CHAPTER 2

FOUNDATIONS

1970–1974

As a little girl, I believed everything Mum said to me. When you’re small, you do – you do think that your mummy is telling the truth, that every word that comes from her mouth can’t be challenged. Now though, when I look back, I can see that my childhood was littered with lies.

‘Your granddad’s a proper bastard,’ she told me one time. ‘He battered a pregnancy out of me once.’

It was a lie. She would often admit later that she had made things up once she’d seen the impact they’d had. I’d sit there, wide-eyed, far too young to really understand, and just react to the few words I could comprehend, trying to make sense of the other ones that were new and hard for me.

‘I raised your nanny’s bloody kids for her,’ she’d sneer. ‘I brought up my own brothers and sister from when I was six years old, and all that cow ever does is tell everyone that I’m a waste of space.’

Another lie. Another lie that was blown apart by her own siblings, who used to tell me how awful Mum had been as a child, and how they always tiptoed around her, wondering what she would do next. She constantly accused men of all being ‘after her’, and if they couldn’t get her, she would say they’d raped her. She accused her own father-in-law of this, all the other men in our family, Jenny and Ian’s dad, almost every man she met, and it was a pattern of behaviour she kept going for decades.

The lies kept on coming but I believed them all for years. Even when I started to question the things she had told me, I couldn’t work out why she would have said them in the first place. Someone said to me recently that, to this day, she can’t stop lying. She’s rewritten her own past as one full of cruelty and misery, with hateful parents who never lifted a finger to help and a childhood in which she was expected to run around after everyone else; a good girl who was exploited by those who should have loved her. Lies, lies and more lies. My Auntie Jeanette once said to me, ‘Your mum wakes up in the morning and all the stories she told the day before are the truth. It’s as simple as that.’ There are some people who tell lies even when the truth is easier – I sometimes wonder if that’s what Mum does. It certainly often seemed that way.

My big sister Jennifer was born on 27 February 1970 in Wallasey. There are no happy stories of her birth, no staccato home movies or boxes of baby paraphernalia. It’s not surprising really, given that she wasn’t wanted. Mum, pregnant and unable to get the man she had set her sights on, was very open about how she felt from the start. Jennifer had been taken into care at eighteen months because she was bruised and undernourished, but I don’t have all of those files as I wasn’t yet born, so they are deemed ‘not relevant’ to me. However, later social work records show that not only was Mum open about not caring about her first daughter, she was violent towards her too. The foundations of her relationship with Jenny – and with me, as it would transpire – were not love and caring, but bitterness and cruelty.

I find this entry strange for two reasons – we were most certainly not well-clothed and well-nourished, and there seems to be no criticism of Mum slapping a two-year-old. Jenny was only a toddler, barely more than a baby. Some people will say those were different times, but you would think that, when a family was already on the radar, any hint of violence would be picked up on. It seems that Mum didn’t even bother trying to hide it, and I wonder why that is – did she feel she was untouchable, or was she admitting to ‘slaps’ rather than being open about the extent of what was happening? In fact, even Dad could see how bad things were as, at one point, he asked for Jenny to be taken into care as he ‘feared his wife would kill her.’

Things certainly got worse, and, by August 1972, Jenny’s poor little body was showing evidence of the terrible life she led.

Health visitor found Jennifer badly bruised – when examined, she was found to have sustained injury to cause severe bruising on the forehead, arms and across the shoulder blades extending to lumbar-sacral region of the back. She was weighed and found to be 12lbs 2oz in weight. After the doctor’s visit that afternoon it was felt that Jennifer should be taken into care under Section 1 of the Children Act 1948. (10 August 1972)

Weighing only 12lbs at the age of almost two-and-a-half years; covered in bruises and injuries. This was too much even for those days, when children were often believed to need a good slap to keep them in line, and it was thought that they should be seen and not heard. The professionals who were involved tried to get Mum to admit Jenny into voluntary care and, quite openly, she told them that my sister had been a problem since the moment of conception. ‘Throughout her pregnancy, Mrs Yeo did not want the child as the relationship between herself and the natural father was completely finished.’ Maybe this was just Mum being the person that Nanny had always said she was, thinking that she could do nothing wrong or believing that she could always get out of trouble, but it seems a very bald, uncaring statement to make to those who were involved in checking whether even more severe intervention was needed for our family.

Mum was unwilling to agree to anything until Dad got back later that day and, while they waited for him, the social workers decided that Jenny’s injuries were consistent with a beating or several beatings very recently. When they went back to Mum at 4:30pm, she refused to let them take Jenny away, so a ‘Place of Safety’ action was deemed appropriate. Mum denied everything to do with Jenny’s ‘present state’. On that same day, there is a question in the file that asks, ‘Do you consider any other members of the household at risk?’ The reply, in capital letters, is: NO. Whether that’s wishful thinking or a complete ignorance of the facts, I have no idea – but it was a million miles from the truth.

The next month, a letter was sent by the police to the Senior Children’s Officer of the Region. It makes for heartbreakingly stark reading – I do understand that the clinical way in which Jenny and her injuries are described is how these things have to be recorded, but I just want to reach out to that little girl and hold her tight.

To the Senior Children’s Officer of the Cheshire Constabulary

From the Chief Superintendent of the County Borough of Wallasey

 

Dear Sir –

Complaint of assault on Jennifer Marie Yeo, 2 years.

At 6pm on Thursday 10th August 1972, a complaint was received at the Criminal Investigation Department, Wallasey, from Mr Surridge of your Department to the effect that the above-named girl had been assaulted and the child had been removed from the parental home and placed in the care of the Local Authority under a Place of Safety Order for 28 days.

I have considered all the facts of this case which was fully investigated [ … ] and have decided not to take any further Police action in this matter.

Thanking you for your valuable assistance.

Yours faithfully – Chief Superintendent

13 September 1972

So, that was that – no further action taken. The police might not have been interested, but the Yeo family file was getting bigger every day. By this stage, there were three of us kids (Ian, Jenny and me), and the social workers were obviously keen to keep an eye on what was going on. A picture emerges of my mother and father in which much more attention is paid to her than to him. While that does reflect some of our family dynamic – Dad was always fishing, and too lazy to do much, while Mum was at home pretty much constantly – I think it also indicates the bias that made them feel that the home environment was very much the woman’s domain. Anything Dad did around the home or with us was seen as ‘helping’ Mum, and the fact that they concentrated on her meant that he could get away with staying pretty inconspicuous.

Mr Yeo was not very communicative during our brief visit, he kept his head buried in the newspaper, which was scattered over the dining room table. His wife, who appears to be a boisterous personality, informed us that the children were keeping well. (23 January 1973)

The children looked fit and well. Mr Yeo is unemployed and he appears to give his wife a good deal of support in the home. Mr and Mrs Yeo are still suspicious of the Department because of what happened to Jennifer who was taken into care on a Place of Safety order. I feel it may be some time before I am accepted and they see me in a helpful capacity. Mr Yeo and his wife stated that they are subjected to a degree of hostility by their neighbours because of the incident concerning Jennifer. (25 January 1973)

Mr Yeo is still unemployed. He finds that from a financial point of view he is better off on state benefits than if he were in regular employment. During the interview, one had the impression that there is still a degree of rejection of Jennifer by her mother … she stated that she had perhaps been a little heavy-handed with the children, particularly Jennifer, on past occasions, but [ …] she now counts to ten before she decides to discipline the children. In this family, it would seem that Mrs Yeo has a rather boisterous personality as a dominant partner but as the interview progresses it would seem that Mr Yeo, who has not been very communicative on past interviews, may be the dominant partner in the marriage and it is he who may hold the unit together. (1 February 1973)

As I was only around two years old, I have no memory of any of this and it’s as if I’m seeing a picture painted of our family by outside observers. I want to scream at them, ‘Take Jenny away again – save her!’, but there is also a part of me that feels like I’m watching a film that doesn’t feature me, and I hope against hope that the mummy will turn out to be a nicer person, that the daddy will make it all better. I wonder if the social workers felt like that too? Did they hope that one day they would turn up and everything would be fine? That Mum would open the door and exclaim, ‘It’s fine – I love them all!’ Dad would be striding out, in a suit, off to work, the perfect little family playing happily in the background. Life doesn’t work that way though, does it? Even the authorities could see that Dad was bone idle, and that Mum wanted all of the attention on her. The way in which she is described as ‘boisterous’ hides so much and I wish that the people writing these reports would just come out and say what they really mean.

This ‘delicate area’ was one that would colour much of what went on in our childhood. I would find out in later years that my parents had a sex life that involved lots of other people, but there would be no way of the social workers discovering this. I think the records probably show things that they saw frequently rather than one-offs, as there is a lot of repetition; so, Dad’s fishing trips no doubt infuriated them as they were his way of getting out of the house and avoiding gainful employment, and Mum’s complaints about being ‘hard done by’ all her life seem to have registered too. They also noted, on many occasions, the way in which Mum was always irritated if Jenny’s behaviour took the attention from her. Even when she was only three years old, it was as if a competition had been set up between the two of them, and Mum appeared desperate to win.

To me, that seems like such a twisted way to process your relationship with your own child. To have a rivalry with your toddler, to want the social worker to pay attention to you all the time and ignore the neglected, love-starved little one bringing them toys – it’s pitiful. It’s only natural for a small child to want attention, especially if they were being denied anything positive in their day-to-day life, and my heart breaks at the thought of young Jenny seeing new people coming in, hoping they would play with her or give her a cuddle, then watching as Mum tried to get all of the focus back on her.

The social workers did notice some things: ‘I noticed that Jennifer had a bruise on her forehead and Mrs Yeo and her husband stated that she banged her head on the window.’ I want to, again, scream at them to do something, not just to make a note of it – they could already see some of what was happening, they already knew there was a battle between a grown-up and a little girl, they already had Mum’s admissions that she hit Jenny, so why were bruises ignored and excuses accepted?

Every so often, there is a phrase in the files that makes me wonder if things are changing, if this is it – is this where the cavalry arrives? One such comment, written in May 1973, stabs at my heart: how terribly difficult it is for these children to come to terms with the vagaries of their parents’ whims. It goes on: there is rejection of Jennifer by her mother and she is possibly ‘heavy-handed’ when she disciplines the children, but there is nothing substantial if one wanted to remove Jennifer. The vagaries of parents, and heavy-handed mothering, were by no means enough to rescue Jenny, and when my time came they would not be enough to rescue me either.

I am torn between recognising that the social workers were keeping an eye on us and acknowledging that there was something to be wary of, and seeing that they were not actually doing much about it. Jenny’s injuries were getting more frequent and more severe, but I wonder how many they never even knew of, given that it would only be the ones they could see, or the ones that required medical treatment, which registered. Only a month after the somewhat veiled reference to Mum being ‘heavy-handed’ came one such official presentation, when Jenny had to be taken to hospital.

The reports constantly state that Mum doesn’t want Jenny to go to playgroup, that she distrusts people, that she doesn’t want to be ‘watched’. They know she rejected my sister, as they note it down time and time again, but at times they do withdraw – presumably they had to do this if my parents requested it, as no complaint was actually being pressed at that time. Who, indeed, could have complained? Us little children, with no voice, no ability to do so? The only hope we had was that we would be hit so hard that it would go further – what a thing to wish for.

They have asked me not to visit again. They are of the opinion that with my regular visiting, they are being watched – the neighbours are inquisitive about a welfare officer visiting. I explained to Mrs Yeo that I would not call again but if she ever wanted advice or help, she could contact me. (3 August 1973)

While the social workers may have been forced to retreat for a while, thankfully the ‘inquisitive’ neighbours were still watching. By September 1973, one of them had made a telephone complaint to say that ‘Jennifer had a badly bruised face.’ They asked that someone make a visit ‘as soon as possible’, and the department actually ensured that happened later that day, which makes me think they were waiting for a reason to resume contact. A social worker called Mr Curran was told by Mum that Jenny ‘was always falling and banging herself’. This seems to have provided an opportunity for supervision to recommence and, the following week, some action was finally taken. A health visitor by the name of Miss Reynolds noticed that Jenny had

I breathed a sigh of relief when I read that – even though it had already happened, in real life, years ago.

That was it, Jenny – you were out. I know you had been taken away once before, but this time seemed different. There were so many people watching, so many people waiting for one of our parents to make a wrong move, or to let them see something they had hidden so well for so long – and, now they had. The Place of Safety Order was applied for. I wish that I could feel some hope, I wish I could feel that this was the start of it getting better, but I know the next few chapters of your story all too well. They are seeing some of it, but they don’t see it all, and they don’t give you what you need. The ‘vagaries’ are still there; the little girl is still lost.

Jenny was placed temporarily with a woman called Mrs Fenlon, and arrangements were made for an examination the next day. The results of that examination resulted in Jenny being sent to Birkenhead Children’s Hospital. The files state:

The files are bulky at this point and, as I read them, I’m getting dizzy. There’s so much to take in, and I feel as if I’m whirling around between the past that I’m reading about, the past that I experienced and the future I know is coming – it’s a story where I already know the ending, and there are so many voices shouting at me at once. Putting Jenny on the ‘At Risk’ register due to the bruising that was visible was the first step towards getting some sort of more established involvement for her, and letters were being sent thick and fast between all agencies and departments. In the middle of it is a comment made by Jenny’s foster-mother, Mrs Fenlon, which says so much.

‘[She] describes Jennifer as a happy, talkative, responsive child, with a healthy appetite. Jennifer appears a little frightened of adults.’ Already the foster-family could see how lovely Jenny could be when she felt safe, but they could also tell there was something that had brought about this reticence with adults. It was unsurprising given what I knew and given what I found in the files – a letter from the Birkenhead Children’s Hospital that bluntly laid out just what Jenny had endured.

Jennifer was admitted from Casualty on 18 September 1973. No history was available as the child was brought in by a social worker. On examination, the child was fully conscious. The following injuries were found on her body:

Head – haematoma in her left parietal region 3” x 4”, and in the right parietal region 1”x 1”.

Eyes – both eyes were bruised around the lids, right more than left.

Bruises over the left clavicle, and ecchymoses over both arms, and over both forearms.

Shoulders – bruises over the left shoulder.

Left buttock – large bruise.

Right buttock – healing lesion, probably a superficial burn.

Shins – multiple small bruises over both shins.

Left foot – healed linear scar over dorsum of left foot.

Signed Dr Shahbazi, 3 October 1973

It was a hideous shopping list of abuse and it led to a care order being imposed on 8 October 1973, under the reason of ‘her proper development being avoidably impaired or neglected’. When I read that list, when I see the clear medical awareness of what was done to my sister, I can’t help but shake. I’m in my own home, reading it all, remembering it all, but at the centre of everything is a tiny little body all those years ago, with violence and hatred being rained down on it every single day. That the only escape was to be beaten so much that something could finally be done to take Jenny away is unbearably cruel and, as always, I can’t fathom how a mother and father could do all of that to their child, or how anyone could do that to any child. The following week, Jenny was taken in by a foster-carer called Mrs Cain, who reported her to be a bit of a handful to start with, before she ‘starts to conform’. What I see from that is an acting-out child who has only known awful things, and who now sees that she needs to behave in a certain way.

By November, for unspecified reasons, Mum had been offered psychiatric treatment – which she refused. A letter from a consultant to the various workers involved with our family tried to summarise the situation so far, in just one page, but it makes for dire reading. Not only is it full of Mum’s lies, which they often accepted and repeated, but it shows many missed opportunities:

Thank you for asking me to see Mrs Yeo at her home yesterday [ … ] Jennifer, aged 3 and a half, was taken into care some two months ago as a battered baby, and Mrs Yeo was told the child would remain there until she was 18. This girl was brought up in a very violent and unhappy home

‘This girl’ was my mother. Yet there was absolutely no evidence of her home being violent or unhappy.

The following month (December 1973), the Cains asked for Jenny to be taken away from them. A photocopy of a letter handwritten in loopy script in the files from Mrs Cain says:

Then KEEP HER! I want to shout. KEEP MY SISTER! Give her a chance, please give her a chance. If you’re in no desperate hurry for her to go, please don’t send her to someone else – give her a chance and you’ll love her, I swear you’ll love her.

Mrs Cain seemed to have second thoughts for a while. When the social worker visited after the letter was received, the following report was filed:

Her opening remark was: ‘I do not know why I wrote now. I was at my wits’ end and the situation has improved’. She has found that the relationship between herself and Jennifer has been a constant battle and she felt she could not cope. Eventually her husband had a long chat with Jennifer and since then the situation has improved. The behaviour exhibited includes pouring Vim, soap powder, etc., over the floor many times daily, marking walls, etc., a general coarseness of speech which the Cains are not used to. She also tries to play one off against the other.

Jennifer often asks, ‘Do you like me?’ and ‘Will you cry if I leave you?’ The latter especially when she has been in trouble and has decided to return to ‘Auntie Cissy’ (Mrs Fenton – previous foster-parent). She also shows fear of not being fed at mealtimes. The three boys have all accepted Yo-yo quite readily and the middle child plays with her a great deal. The only sign of jealousy has come from the youngest boy. Yo-yo is a happy, noisy, naughty child, who remains over-affectionate. There is perhaps a lack of ‘cuddly love’ in the foster home at present. The Enuresis continues and a special allowance has been applied for.

I discussed with Mrs Cain the emotional involvement and the differences between her feeling towards her own children and towards Yo-yo. She needs security and if there is any rejection by the foster-parents, this may reinforce the pattern set up by her parents. Mrs Cain thinks she will be able to assess whether she can cope with Yo-yo in about two weeks’ time; I suggested that the situation would fluctuate and difficulties may continue to occur.

This was one of the saddest things I had read so far. The extent of Jenny’s behavioural problems, the detail of it, was something I had been unaware of until now. In my mind’s eye, I could see the little girl who was so lost, so confused, swearing, pouring soap powder all over, trying to manipulate strangers into loving her, and it was heartbreaking. Ultimately, Mrs Cain decided she couldn’t go on with it, and Jenny’s options were to go back to Mrs Fenlon or return to a care home again on a short-term placement. Mrs Fenlon agreed to take her back, ‘where she had made a good relationship and was very much wanted’, and I am so glad they did that for her at that time. Jenny must have been glad too, as the files say: ‘She was very excited about the move and within five minutes of arrival had made herself completely at home.’ Within a few weeks, it’s noted that she’s no longer soiling her clothes and there is a ‘resultant diminishing of her behavioural problems’.

I really do feel that Jenny needed stability and a nonthreatening environment, but the overriding problem was that Mum kept changing her mind; she would say that she didn’t want Jenny back, then she did. She would lay down rules and regulations one minute, trying to control everything, then, the next, say that she never wanted to be reconciled with my sister anyway.

At the start of 1974, there are some of the first comments about me. I am ‘the little girl’ who Mum claims has ‘signs’ of ‘beginning to react as Jennifer has, i.e, she says that she has Jennifer’s dirty habits.’ There are also comments about police visits at this stage, but no details, and I have few memories of that stage of my life. I can only assume that I was wetting the bed, or that Mum was claiming that to be the case, and that I was doing so for the same reasons as Jenny.

There is so much between the lines of what is written in the files, and I feel there are often comments recorded there that are not expanded upon, but left for interpretation. Maybe the social workers could only say so much, maybe their hands were tied, but sometimes I can’t help but pick up on what is playing out in front of me, even when it’s written in very few words. ‘Jenny met Mum in an interview room and asks if she can come home – Mum says only when she is ‘better’ … ‘Mrs Yeo was most concerned that Jennifer call her Lesley and Mr Yeo Norman. Jenny showed no emotion when she left her mother. (21 January 1974)’

***

The only hope for some security and stability in Jenny’s life was the foster-mother, Mrs Fenlon, but even this wasn’t progressing well. Although it seemed as if the woman had worked wonders with Jenny’s bed-wetting, and had been loving towards her, in January 1974 it was noted that she didn’t want to continue as a long-term foster-parent as she felt that she was:

… too old to undertake such a role. However, her daughter would very much like to foster Jennifer. This will be investigated. Jennifer is a difficult child. She has a good relationship with Mrs Fenlon’s daughter and it may be advisable to transfer her to foster-parents she already knows.

I wonder if my parents were told about this potential change, because at the next visit, it’s clear to the social worker that something is wrong with me – in retrospect, perhaps the frustration about the situation with Jenny had resulted in the first obvious physical marks on me.

Karen Yeo has a cut on her face. I did not see Karen during the visit but Mrs Yeo informed me that the dog had pushed Karen over. It seemed quite reasonable to accept this. However, a close watch will have to be kept on the situation. The dog has now been taken away and they have a new puppy. (31 January 1974)

This is a hurtful memory for me, and not because of the cut face. Animals, especially dogs, were used to as a method of taunting us for years. No sooner would I get attached to a new puppy than I would be told it would have to go as it didn’t fit in, or was naughty, or Mum had too much to do. Dad could be horribly cruel with them, often throwing them out into the street or hitting them. To this day, I adore animals, and my own dogs have always been like my babies to me. I know this comes from all of the puppies that were taken from me when I was growing up; and the casual way in which the files say that one dog was taken away and replaced by a new puppy, as if they were all interchangeable, cuts deeper than you could imagine.

At the end of January 1974, there was an attempt made to summarise our family history up until that point. There is, as always, so much hidden in what is not said, and the authorities even have to leave out some of what they have previously included, as there is so much to contend with. In two pages of faded type, they go over it all again, and also – again – include many of the pieces of the story they have been told and which, I suppose, they have to accept:

Mr and Mrs Yeo married on 14.1.70. Mr Yeo adopted the two eldest children about September 1970. Mrs Yeo states that if any distinction has been made by him between the four children, Jennifer has been the favourite. Mrs Yeo has said that although both Ian and Jennifer are not Mr Yeo’s children, it has been Jennifer who has caused difficulty, almost from the moment of conception. Throughout her pregnancy, Mrs Yeo did not want the child. However, when she gave birth to Jennifer, she felt that she wanted to keep her despite the hardships the decision might involve. From her birth, Jennifer was apparently a difficult and uncooperative baby, who cried persistently, despite Mrs Yeo’s efforts to comfort her. Mrs Yeo was convinced this behaviour occurred because Jennifer sensed her mother’s initial rejection.

On 5.8.71 Mr Yeo was seen in the Duty Room of the Social Services Department where he explained why he had taken Jennifer away from Mrs Yeo and gone to live with his mother. He alleged that his wife had ill-treated Jennifer and had always taken it out on her, because she reminded her of the father. She had allegedly beaten her several times, the last time being the previous weekend. The child was examined the same day and the doctor reported bruises on both cheeks, buttocks, and the lumbar region and also both legs.

On 8.8.71, Mrs Yeo requested that all three children should be taken into care as she was going into hospital for an operation and Mr Yeo could not care for them. Mr Yeo was, by the time, back at home. On 16.8.71, the children were received into care.

On 16.8.71, Mr Yeo was visited and staff expressed concern about the child returning to the care of her mother. Mr Yeo admitted his wife had always been against the child but he was on the defensive and not prepared to discuss her attitudes in any detail. It was clear that he could not be relied upon to support his first story and so it seemed probable that the only possible action would be with the parents’ consent.

Mr Yeo agreed to discuss with his wife the possibility of Jennifer remaining in care for a further period.

On 20.8.71, due to the hospitalisation of the foster-mother, Jennifer and Karen were transferred to separate foster-parents.

On 3.9.71, all three were discharged from the care of the Local Authority.

On 9.8.72, a referral was made, stating that the baby was in hospital, possibly with a fractured skull.

10.8.72, Jennifer was found to have bruising on her forehead, arms, across her shoulder blades and extending down to the lumbar-sacral region of her back. The social worker tried to gain the cooperation of Mrs Yeo, hoping to receive Jennifer into care on a voluntary basis. Eventually it was necessary to take a Place of Safety Order. At the end of the 28-day order, Jennifer remained in care under Section 1.

24.12.72 Jennifer returned home and the family was supervised by a social worker.

3.8.73 At the request of Mrs Yeo, and because the situation seemed a great deal more settled, supervision discontinued.

10.9.73 An anonymous caller informed the Department that Jennifer had a badly bruised face. A social worker visited the house and saw Jennifer. Mrs Yeo’s explanation, that she was always falling and banging herself, was accepted.

17.9.73 A Place of Safety Order was taken on Jennifer, who had bad bruising of the face and body. Jennifer was placed with foster-parents.

18.9.73 Following an examination, Jennifer was admitted to hospital.

24.9.73 Jennifer was discharged from hospital to foster-parents.

18.10.73 Jennifer was transferred to long-term foster-parents.

3.12.73 Due to a breakdown in the fostering arrangements, Jennifer was replaced with short-term foster-parents.

January 1974 The Police interviewed Mr and Mrs Yeo about the incident.

21.1.74 Mrs Yeo saw Jennifer and Jennifer asked if she could go live with her mother.

While that report ends, another has as its recommendation at the same time: ‘I am of the opinion that Jennifer has been ‘scapegoated’ in her family; her relationship with her parent/parents was lacking the emotional harmony essential for her overall development and to prevent her from being maladjusted. I would, therefore, recommend that Jennifer be committed to the Care of the Local Authority on a Care Order.’

All of this. All of these opportunities missed. Jenny passed from pillar to post, all four of us in and out of care, foster-families changing their minds, social workers either falling for lies or not being able to make the change that was needed – so many chances to change the ending of the story.