|
Abstract
|
At the end of September 2013 the Dutch Youth Care Inspectorate and the Health Care Inspectorate published the findings of their inquiry into the deaths of two brothers, Julian (7) and Ruben (9), from Zeist. Their parents, both well-educated people, had split up: the boys lived alternately with their father and their mother. The separation and the subsequent contact between the parents was described as 'problematic'.
The remit of the inquiry was twofold: to ascertain whether the family support services had paid sufficient attention to the safe and healthy development of the two brothers since the first report of child abuse arrived at the AMK child abuse hotline, and to determine the extent to which the youth care services had acted correctly.
The authors of the 54-page report concluded that the ten agencies involved - and at least fifteen professionals - had acted with due care with regard to the health and welfare of the children. They consulted one another regularly, they followed the correct procedures, and they took the signals from the mother and the children seriously. The final conclusion was that youth care had acted adequately and transparently. Even so, the AMK hotline had received three reports of abuse within just a few years. The mother had repeatedly expressed concerns about the safety of the boys and said she felt threatened. The father felt victimized and excluded, and refused permission for his sons to get support and assistance. Mediation was unsuccessful. In this article we take a closer look at this case on the basis of the findings in the report. The report itself focuses on the process, and ascertains whether procedures were correctly followed. We will look at the substance of the case and explore how the integration of specialised knowledge and procedures can add extra value to the way in which work is undertaken and organised.
Language: en |