom Palmer

KIRKLEES Council confirmed it will now be doing its "utmost" to publish the report into the Shannon Matthews case in full after the release of the executive summary yesterday.

Last week Ministers confirmed full reports into the most notorious cases of child abuse would be published, including serious-case reviews into the deaths of Baby P and Khyra Ishaq, as well as the cases of the Edlington brothers and Shannon.

Alison O'Sullivan, chair of the Kirklees Safeguarding Children Board and director for children and young people at Kirklees Council, said the board had received a letter in the last few days confirming the Secretary of State wanted the full report to be published.

And while it has been normal practice to publish only executive summaries of serious case reviews "in our spirit of openness and accountability, we will be doing our utmost to publish in full".

She added: "There are many legal issues to consider and we must also balance the needs of the children, whose welfare always comes first."

Dewsbury Tory MP, Simon Reevell, said: "I welcome the publishing of the executive summary and the recognition on the part of Kirklees that publication of the full report should follow." he said he was pleased the events were not the result of a systemic failure.

Mother's 999 call started Shannon hunt

TIMELINE

February 19, 2008

6.48pm – Karen Matthews makes a 999 call to the police report her daughter missing.

February 20

More than 200 police officers join local people in an overnight search in sub-zero conditions.

February 21

250 uniformed officers plus 60 detectives looking for Shannon

February 24

Parents of Madeleine McCann post a message of support

February 26

Police say Shannon "may have fallen into the wrong hands".

March 3

Matthews makes emotional appeal clutching Shannon's "Love Teddy".

March 14

12.45pm – Officers call at Michael Donovan's flat in Lidgate Gardens, Batley Carr, and get no response despite neighbours saying he is in.

1.20pm – Officers smash their way into flat and find Shannon. She is hidden in a bed alongside Michael Donovan.

March 17

Donovan charged with kidnap and false imprisonment.

April 8

Matthews charged with perverting the course of justice and child neglect.

December 4

Matthews and Donovan found guilty of all charges.

Recommendations made by inquiry

Ensure all child protection and children in need plans have an identified risk analysis

Undertake a review of the identification and management of "neglectful parenting"

Ensure individual needs of all the children in a family are taken into account. In Matthews's case one child received more professional attention

Provide a programme of training for social workers in risk analysis

Roles and responsibilities of agencies and professionals should be clarified

Measures needed to improve recording systems and inter-agency communication

Social workers should ensure they have given explicit consideration as to whether it is in the child's best interests to involve the father who does not live with the child

Advice and guidance to be given on family planning if seen to be an issue