Care professionals missed opportunities to save a baby who was killed by his mother because the "financially stable and well-presented image" the family offered gave the illusion the infant was not at risk.
A serious case review report found the death of Callum Wilson, at the hands of Emma Wilson on March 18, 2011, was preventable.
The review found that in the last two weeks of the 11-month-old's life, professionals missed opportunities to intervene which, had they had been taken, "are very likely to have led to the detection of serious injuries and would probably have prevented his death".
Wilson, 25, from Windsor, Berkshire, inflicted a fatal brain injury on Callum, which resulted in blindness, multiple fractures and death.
She denied murder, but was jailed for life with a minimum of 14 years in January after she was found guilty.
The review, carried out by Windsor and Maidenhead Local Safeguarding Children Board, identified missed chances to protect Callum and his brother, and suggested authorities underestimated the risks to them.
As with her first child, Wilson showed no signs of pregnancy and kept Callum's birth a secret. He was put into foster care after his birth but returned to his mother's home in November 2010.
The report said the pattern of two concealed pregnancies should have "led professionals to be curious about the mother's mental health, even if superficially she was offering good care".
The report also found that due to a series of failings, the bruises and scratches noticed on Callum by health workers were not reported to the local authority. This would have likely led to a full examination, which would have likely identified the older fracture injuries he had sustained and led to action being taken to protect him.
The report said a series of recommendations had since been made by the agencies involved.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereComments are closed on this article