Tia Sharp Governance Essay

This essay predominantly focuses on the governance issues in regards to the organisations involved in the Tia Sharp case. Tia Sharp of Pollards Hill, Mitcham, was murdered in August 2012 at the hands of her grandmother’s partner Stuart Hazell who was jailed for 38 years after pleading guilty in May of that year. The body of the Raynes Park High School student was found wrapped in bin liners in the loft of the home that Hazell shared with Tia’s grandmother in the Lindens, New Addington, on August 10th - a week after she went missing. (L May, 2013)

Following the failures in Tia’s lengthy disappearance, a case review was formed, this is due to abuse or neglect of the child being known to constabularies and the fact that the child had either —

(i) died; or (ii) had been seriously harmed and so there was cause for concern as to the way in which the authority, the Local Safeguarding Children Board partners or other relevant persons had worked together in order to safeguard said child. (K Crompton, S Deakin, 2013)
The Agencies involved in the case were London Borough of Merton Children Schools and Family Directorate, Housing provider, London Borough of Croydon Children’s Services, London Probation Trust, Metropolitan Police, Croydon Health Services NHS Trust, NHS Sutton and Merton Community Services, Epsom & St. Helier NHS Hospitals Trust, General Practitioners (Merton), General Practitioners (Croydon), London Borough of Merton Housing Services, London Ambulance Service, NHS Direct, Housing provider and HomeStart.
Due to the vast amount of organisations involved it is unrealistic to evaluate all aspects of the case that didn’t meet professional standards and so, this essay will cover the London Borough of Merton; Children, Schools and Family Directorate, Metropolitan Police, London Probation Trust and Croydon Health Services NHS Trust.
London Borough of Merton; Children, Schools and Family Directorate (education)
The key principles which underpin the responsibilities of schools and the local authority in respect of school attendance are that: regular and punctual attendance at school is key to the academic and social development that will improve the life chances of children and young people henceforth, children and young people who attend school regularly and punctually are less likely to be at risk, both in terms of engaging in anti-social behaviour and in terms of their own health, safety and welfare. Parents and carers have a duty to ensure that their children attend school regularly and punctually in order to get the most benefit from their schooling; Poor school attendance is the only explicitly evidenced cause for concern for Tia. It featured from a very early point in her school career and was never adequately explored or addressed. (T.Pettifor, 2013)
Non-attendance was already evidenced in Year 3 when the incident occurred which culminated in Tia being brought to school by police following the drug-related search of her home. The internal management review were concerned that school staff did not proactively liaise with Children’s Social Care Services (CSC) after this event. Though this judgment may be over-informed by hindsight as there were no evidence of harm to Tia and there may have been a reason for this police involvement with the family which did not give cause for concern. Granting there was already evidence of non-school attendance, this was very early in the child’s school career.
The school’s poor response when CSC raised the matter with them is of more concern. It appears to be an individual error; a member of staff said that he would make enquires and call back but did not do so. Then, because CSC had terminated their involvement before the enquiries were complete, this was not detected by them. The weaknesses in both organisations were at a level (team manager and deputy head teacher) at which you would not expect the need for close supervision of day to day practice, in turn this was a missed opportunity for early exchange of information.
London Borough of Merton; Children, Schools and Family Directorate (children’s social care)
The first contact with Children’s Social Care (CSC) was in 2008, when Tia was seven years old. Police raided the family home in relation to suspected drugs offences. This was routinely notified to CSC by way of a report, which referred to possession of Class A drugs, a very abusive response to police from Christine Sharpe and Stuart Hazell, in the presence of Tia, and Tia appearing unaffected by these unpleasant events whilst there were poor conditions in the family home.
A CSC manager decided that checks should be made with partner agencies, to determine whether any other causes for concern had been noted, and asked a student social worker to carry out these checks. The student made one call to the school and was told that a return call would be made but it does not appear that his was done. There is then no subsequent recording in relation to this incident, other than a “No Further Action” decision by a manager. As it happened some years ago, and key staff have left, it has not been possible to fully establish the reasons for this. However it is clearly a matter of concern, both as an administrative weakness and as a professional failing. The report notes that “a decision to close the case without any further information to support such a decision and with no reference to a more senior manager was a clear breach of guidance as set out in the London Child Protection Procedures and Merton’s Child and Young Person Wellbeing Model.” (Y Stanley)
Metropolitan Police Service
many of the adults in Tia’s life have come to police attention. Though the person with the most significant contact before Tia was born was Stuart Hazell. He had an adult criminal record dating back to his late teenage years including offences of violence, dishonesty and drug use. That record of criminal activity continued in the period under detailed review when he was again found guilty of offences of dishonesty, violence, including racially aggravated assault, and the possession and supply of Class A drugs. From police records it is known that the use of illegal drugs features significantly in the extended family history. Tia was present in 2004, with her mother and maternal grandmother, during a house search in which drugs were found. There were two house searches at Tia’s home in March and April 2008 which led to the conviction of Stuart for drugs offences. During the police raid in 2008, officers found Tia to be “very pleasant, quiet and not shocked by (the constantly abusive behaviour), which led the officer to conclude that his behaviour was an everyday occurrence”.
The police report notes that on a number of these occasions reports were not made and passed to the local authority’s children’s services, which should be done whenever a child or young person comes to police attention. The report also notes that on the one occasion when such a report was made it did not include information about weapons found at the home. This knowledge would have been important for any agency which might be visiting the family home. (Met Pol, 2013)
London Probation Trust
This agency has had no involvement with Tia herself. The sole reason for submitting a report on this review is because there has been a substantial history of contact between probation services and Stuart Hazell; records indicate that Hazell had a difficult childhood, spending time in care and becoming homeless at a young age. In 2003, when he received a lengthy custodial sentence for drug-related offences, he was said to be “a poly-drug user and a registered heroin user (and was) also assessed as having an alcohol misuse problem which was compounded by being of no fixed abode at the time of sentence”.
In 2010 Hazell was sentenced to 12 months in custody for possession of an offensive weapon (a machete).

He was released in August 2010 and gave the home of Tia’s maternal grandmother as the address at which he would be living. He was generally compliant with the probation service throughout his time “on licence”. Standard assessments completed by probation officers during that period consistently found that he posed a medium risk of harm to the public and members of staff, and a low risk to children. The licence period expired in February 2011. The history of contact with the probation service is unremarkable, though what’s sad about this personal history is that there is nothing to suggest a particular threat to children. Although the report identifies some weaknesses in recording, there is no indication that assessments and provision made by the probation service missed any relevant information or were unsatisfactory in any

way.
Croydon Health Services NHS Trust
This includes a large number of community and hospital based health services in the Croydon area which, in previous configurations and organisational arrangements had contact with Tia and her family members. The most significant of these, for the purposes of this essay, are; Maternity services in respect of Tia and her siblings, the health visiting service provided and the accident and emergency services to Tia and other family members. (NHS)
No matters arose from the provision of services when Tia was born and followed up. Subsequently Natalie Sharpe (Tia’s mother) disclosed to ante-natal services that she used alcohol and smoked cannabis throughout the pregnancy. The use of cannabis, alcohol and tobacco was discussed with her by a midwife in 2008 but no further action was taken. As the report comments “The antenatal midwife identified cannabis use, smoking and alcohol use in pregnancy but there is no evidence that the amount and frequency of this use was asked, or how this may have altered Natalie’s perception and mood and consequently her parenting capacity”.
During her next pregnancy Natalie was asked if she wished to be referred to services for assistance with her use of drugs and alcohol. She declined and no further action was taken antenatally. Natalie’s use of ante-natal services during this pregnancy was minimal, with only two appointments attended.
At birth there were some concerns about the baby’s presentation and development and fears that these may have been linked to the use of cannabis and poor compliance with ante-natal care. This led midwives to make a referral to CSC and the community midwife recorded that she had “no real concerns regarding the baby; it bonded well, and was feeding well” It was on this basis that CSC took the decision that there should be no further action. The midwives did not actively hand this information over to health visitors. It is reported that “Written Health Visiting records have not been located; at this time the community records management systems lacked local guidance”. Consequently there is limited information available about Tia’s health and development in her early years. Natalie had 3 attendances (two at Accident & Emergency, one at a minor injuries unit) where she had sustained injuries as a result of outbursts of anger. It is known that she was referred to a specialist service about anger management. The report comments “Natalie presented in A&E with self-harm injuries related to anger management issues. This may impact on her parenting capacity. There appears to have been a lack of professional curiosity by staff to enquire if she was a parent/ carer or even about what makes her angry”.
In light of the information found, a recommendation in order to prevent a tragedy such as this from occurring again could be for social services, the education system and the metropolitan police to follow a Child Wellbeing Model where there are three levels of children’s services;
Universal Level – All children can access universal children’s services - for example schools and early years settings.

Many universal services also offer some elements of targeted EIP services – e.g. speech therapy in schools; primary health advice in children’s centres. High quality universal services form the foundation stone for the prevention of escalating needs in children.

Enhanced Level – Some children will have needs which cannot be fully met in universal services. Except in emergency situations where children are at risk of significant harm, enhanced level services should be considered. These enhanced level services form the core of Merton’s EIP offer specialist help.

Specialist Level – These services work with children who are the most vulnerable and have the most significant needs for example where there are safeguarding concerns; children looked after by the local authority; children with Special Educational Needs and disabilities and young offenders. (MASH, 2013)

The above reinforcements will ensure the safeguarding and safety of children and young people so that the system won’t fail this considerably

again.
Another recommendation could be that the extent of which the Gold, Silver and Bronze command structure is applicable to homicide investigations need to be clarified. It is recommended that the Association of Chief Police Officers (Homicide Working Group) should identify options in this regard and publicise clear guidance to the Service; this ought to include the identification of training needs of chief officers supporting but not directly involved in the investigations. (ACPO, 2014)
Also, once it becomes clear that a force is dealing with a critical incident, a chief officer should formally consider the demands and who is best placed to meet those demands so that appropriate appointments are made. This decision and the related considerations should be formally recorded through a single point of contact in order to reduce cross information and anomalies in statistics.
In conclusion to this essay, it is evident that the failures in London Borough of Merton- Children, Schools and Family Directorate, Metropolitan Police Service, London Probation Trust and Croydon Health Services NHS Trust are unforgivable, in particular the ‘human error’ that delayed the discovery of a body in grandmother Christine Sharp’s home, however the intricacy in the reports and the commitment to follow up on the suspects, saved and complimented those corporations involved; in regards to their determination in the investigation and putting Tia to rest and her family at peace once more. If it wasn’t for the second thorough search in the house, Tia may never have been found and Hazell would have still been at large. (A Potter, 2012) From this case many organisations have developed and significantly improved their management and governance, abolishing many intrinsic issues that occurred previously. 
Bibliography
Lauren May, 2013, Croydon Guardian- Damning Merton Council serious case review into new Addington murder victim Tia Sharp’s “chaotic” family life made public. Published by Croydon Guardian News.
Kevin Crompton, Simon Deakin. Annual report of the Merton Safeguarding Children Board 2012/13. Published by www.merton.gov.uk/lscb.
Kevin Harrington, 2013. Child A, a serious case review, executive summary. Published by Merton Safeguarding Children Board.
Tom Pettifor, 2013. Tia Sharp report reveals admin blunder meant school wasn’t asked to monitor her. Published by The Mirror.
Yvette Stanley, Children, schools and families department, retrieved from www.merton.gov.uk/council/departments
Metropolitan Police, 2013. Man jailed for life for murder of Tia Sharp, retrieved from http://content.met.police.uk/News
Nigel Cawthorne, 2013. Tia Sharp- a family betrayal. Published by John Blake Publishing Ltd.
NHS, Croydon health services- community health services, retrieved from http://www.croydonhealthservices.nhs.uk/our-services
Multi-Agency Safeguarding Hub, 2013. Merton Council Guide for Professionals, retrieved from www.merton.gov.uk
Association of Chief Police Officers, 2014. The National Policing Homicide Working Group- Journal of Homocide and Major Incident Investigation. Published by the Metropolitan Police.
Alistair Potter, 2012. Tia Sharp police ‘sorry’ for search errors as grandmother among arrests, retrieved from Metro.co.uk