I remember doing a stream about this when the court case came up and how disgusted I was, along with the rest of the U.K., at the amount of times Lucy’s mother failed to act and do something about Lucy’s boyfriend (whose a friend of Lucy’s partner) roam free in her house.
Lucy would have arguments with Stephen Nicholson (defined as her boyfriend) and despite this Lucy’s mother (or her mother’s partner) took no action and continued as if nothing was going on.
In the BBC article it states that “The review said that before that, Lucy’s teachers had flagged concerns she had an older boyfriend who could be sexually exploiting her.” This would indicate that Lucy’s mother knew about the teachers complaints about this ‘older boyfriend’ yet in the same breath the article continues “But social workers considered the concerns had “no foundation” because they were given “assurances” by Lucy’s mother.“
This can only mean that either;
- Lucy’s mother knew that her daughter was seeing and/or was in a relationship with Stephen Nicholson
- Lucy’s mother had no idea, completely
Since the teachers told Lucy’s mother about she had an older boyfriend and considering the same Stephen Nicholson is a friends with the mother’s boyfriend living the same house then it would mean she would have been aware that something was going on. The BBC’s report continues;
Lead reviewer Moira Murray said: “The referrals needed to be treated as one of child protection.
“If this had happened, a strategy discussion could have been convened concerning the risk this man posed to Lucy and her family.
“This did not happen and was a missed opportunity.”
Since Lucy herself wouldn’t speak up about it despite talking about Stephen to her friends and her teachers found out that something was going on, the social care services can only do so much – the mother in this case let Lucy down, she didn’t feel there was something going on, a man was ‘lodging’ in her house, someone that she didn’t even know or did she? It is also known that Lucy was arguing a lot with Stephen, that the mother also didn’t seen to care that her 13 year old daughter could just go out and do whatever she wants. Why are parents letting children, in particular young girls, roam free outside of the home, she’s 13 years old for Christ’s sake!
The Southampton Safeguarding Children Partnership put out a report that said quote;
“Mother informed the review that she was unaware of this man’s history of violence and if she had, she would never have allowed him into her home.“
If that’s the case then why would a mother decide, on the basis of not checking if Stephen had a violent past or not (Lucy’s mother’s partner is friends with him), into her house – someone that she apparently didn’t know had a criminal past? If you know the man well enough you would know he’s trouble, if you don’t know the man why in the hell would you let a random stranger to live in your house where you have a 13 year old daughter?
As usual, like with all incidents involving children, whether it be domestic abuse at home, an abusive father, grooming gangs etc we always get the “lessons must be learned” and they never do – the stories keep on coming with no lessons learned.
The social care agencies, the schools, the hospitals/GP surgeries always let us down because they’re either afraid to speak up or point out the errors that human beings make – as a result anyone who refuses to correct the error gets accused of “stigmitising” meaning we get the same result; errors that result in death or destruction.
Mistakes were made and contributed to Lucy’s horrific death but it starts at home, it always has and when those who are parents refuse to apply as set of values/ethics/morals to their children then you have already failed them.
For the love of God – protect your children, at all costs.