"Our effort was to save the child, who ultimately could not be saved," stated on Thursday before the Nicosia District Court the special education liaison officer for Stylianou during the period 2011–2015, A.T., in connection with reports of child abuse and the actions of the Social Welfare Services (SWS), during her cross-examination in the case of the minor’s death, in September 2019.
During her cross-examination by the defense attorney for the third defendant, a SWS official, Viktor Akama, the witness stated that she communicated with her by phone whenever circumstances arose beyond those discussed at the multidisciplinary meetings, in which she herself participated. The third defendant was the case worker responsible for monitoring the Stylianou family during that specific period.
ΣΧΕΤΙΚΑ ΑΡΘΡΑ
Specifically, the witness referred to incidents during the 2011–2012 period, during which, as she stated, the child had reported being beaten by his father, as well as an instance in which he had gone to school with marks from being struck with a belt.
She added that she also received most of this information from the child’s speech therapist, who also kept the third defendant informed.
When asked whether she remembered exactly when and regarding which incidents she had contacted the third defendant, she replied that she had not kept any relevant notes. She explained, however, that she had difficulty reaching her by phone because, as she said, she was unable to get hold of her when she needed to convey something to her immediately.
“I remember telling my colleagues that I couldn’t reach her when I needed to tell her something right away,” she said, adding that her colleagues had suggested she call the YKE reception desk and leave a message.
Mr. Akamas suggested to the witness that she had never contacted Defendant 3 to report incidents involving Stylianos, to which she replied that this was his opinion.
The cross-examination also addressed a note which, according to the witness, she had received from the child’s previous liaison officer, on which the word “sos” appeared next to Stylianos’s name.
The witness clarified that this was not an official document, but a note exchanged among colleagues, in which similar notations appeared for other children she was monitoring.
Mr. Akamas then showed the witness a letter dated April 7, 2011, which referred to Stylianos and was addressed to the District Committee for Special Education and Training.
The witness explained that the letter contained recommendations resulting from a multidisciplinary meeting, including the continuation of special education and speech therapy, the presence of a school aide and collaboration with a child psychiatrist, as well as the child’s referral to a pediatric neurologist. She also noted that the document included references to issues concerning the family environment, such as home repairs and removing the children from the farm during the afternoon hours.
When asked whether the document in question contained any mention that the third defendant was not properly performing her duties, she replied in the negative.
Regarding the testimony she had given to the criminal investigator in September 2020, the defense attorney asked her why she had not mentioned that Stylianos’s condition had been classified as “SOS,” to which the witness replied that the process of giving her testimony was new to her and that she had not been prepared or instructed.
As she stated, she provided an overview of the case and answered the criminal investigator’s questions, describing events she recalled at that moment.
The witness reaffirmed that, during the period when she was responsible for serving as Stylianos’s liaison, she had not met him. She clarified that her role was primarily to coordinate multidisciplinary meetings and collaborate with teachers and other relevant professionals, from whom she received information about the child.
She also agreed that she had no personal impression of his appearance, nor had she personally observed any bruises or abrasions, and that the minor had not personally expressed any complaints to her.
Referring to the multidisciplinary meetings and specifically to her personal notes from the meeting on October 17, 2011, she stated that she had documented the ongoing psychological and physical abuse against the child, as well as issues concerning his emotional state.
Mr. Akamas argued that these notes contained no mention of her having informed Defendant 3 of the incidents. The witness replied that the Child Protection Services officer was present at that meeting and had heard everything that was discussed. “Whatever I heard, she heard as well. I’m just wondering—do Defendant 3’s notes exist? What did she write down?” she added.
When asked whether it had been mentioned in the general discussion that Stylianos was being beaten at the farm, so that the neighbors wouldn’t hear and the third defendant wouldn’t remove him from the house, as the witness had stated during her direct examination, she herself replied that such reports had been made by the teacher, the speech therapist, and the school aide, who had spoken with the child.
Although she had not recorded the details in her personal notes, she stated that she had noted the existence of psychological and physical abuse. “I disagree with you. In my notes, I had a record of the child’s psychological and physical abuse,” she said, adding that she was not the only one who had heard the relevant reports.
Special mention was also made of an incident in which, according to what the speech therapist had relayed to the witness, Stylianos allegedly said during class, “I can’t sit down; it hurts.” The witness stated that she tried to contact Defendant 3 as soon as she learned of the incident, but was unable to reach her that day, and asked the speech therapist to contact her as well. As he said, he spoke with Defendant 3 the next day; however, she did not visit the school to see the child until a few days later.
She also referred to an incident during the 2012–2013 school year, during which Stylianos allegedly told the speech therapist that his father had hit him with a belt. The witness said she informed Defendant 3 of this, adding that the speech therapist told her the social worker had not visited the school to see the child. She clarified, however, that she did not know whether the social worker had visited the family’s home.
The defense attorney argued that no such information had been provided to Defendant 3 and that, if the events had in fact occurred, the witness would have included them in her testimony to the criminal investigator.
The witness replied that she did not record her phone calls, even though, as she said, she was constantly on the phone coordinating the relevant agencies in her capacity as a liaison officer.
When asked what her complaint against Defendant 3 ultimately was, the witness stated that it was not a personal dispute, but rather the fact that the child had not been helped. “My complaint is that the child was not helped,” she said, noting that, despite the reports that were filed, Stylianos’s situation had not changed and he remained in the same environment.
She also added that the child’s condition was cause for concern, noting that “I didn’t even dare to say that the baby was depressed.” At the same time, she referred to notes taken after a multidisciplinary meeting in December 2012, in which it was recorded that the child was worried that his parents would separate.
Referring to the information she had received about the situation at home, the witness said that incidents of violence against the mother had been reported, as well as arguments with the father. “There were reports that she, too, was a victim of violence. It was something she would talk about: ‘What should I do? Where should I go? How can I get away from all this?’” she said, clarifying that it was not within her purview to investigate the mother’s situation. “Our effort was to save the child, who in the end was not saved,” she noted.
The witness maintained that, in her opinion, Child Protection Services should have investigated the child’s living conditions and the reports of abuse, as well as assessed whether proceedings should be initiated to remove the child from the home. She clarified, however, that she was unaware of the specific actions taken by Defendant 3, nor how many times she had visited the family or the farm.
At another point, he referred to Stylianos’s school aide, whom he described as essential due to outbursts of anger and safety concerns for both Stylianos and the other children, at least during the early elementary school years. He said that the aide showed interest in the child and spent a lot of time with him, while the decision to gradually phase out her support was made once it became clear that Stylianos seemed to be enjoying greater independence.
As she noted, “When the decision was made to end the support worker’s services, Stylianos seemed to like the idea of being independent. His mother didn’t like the nanny; I distinctly remember her saying, ‘They were trying to steal the baby.’”
After Mr. Akamas finished cross-examining her, the witness was cross-examined by the defense attorney for the ninth defendant, Chloe Loizidou, who is also a YKE official.
Ms. Loizidou asked the witness whether, during her professional career, she had heard YKE employees mention an excessive workload or understaffing of the department. The witness replied that there was general talk among employees about an increased workload, however, she had not personally heard any reports of a disproportionate number of cases relative to the number of staff members or of understaffing.
The proceedings will resume on Friday at 11:00 a.m.
READ ALSO: How Vulnerable Are Businesses to Cyberattacks? The “attack” on refrigerators and the “white-hat hackers” | AlphaNews
Source: KYPE
