Curious Framework

What Ava’s Story Teaches Us About Missed Safeguarding Opportunities.

Through a CURIOUS Framework Lens

When Practice Reviews or Rapid Reviews are published, it is always the same outcomes and themes: missed opportunities, assumptions made, lack of information sharing, and insufficient analysis of risk.

Ava’s story is no exception.

But what if we had a structured, compassionate, and curious lens through which to examine and respond to children’s lived experiences?

The CURIOUS Framework offers that structure. A safeguarding approach that encourages professionals to slow down, connect, and reflect deeply at every stage. Ava’s case highlights what can happen when that curiosity is absent.

Let’s explore this case through the CURIOUS lens and identify how critical moments might have played out differently.

Firstly here is the Rapid Review we are exploring today, please click here to read to understand the details

This Local Safeguarding Children Practice Review (LSCPR) focuses on Ava. Ava is a 2-year-old girl who was discovered in a neglected condition, as was Ava’s 8-year-old sibling, in March 2022 by Police who had been asked to undertake welfare visit.

Connect with Compassion

Professional curiosity always begins with genuine human connection.

Ava was born during the COVID-19 lockdown, and while remote working was necessary, it was never meant to replace meaningful engagement. I worked during Covid lockdown, I was creative in how I engaged the families I worked with. And yes, virtual visits replaced face-to-face contact but Ava’s lived experience and that of her mother remained unseen.

What could have been different?
Had we connected with compassion, we may have paused to ask: How is this mother managing with a new baby in lockdown? What’s the emotional impact of isolation on this family? What support does she need, even if she doesn’t ask for it?

Compassion is not about fixing, but about seeing and honouring someone’s reality even when it’s hidden behind closed doors and the barrier is a world wide pandemic.

Reflective Prompt:
How do we continue to meaningfully engage families who are reluctant to engage with services?

Understand the Unspoken

One of the most glaring issues in Ava’s case is the absence of her voice. Ava was not seen by any professional from from birth to 22 months. Her needs were either assumed to be met or lost in the complexity of other concerns. No GP registration. No immunisations. No clear evidence of developmental checks. There was silence both literal and systemic around Ava’s needs which we will talk about later in the understanding systems part of the framework.

Professionals noted concerns like the mother’s deteriorating mental health, a miscarriage, and the father's sexual offences, yet did not explore the potential emotional and environmental impact on the children.

What was Ava not able to say?
Her silence wasn’t empty, it was full of clues. The lack of registration, home conditions, and unacknowledged risks were all non-verbal signals of neglect. Ava needed professionals who could read beyond the spoken word and see the signs of an unsafe environment. then her voice could have been heard.

Reflective Prompt:
What assumptions do we make when parents say “everything’s fine”? How do we ensure we’re hearing what isn’t being said?

Recognise Patterns

Ava’s family had a known history with services: previous Children in Need Plans, domestic abuse concerns, substance misuse indicators, and repeated referrals. But each episode was assessed in isolation, as if the past did not inform the present.

• Ava not being registered with a GP
• No immunisations
• Missed appointments
• Poor home conditions
• Reports of drug dealing
• Sibling taking on a caring role

Instead of recognising a cumulative risk pattern, professionals relied on short-term fixes or closed cases too early.

A missed pattern:
When school raised concerns about poor home conditions and potential parental substance misuse, these were not connected to earlier worries. The pattern of escalating risk, professional avoidance, and lack of follow-through was clear, but not recognised.

Reflective Prompt:
What patterns do we overlook when we respond only to the latest incident?

Inquire with Integrity

Effective inquiry isn’t about suspicion, it’s about integrity-led questioning. In Ava’s case, professionals accepted surface-level explanations. When the mother said she would supervise all contact between Ava and the father (who was facing serious sexual offence charges), that was taken at face value without robust safety planning. Questions can feel difficult in trustive at times but utterly necesary when a person or in this instance a child is at risk. When the mother reported a bereavement, was she offered consistent emotional support? Was there a genuine inquiry into who was living in the home, especially after the father’s return?

Integrity means holding the balance between empathy and accountability. In Ava’s case, professionals often took parental reassurance at face value—even after reports of serious neglect.

What could integrity have looked like here?
Asking: What does supervision actually mean in this context? Is this mother emotionally and practically equipped to supervise? Do we have any way of verifying what’s happening in the home?

Reflective Prompt:
Do our questions challenge enough when a child might be at risk? How do we check our own biases?

Observe the Environment

Repeated concerns were raised about home conditions, yet no professionals physically visited Ava’s home in her first year. This is not a minor oversight. Even when entry was gained, things were missed or not acted upon, a locked room, no electricity, poor home conditions.

Home visits should be an opportunity to see the child’s world and it should go beyond the adults word.

Observational curiosity matters.
No home visit means no way to assess sleeping arrangements, cleanliness, risk from adults in the home, or Ava’s physical presentation. Without seeing Ava’s world, how could we safeguard her?

Reflective Prompt:
What does the environment tell us that words might not? Are we seeing through the child’s lens?

Understand the Systems at Play

The system around Ava, health visiting, GP services, maternity care, and social care operated in silos. Maternity services were unaware of safeguarding concerns. Health visitors didn’t know about the mother’s miscarriage until much later. The GP was never engaged. Decisions were made without full context.

The result?
A fragmented response that treated Ava as a tick-box rather than a whole child living in a complex environment. Understanding the system at play means asking: Who else should know this information? Where are the gaps? How can we align our roles for a joined-up response? This is a good time to use the Cott’s Framework.

Reflective Prompt:
How do the systems we work in help or hinder our ability to safeguard effectively?

Share Information

Information was known but not shared in ways that safeguarded Ava. The Health Visiting service identified risks but later discharged the case back to universal services due to not being able to engage the family. There’s no evidence of escalation, or follow-up when the mother declined Early Help. No professionals meeting was called to make a plan.

When we fail to share information, we fail children.
Safeguarding is a shared responsibility. Ava’s safety was not the sole job of any one professional. Collaboration and communication could have led to a more coordinated and preventative approach.

Reflective Prompt:
Are we ensuring that all agencies have a shared understanding of risk? How do we close information gaps?

Closing Reflection: What Ava Teaches Us?

Ava’s story is one of the many in which professional curiosity could have shifted the trajectory and whilst there are only so much each serivce can do, if we work together and use some of the framework to go beyond the surface, we can really make a difference. The CURIOUS Framework isn’t just a theory. It’s a call to action. A structure to hold us accountable to deeper thinking, joined-up working, and compassionate safeguarding.

We should always be CURIOUS, even when it’s uncomfortable.

Want to Learn More?

• Next Professional Curiosity Course is in June. Find out here

• Book a Safeguarding Supervision or Training Session