Ethan Ives-Griffiths, aged two, died on 16 August 2021 after collapsing at his grandparents' home in Garden City, Deeside. In 2025 the grandparents, Michael Ives, 47, and Kerry Ives, 46, were convicted of murdering Ethan. Their daughter, Shannon Ives, 28, was convicted of child cruelty and of causing or allowing his death. It has now been over four years since the murder of Ethan but the Child Practice Review into his death has still not been published. One cannot help wondering whether this is being delayed for political reasons because of the Senedd election in May.

The backgound to this case is as follows. On 6 July 2021 social workers correctly took the decision to place 2 year old Ethan on the child protection register, with a requirement that he should be seen every 10 days. However, this case reveals a failure of agencies in Flintshire to adequately incorporate child protection duties into their thinking and practice immediately after registration.

During the month before his death the social worker and health visitor were making frequent attempts to contact Shannon and establish where she and Ethan were staying. She had been living briefly with her sister but then moved in with her parents. A core group meeting was held but Shannon did not attend the meeting. The work of children's social workers was being made more difficult because Covid restrictions were in place. On August 12 the health visitor and social worker visited the home but there was no answer at the door.

Shortly afterwards Ethan collapsed at the family home and was admitted to hospital. Two days later he was pronounced dead. A post-mortem examination showed that Ethan had 40 different injuries on his body, including a swollen brain and numerous trauma injuries to his head and abdomen. There were also cuts, grazes and bruises. The combination of injuries appeared to indicate ongoing battering of Ethan over a period of time.

This case shows that the child protection system in Wales did not function as it should. During the period that Ethan and Shannon were living with her parents Ethan suffered extensive neglect and physical abuse. It is obvious that current procedures were insufficiently rigorous in recognising that more coercive measures were required. Children's Services has a legal duty to protect a child from cruelty and physical violence. During Covid staff could have been provided with protective clothing so that they could safely enter the home, see Ethan, assess his physical health and take the necessary protective action.

Many of the weaknesses in the current system have come about as a result of a political system in Wales which has reframed 'child protection' as 'safeguarding'. Cultural assumptions in Wales make children's social workers reluctant to make full use of their legal powers under the Children Act 1989. This can lead to an over-reliance on the inter-agency 'safeguarding' approach and a naive faith in the effectiveness of collaborative work with families in protecting children from harm. In some local authorities the organisational culture may also be under strain due to staffing issues and low morale.

While social work practice presumes that the inter-agency approach is an essential requirement, it is equally important that children's social workers should be able to recognise when a child is 'at risk of significant harm' and know how to take the necessary protective action. Obviously, good managerial oversight is crucial in recognising when formal child protection measures are required. However, there may be a reluctance in some local authorities in Wales to make use of their legal powers to remove a child from the family. Some of this may be due to the very serious pressures on the care system and the practical difficulties in finding a suitable placement. However, in some cases it is possible to find a member of the extended family who would be a suitable person to assume temporary care of the child in an emergency.

The legal basis of social work practice to protect children from 'significant harm' is described in the Children Act 1989 which gives local authorities two clearly defined duties - namely to assess 'risk of significant harm' under section 47 and also to initiate care proceedings if the child is in need of immediate protective action. In recent years primacy has been given to 'safeguarding practice' with children at risk - which was meant to reduce the stigma of 'child protection' intervention. However, this did not mean that the inherent tensions within the legislation were removed. Good practice still requires that the social work action plan should be based on an assessment in which all the relevant factors have been evaluated and an understanding of when legal powers need to be used.

We now know that the three adults in the family subjected Ethan to extreme cruelty and were not open to any kind of support or advice from the social worker and health visitor. This case raises serious questions about the current approach to child protection practice in Children's Services in Wales. In particular, do all staff understand the full extent of their duties and know when to make use of the legal powers they are given?

All political parties in Wales need to give attention to this failure in child protection and commit to taking the issue seriously. Radical thinking is required if we are to raise standards of social work practice and restore confidence in the capacity of children's social workers to protect children from violence within the family. Essentially, we should reconsider the current framework of 'safeguarding' in children's services so that it includes a deeper understanding of the legal duty on children's social workers to protect children at greatest risk.

Hilary Searing

Return to Barefoot Social Worker

Handmade in Wales. © Copyright Hilary Searing 2026. All rights reserved.