SHOCKING cases where authorities failed to prevent the continued abuse and even death of children in Kent have been published by the Courier.

Our investigation into the child protection failings – identified after serious cases of abuse in the county – has shown how a catalogue of errors allowed the offences to take place.

Poor record-keeping, failing to report concerns, weak communication between agencies and a lack of risk-assessments are among the "major errors" criticised by officials.

"Quite clearly these cases are horrific and should not be tolerated in a civilised society," said Tonbridge and Malling Borough Council's cabinet member for youth Martin Coffin.

Seven serious case reviews carried out over the past four years by the Kent Safeguarding Children Board and obtained by the Courier show how relatively minor mistakes in the area can have tragic consequences.

The cases include:

A four-week-old girl taken to hospital with "extensive and serious" injuries. The board was alarmed that she had not been placed on the protection register despite her older sibling having previously been added and her parents' known history of violence.

A three-month-old boy discovered dead on the floor was subsequently found to have experienced older injuries. The death was treated as suspicious due to the violent history of his father.

A mother who was given continued access to her baby son despite having admitted planning to choke him. She subsequently dropped him from a balcony.

A stepfather allowed to return to the family home after admitting indecently assaulting one of the children. He later admitted 54 further offences and received a life term.

A family of six children abused by their mother and a friend despite concerns being raised on nine separate occasions.

NSPCC spokesman Julie Wills told the Courier it was crucial for agencies involved in child protection not to repeat mistakes.

"Any death of a child is tragic," she said. "What is important is that we all learn from such losses of lives.

"It is everyone's responsibility to be vigilant to signs of abuse and act on any concerns they have. We ask anyone who is concerned about a child to do something. In an emergency, phone the police."

The review into the handling of the case of the "Cameron family" – in which concerns about sexual abuse had been raised nine times – showed the degree to which basic errors can have grave consequences in child protection.

A lack of record-keeping, failing to report concerns, losing information and poor communication between agencies were all singled out as having contributed to the abuse sustained by the family going undiscovered.

"What is most concerning is that the major errors – committed in the period before the children disclosed – were such basic ones," the review said of the Cameron family case.

"They are the kinds of errors that feature over and over again in serious case reviews, public inquiries and the child protection literature."

Another area of concern raised by the board in some of the cases was whether proper assessment of the risk posed by parent figures had been carried out.

In the case of "Child A2006K", who was found dead on the floor of his family's lounge, the board said it was impossible to say whether the death could have been prevented, but agreed that agencies had "failed individually and collectively" to consider the significance of the father's aggressive behaviour.

In the case of "Adam" – a baby boy dropped by his mother from the balcony of a Mother and Baby Unit after she had previously admitted planning to choke him – several agencies were criticised.

The Kent and Medway NHS and Social Care Partnership Trust was said to have shown an "abnegation of responsibility" after it recommended she be sent to a unit it had no control over.

A spokesman for the partnership trust, however, said this week that it was not responsible for that particular unit.

"The unit had been registered by the Healthcare Commission and the trust and commissioners were both satisfied the unit was suitable before the referral was made," he said.

Cllr Coffin said he believed the agencies in child protection were doing their best and questioned whether problems occurred because the services involved were overstretched, underfunded or low on morale.

"In some of the cases it would seem that help was needed earlier by the perpetrator," he said. "Maybe that would have stopped the abuse happening.

"In others the very obvious signs should have been followed. It should be the duty of us all to report concerns about possible abuse taking place."

KENT County Council's director of children's social services Bill Anderson said his department had performed consistently well.

"I think you've just got to look at all the indicators that we measure ourselves by and the Government measures us by," he said.

"I think we are a very effective organisation when we deal with children."

Mr Anderson added that the department actually recommends more cases for review than it is required to. This is so they could "learn serious lessons" from them, he said.

"We are not at all complacent. We believe often child protection organisations are judged on the basis of their last serious case review.

"We believe that's the wrong thing to do."

In the period since these reviews have been carried out, Mr Anderson said the department had reformed its out-of-hours service and built in a more robust screening system.

Following the review into the case where a stepfather had been allowed back into the family home after admitting indecently assaulting one of the children, Mr Anderson said he had taken immediate action.

He had ordered a review of every case where a sex offender was living with children to see if action should be taken.

"We don't have a legal ability to remove a perpetrator from a home," he added however, saying this is a power that rightly lies with the courts.

We question social services director Bill Anderson in detail in next week's Courier.