PFD report

Name not published · Prevention of Future Deaths report

Pin Get email alerts Request correction

Issued 9 Nov 2020•Surrey

Report record

Published report and response evidence

This page connects the concerns raised in this report with statements found in recipients’ published responses. A link shows a clear evidence connection; it does not assign responsibility.

View original report
Concerns
4

Raised in this report

Recipients
2

Named on the report

Responses found
1

Of 2 recipients

Stated actions
7

Described in responses

Source document

Full report text

This is the full text from the original published report.

Open published report

Concerns and recipient responses

Select any concern, action or position to view the source wording.

Report evidence summary

Concerns raised4

  1. Failure to inform the general practitioner of children’s removal and care proceedings
    Part of recurring concern: Failure to assess and respond to mental-health risks arising during child protection and care proceedings
  2. Failure to involve general practitioners in MARAC meetings
    Part of recurring concern: Inadequate multi-agency safeguarding coordinationPart of recurring concern: Unreliable use of the MARAC process for domestic abuse risk management
  3. Failure to inform the treating general practitioner of domestic abuse and coercion allegations
Responses linked to these concerns

Each statement is shown once, even when linked to more than one concern.

Actions described in response An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.4

  1. Action

    Share Domestic Homicide Review learning across Children’s Services.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 7 October 2022.
  2. Action

    Implement the Children’s Services Improvement Plan to strengthen information sharing with partner agencies.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 7 October 2022.
  3. Action

    Assess increased parental risk during child-removal planning and contact or support contact with relevant agencies, including GPs and specialist services.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 7 October 2022.

Respondent positions A position is what a recipient says about a concern when it does not describe a specific action.1

  1. Position

    Surrey Police, as MARAC lead agency and chair, is responsible for reviewing and improving MARAC workings; Surrey County Council will assist.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilRedirects responsibilityThe respondent said that another organisation was responsible for deciding or taking action.

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to inform the general practitioner of children’s removal and care proceedings

Wider context from the report

“6. ████████ children were removed from her care in ████████ and she was then involved in care proceedings. Her general practitioner was not made aware of this although it would have been a further significant stressor so far as her mental health was concerned. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to assess and respond to mental-health risks arising during child protection and care proceedings.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to involve general practitioners in MARAC meetings

Wider context from the report

“3. ████████ general practitioner was not invited to contribute to the MARAC meetings held in July and August 2017. General Practitioners are not routinely invited to MARAC meetings. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Inadequate multi-agency safeguarding coordination; Unreliable use of the MARAC process for domestic abuse risk management.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to inform the treating general practitioner of domestic abuse and coercion allegations

Wider context from the report

“5. The general practitioner responsible for treating ████████ mental health was not made aware of the allegations of domestic abuse and coercion that ████████ had made. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

No recurring-concern membership is currently published.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this individual concern was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the report wording shown below. Response links show a clear evidence connection; they do not assign responsibility.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Failure to communicate MARAC-identified risks and planned safeguarding measures to general practitioners

Wider context from the report

“4. The risks and the planned safeguarding measures identified by the MARAC were not communicated to the general practitioner. ”

Is this part of a recurring concern?

Yes — Failure to act appropriately on safeguarding referrals and notices; Unreliable multi-agency communication procedures.

Open source report

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Share Domestic Homicide Review learning across Children’s Services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This was a point of learning identified early within the Domestic Homicide Review and action was taken immediately to share this learning across our service and to strengthen practice. We now ensure that when we are making plans to remove children into our care we consider how to manage any increased risk to the parents. If the agencies working with them are part of the children’s core group we would always contact them. If they are not we would ask the consent of the parents to contact them, or support them to make contact with them themselves. This would include GPs as well as domestic abuse services or adult services.”

Source location

Response to Surrey coroner area - Prevention of future deaths report
Page 1 · response
Published 7 October 2022

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Implement the Children’s Services Improvement Plan to strengthen information sharing with partner agencies.

Verbatim wording from the response

“In relation to Point 6, Surrey County Council recognises the importance of informing agencies involved with a family about the removal of a child. Our practice has strengthened considerably since 2017 and Children's Services has implemented an Improvement Plan in order to secure continuing improvement over time. This includes improving the way in which information is shared with partner agencies. When a child moves into our care we routinely notify our health colleagues and this would ensure that the GP would now be informed. However, this would be the GP for the children, rather than the GP for the parents and we recognise the focus in this situation was on the needs of the mother and her increased vulnerability in the light of the removal of her children.”

Source location

Response to Surrey coroner area - Prevention of future deaths report
Page 1 · response
Published 7 October 2022

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Assess increased parental risk during child-removal planning and contact or support contact with relevant agencies, including GPs and specialist services.

Verbatim wording from the response

“This was a point of learning identified early within the Domestic Homicide Review and action was taken immediately to share this learning across our service and to strengthen practice. We now ensure that when we are making plans to remove children into our care we consider how to manage any increased risk to the parents. If the agencies working with them are part of the children’s core group we would always contact them. If they are not we would ask the consent of the parents to contact them, or support them to make contact with them themselves. This would include GPs as well as domestic abuse services or adult services.”

Source location

Response to Surrey coroner area - Prevention of future deaths report
Page 1 · response
Published 7 October 2022

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Assist Surrey Police with its detailed review of MARAC workings.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Points 1-5 relate specifically to the MARAC. Surrey Police are the lead agency and chair the MARAC. Surrey County Council does have a responsibility to ensure that our relevant employees attend and are prepared for MARAC meetings. I am aware that the police are carrying out a detailed review of the workings of the MARAC. Surrey County Council is actively assisting with and contributing to that review from a Children's Services perspective. Surrey County Council is committed to working as required with Surrey Police as the lead agency to effect the necessary improvements.”

Source location

Response to Surrey coroner area - Prevention of future deaths report
Page 1 · response
Published 7 October 2022

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent position was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Surrey Police, as MARAC lead agency and chair, is responsible for reviewing and improving MARAC workings; Surrey County Council will assist.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Points 1-5 relate specifically to the MARAC. Surrey Police are the lead agency and chair the MARAC. Surrey County Council does have a responsibility to ensure that our relevant employees attend and are prepared for MARAC meetings. I am aware that the police are carrying out a detailed review of the workings of the MARAC. Surrey County Council is actively assisting with and contributing to that review from a Children's Services perspective. Surrey County Council is committed to working as required with Surrey Police as the lead agency to effect the necessary improvements.”

Source location

Response to Surrey coroner area - Prevention of future deaths report
Page 1 · response
Published 7 October 2022

Open published response

Other statements in published responses

These actions and other statements could not be clearly connected to one concern in this report.

Recipient-stated actions An action is something a recipient says it has done, is doing, or plans to do in response to a concern raised.3

  1. 1

    Implement the Family Safeguarding Model with adult specialist workers embedded in Children’s Social Care teams.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 7 October 2022.
  2. 2

    Provide wider information-sharing training through adult mental health specialists.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 7 October 2022.
  3. 3

    Train safeguarding practitioners and managers in the Family Safeguarding Model and parenting intervention programme.

    Stated by Surrey County CouncilStated completedThe respondent said that this action was complete when they made their response on 7 October 2022.

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Implement the Family Safeguarding Model with adult specialist workers embedded in Children’s Social Care teams.

Verbatim wording from the response

“Our practice in recognising and supporting the needs of parents has been further strengthened by the rolling out of our new practice model. In circumstances where Children's Services are supporting a family under a Child in Need or Child Protection Plan, we have now implemented the Family Safeguarding Model. This was developed for families where there are issues around domestic abuse, adult mental health and substance use and with this we now have adult specialist workers within the Children’s Social Care teams. This includes domestic abuse practitioners, domestic abuse officers (seconded from probation), adult mental health workers and drug & alcohol support workers. The focus is to enable parents to meet their needs so that they are able to safely meet the needs of their children.”

Source location

Response to Surrey coroner area - Prevention of future deaths report
Page 1 · response
Published 7 October 2022

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Provide wider information-sharing training through adult mental health specialists.

Verbatim wording from the response

“The adult mental health specialists are equipped to understand the behaviours of parents, bring this focus to the work with the family, and to liaise with partner agencies working with parents. The adult mental health specialists also provide training to other colleagues in order to improve the approach to information sharing from the perspective of the parents on a wider basis. These specialist workers will often liaise with GPs or others supporting parents, and were”

Source location

Response to Surrey coroner area - Prevention of future deaths report
Page 1 · response
Published 7 October 2022

Open published response

Source evidence

How this respondent action was interpreted

PFD Monitor created a concise, searchable interpretation from the published response wording shown below.

PFD Monitor interpretation

Train safeguarding practitioners and managers in the Family Safeguarding Model and parenting intervention programme.

Verbatim wording from the response

“All practitioners and managers within our safeguarding teams have been provided with training on the Family Safeguarding Model and completing the parenting intervention programme, in order to focus on the family unit as a whole (including the parents). The implementation of Family Safeguarding has received significant funding from the Department for Education in Surrey and is part of our Improvement Journey. The effectiveness of the model, and the difference it makes to families is being independently evaluated by York Consulting.”

Source location

Response to Surrey coroner area - Prevention of future deaths report
Page 2 · response
Published 7 October 2022

Open published response
Back to top

Information checked against the published report and official responses · Data reviewed 7 Sep 2026 · About data quality and limitations

Official responses located
1/2

Data last updated 7 September 2026