Search Results

Explore the Post-Training Resource Hub for essential materials, guidance, and tools to support continued learning and best practice in child safeguarding following training sessions. Post-Training Resource Hub Access to these resources is exclusively available to individuals who have attended one of our training sessions and have received the designated passcode. We are pleased to offer you a curated selection of materials designed to enrich your learning and support your continued professional development. We encourage you to explore the content, which has been tailored to complement and extend the insights gained during your training. Please begin by selecting the relevant event or course from the list below. Voice of the Child Conference Graded Care Profile 2 Strengthening CSA Practice

Outlines the process for resolving professional disagreements in safeguarding cases, ensuring timely and effective multi-agency responses. Escalation and Resolution Policy In situations where agencies or professionals have differing opinions on safeguarding decisions or actions, the CSCP Escalation and Resolution Policy provides a structured process to follow, ensuring that any conflicts are addressed effectively and in the best interest of the child. The policy helps professionals navigate disputes, maintain strong working relationships, and ensure that safeguarding efforts remain coordinated and focused on child welfare. Purpose and scope of policy The purpose of this policy is to explain what to do when any professional has a concern or disagreement with another agency’s decision or action related to a child. It aims to keep the focus on the child’s safety and well-being by promoting a culture of professional challenge and providing the framework for timely and effective resolutions. “Working Together 2026 makes clear that when a child is not receiving the help or protection they need, practitioners must use clear escalation routes, and KCSIE 2025 reinforces that staff should act without delay and follow local escalation procedures whenever a child’s situation fails to improve.” This policy therefore relates to the multi-agency children’s workforce working with children and families receiving support and services at Early Help, Child in Need, Child Protection, and Looked After Children. This policy should be read in conjunction with the London Child Protection Procedures: PA4. Resolving Professional Differences . This policy does not replace the need for single-agency dispute resolution procedures which should be in place to manage disputes on decisions between internal services (such as Children’s Social Care CERPs). Nor is this policy a complaint policy – if there is a complaint about professional conduct or a particular single agency policy should be followed. If the complaint is about the decisions of the Croydon Safeguarding Children Partnership, it should be directed to the CSCP Executive Group who should alert the CSCP Independent Scrutineer. This Escalation and Resolution Policy promote both an informal (Stages 1- 2) and formal (Stages 3 -5) approach to resolving issues that arise. This policy is reviewed biennially by the CSCP Quality Assurance Group. Definition Problem resolution is an integral part of joint working to safeguard children, and professional challenge is a fundamental part of professional responsibility. In this context, escalation and resolution is about raising concerns or challenging decisions about practice or actions which, according to those holding the concerns, may significantly impact the protection and well-being of the child(ren). Occasionally situations may arise when professionals within an agency consider that the decision made by professionals from another agency is not an adequate or a safe decision. Many professional challenges will be resolved on an informal basis by contact between the professionals and agencies involved. However, drift arising out of professionals’ differences should be avoided; unresolved concerns should be addressed using this policy. Disagreements and difficulties could arise in a number of areas, but are most likely to arise around: Deciding levels of safeguarding and protection needs Roles and responsibilities of agencies Quality and progression of plans at Early Help, Child in Need, Child Protection, or for Looked After Children Professional vocabulary and communication issues Understanding professional perspectives. In some instances, finding a way forward may not include changes to original decisions. However, through raising concerns and improving shared understanding through effective dialogue, the overall quality and robustness of the decisions will be greater. Policy principles The policy applies the following principles to help ensure that best practice is upheld, these should be applied to both informal (Stages 1-2) and formal (Stages 3-5) approaches to resolving disputes: The child’s safety is the focus: Disputes should never leave a child at risk; disputes should be raised promptly and at the earliest opportunity. Maintaining an outcome focus on making the child safer, rather than focusing on processes - promotes openness between and amongst the professional networks. Critically reflective: Where differences and disputes arise, or difficulties in complex and ‘stuck’ cases - it is important that critical reflective practice is upheld. Different professions and disciplines will hold particular theories of knowledge, practice, and opinions on what action is required. This policy supports convening a shared reflective and purposeful discussion to inquire and map professionals’ views, approaches, and interventions on the case. The CSCP supports the use of a multi-agency reflective group consultation, to help unpick the presenting challenges and difficulties to achieve improved coherence of the issues and agreement to a way forward. Restorative in approach: Maintaining a principle of restorative approach helps create behaviours that are respectful of relationships, helping achieve effective and positive dialogue. An understanding of shared responsibility can be strengthened by ensuring everyone’s voice is heard and different positions understood; when all professional views and expertise are shared best outcomes for a child can be generated. Relationships and dialogue are valued: Across and between the child and family’s network professional relationships must be established and maintained through effective dialogue, especially at points of transition and hand-over. Where differences, disputes, or difficulties arise - direct and active dialogue should be prioritised to enable shared perspectives, and exchange of information and ensure the inclusion of the professional network in making decisions. Professional curiosity and challenge are valued: By maintaining an open stance to receive and provide information – the act of asking questions of other professionals and responding to questions can help avoid assumptions, reduce defensiveness, and encourage a move away from ‘knowing positions. At all stages, it should be considered that whilst decisions may not change, any challenge to those decisions will be of benefit to the quality and robustness of those decisions. Resolving disagreements in safeguarding - stages of escalation: It should always be clear that no child is at immediate risk of harm while disputes are being resolved, with resolutions focused on the child’s needs. The agency with concerns should discuss them with their line manager or safeguarding lead. If concerns persist, proceed to Stage 1. Important reminders Each stage should be completed within 7 working days or less, with all efforts made to resolve at the earliest opportunity Concerns should be specific, evidence-based and accurately recorded on the child’s record. Discussions and outcomes of disagreements should be recorded. A multi-agency group reflective consultation should be actively considered at Stage 3, this is for cases that are stuck, or matters are proving difficult to resolve The CSCP has the responsibility to identify practice and procedural issues, the Escalation Notification Form should be used and submitted at Stages 3, 4 and 5 as appropriate The principles of this policy underpin its application and should be considered when raising concerns These processes may not fit neatly into all agencies management structures; the principles and processes should be applied as best as possible. Purpose of policy Principles Escalation stages Recording and Reporting At all stages, a record should be kept on the child’s record within each agency’s case management systems. In particular, this must include written communication about agreed outcomes and how outstanding issues will be pursued. The CSCP will report on specific issues or recurring themes relating to practice and policy issues. This data will be collated from submitted Escalation Notification Forms and will be referred to the Quality Improvement Group for its recommendations on which aspects of practice or policy should be addressed. This data will also be used in the Annual Report. Whistleblowing Whistleblowing provides an avenue for professionals to raise concerns about unsafe practices, poor decision-making, or organisational misconduct that could impact a child’s safety or well-being. This policy encourages professionals to use established whistleblowing procedures when other escalation methods do not address the concern effectively. Professionals who feel unable to raise their concerns through the standard escalation routes outlined in this policy or who believe their concerns have not been addressed appropriately should refer to their organisation's whistleblowing policy. Concerns can also be raised with the CSCP Independent Scrutineer or other appropriate safeguarding leads. Clear records of whistleblowing disclosures, including their outcomes, should be maintained securely and separately from the child’s case files, ensuring confidentiality and protecting the whistleblower’s identity wherever possible. Supporting Documents for Safeguarding Disputes The following resources are designed to help professionals manage and resolve safeguarding concerns, always keeping the child’s welfare as the top priority. If you have any questions or need further assistance, please don’t hesitate to contact us: cscp@croydon.gov.uk Recording and reporting Documentation Download - Escalation and resolution policy Download - Escalation stages (flowchart) Download - Notification form Download - Case of Concern form

Find information on how to submit a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to the CSCP and access previously published data and responses. FOI Requests The Freedom of Information Act 2000 (FOI) provides the public with a general right of access to information held by public bodies, such as local government, the police, the NHS, and state schools. The Croydon Safeguarding Children Partnership (CSCP) is a statutory partnership established under the Children Act 2004 and is not a public authority for the FOI. It is therefore exempt from the duty to provide information under the FOI. Section 3 of the FOI provides that: (2) For this Act, information is held by a public authority if— (a) it is held by the authority, otherwise than on behalf of another person, or (b) another person holds it on behalf of the authority. A FOI request may be made directly to partner agencies of the CSCP. Where a CSCP partner which is deemed to be a public authority under the FOI holds information for its own purposes, then it does so otherwise than on behalf of another person and the information held will be subject to the FOI. However, partners in possession of CSCP minutes, documents, reports etc. are holding this information on behalf of ‘another person’ (the CSCP) and it is therefore not liable to disclosure under a FOI request. Details of how to access information from a public body can be found on the Information Commissioner’s website at https://ico.org.uk/your-data-matters/officialinformation

Access quick, easy-to-read 7-minute briefings on key safeguarding topics. Ideal for busy practitioners needing bite-sized learning and updates. 7-Minute Briefings আমি একটা অনুচ্ছেদ। এখানে ক্লিক করে নিজের লেখা যোগ করুন এবং আমাকে এডিট করুন। এটা সহজ। শুধু "Edit Text" এ ক্লিক করুন অথবা আপনার নিজস্ব কন্টেন্ট যোগ করতে এবং ফন্টে পরিবর্তন করতে আমাকে ডাবল ক্লিক করুন। আপনার পৃষ্ঠায় যেকোনো জায়গায় আমাকে টেনে আনতে দ্বিধা করবেন না। আমি আপনার জন্য একটি দুর্দান্ত জায়গা যেখানে আপনি গল্প বলতে পারেন এবং আপনার ব্যবহারকারীদের আপনার সম্পর্কে আরও কিছু জানাতে পারেন। Case of Concern: Camille Camille’s case reveals major gaps in urgent placements, communication, and legal processes, after unsuitable emergency housing led to police involvement and hospital admissions. ১১ ডিসেম্বর, ২০২৫ Published: Read review National Review: John Smyth QC The CSCP Independent Scrutineer reviewed the Church of England's safeguarding practices to ensure robust protection for vulnerable individuals. ৮ এপ্রিল, ২০২৫ Published: Read review National Referral Mechanism The document provides information on the National Referral Mechanism (NRM) in the UK for identifying and supporting victims of modern slavery. ২১ নভেম্বর, ২০২৪ Published: Read review LCSPR: Serious Youth Violence This briefing summarises the thematic review which examined the cases of seven children/young people who were involved in the killings of three other children in 2021. The review highlights the voices of the affected families, practitioners, and community members. ২৬ জানুয়ারি, ২০২৪ Published: Read review Information Sharing Guidance for practitioners and organisations in understanding how to share personal information lawfully and appropriately, ensuring compliance with the Data Protection Act 2018 and UK GDPR. ২৪ আগস্ট, ২০২৩ Published: Read review LCSPR: Carl & Max This briefing examines the tragic case of 16-year-old Carl, who was fatally stabbed, and highlights issues such as homelessness, neglect, and a disrupted education. ২৫ ফেব্রুয়ারি, ২০২২ Published: Read review LCSPR: Vulnerable Adolescents In the summer of 2017, three Croydon teenage boys known to social services lost their lives. The CSCP agreed to conduct a thematic review that would determine whether there were any patterns in the children’s experiences. ১৪ ফেব্রুয়ারি, ২০১৯ Published: Read review Case of Concern: Christine This briefing draws on learning from an Appreciative Inquiry review into the experiences of “Christine”, a young person who became vulnerable following her primary carer’s imprisonment at the age of 14. ১৭ অক্টোবর, ২০২৫ Published: Read review Case of Concern: Carlos Our latest briefing outlines the case of a 15-year-old young person with a complex history, highlighting the importance of learning from timely, coordinated safeguarding responses. ৭ এপ্রিল, ২০২৫ Published: Read review Right Care, Right Person This briefing serves as a resource for safeguarding partners, local authorities, and police officers involved in Right Care Right Person for children. ১৯ জুলাই, ২০২৪ Published: Read review LCSPR: Chloe 'Chloe,' a 17-year-old who experienced early trauma and entered statutory care in her early teens, tragically lost her life. The inquest concluded her death was an accident, finding no clear intent to take her own life. ২০ অক্টোবর, ২০২৩ Published: Read review LCSPR: Jake The review of 17-year-old Jake’s case highlights challenges, including late entry to care, placement instability, and mental health concerns. Emphasising the need for earlier support and better responses to dual diagnosis. ২১ জুলাই, ২০২৩ Published: Read review LCSPR: Ben This review highlights lessons in engaging vulnerable young parents, mainly when domestic abuse is a concern. The missed opportunities to support the mother and her child, Ben, led to tragic outcomes. ২১ জানুয়ারি, ২০২২ Published: Read review Leadership, Trust & Accountability This briefing is intended for trustees, board members, senior leaders, and individuals in positions of trust. It also supports those who may have concerns about the behaviour or suitability of individuals in trusted roles. ৯ মে, ২০২৫ Published: Read review Case of Concern: Cassie This briefing reflects on a case about a child who experienced multiple incidents requiring intervention and highlighting the need for improved agency coordination. ২০ ডিসেম্বর, ২০২৪ Published: Read review LCSPR: Baby Eva Baby Eva, four months old, was hospitalised with a fracture; scans revealed multiple injuries of different ages. The review stresses the need for proactive risk assessment before and after birth. ৭ এপ্রিল, ২০২৪ Published: Read review Rapid Review: Intra-Familial CSA This briefing summarises key findings from a rapid review into a case of intra-familial child sexual abuse, highlighting areas for professional reflection and opportunities to strengthen safeguarding responses. ২৪ আগস্ট, ২০২৩ Published: Read review Unexplained Deaths (under 1s) This briefing explores recommendations from case reviews, emphasising the need for robust safeguarding practices and multi-agency collaboration to prevent future tragedies. ২১ জুলাই, ২০২২ Published: Read review LCSPR: Emily & Jack Following a tragic incident where a three-month-old baby girl, referred to as 'Emily', was killed by her mother, a serious case review was conducted and identified the need for improvements in local agency information sharing. ২১ জুন, ২০২০ Published: Read review

Learn from safeguarding case reviews where young people died by suicide. Explore risk factors, warning signs, and prevention strategies to protect vulnerable adolescents. Seeing the Whole Child: Learning from practice The CSCP has drawn critical learning from a series of Case of Concern reviews, an innovative process developed to examine complex cases that fall below the statutory review threshold but still offer significant opportunities for system-wide improvement. The cases of Cassie, Carlos, and Camille reveal key learning about the importance of centering the child’s voice, applying professional curiosity, and strengthening multi-agency coordination. This thematic study highlights cross-cutting issues and promotes reflective supervision, encouraging practitioners to embed these insights into everyday safeguarding practice. Each case offers a distinct lens into the risks and responsibilities of multi-agency work. Together, they form a critical thematic learning opportunity. Cross-Cutting Reflections: Strengthening Systems by Centring the Child A review of the Cassie, Carlos, and Camille cases identifies consistent patterns that expose systemic vulnerabilities. These are not isolated failings but indicators of broader practice challenges requiring collective ownership and deliberate change. 1. Centring the Child’s Voice Is Not Optional Across all cases, the child's perspective was either diminished, misinterpreted, or deprioritised in favour of procedural, legal, or operational constraints. A child-centred approach must go beyond statutory compliance, it requires: Actively seeking the child's voice, especially during transitions or crisis points Understanding behaviour as communication, particularly where verbal expression is limited or trust is fractured Embedding mechanisms for children to participate in planning decisions, and not just be recipients of them 2. Professional Curiosity Requires Depth, Not Just Compliance Curiosity is not simply asking more questions, it is about asking the right questions and being open to answers that challenge professional assumptions. These cases demonstrate that: Risk is often hidden behind procedural conformity; a plan being in place does not mean it is effective Biases—such as adultification and criminalisation, undermine safeguarding by reframing vulnerability as culpability Curiosity must extend to peers and other professionals, checking assumptions across the network, not just within individual assessments 3. Escalation and Decision-Making Must Be Process-Led, Not Person-Dependent Inconsistent escalation routes, reliance on informal relationships, and lack of clarity in roles contributed to drift and risk exposure in each case. Improvements are needed in: Clarifying escalation protocols and thresholds across agencies, particularly for non-statutory but high-risk cases Ensuring decision-making processes are transparent, auditable, and collaborative Using formal structures (e.g. case of concern process, strategy meetings) to generate system-wide solutions, not just single-agency actions 4. Placement Sufficiency and Suitability Must Be Understood as a Safeguarding Issue The shortage of regulated placements and delays in mental health access are not logistical issues alone, they are safeguarding concerns that have direct consequences for children's safety and wellbeing. Professionals must: Continue to escalate placement barriers through appropriate strategic channels Advocate persistently for placements that meet therapeutic and relational needs, not just beds that are available Monitor the impact of unsuitable arrangements as active risk, not just as temporary compromises Cassie: System Drift, Missed Protocols and Emotional Safety Cassie, a vulnerable child with mental health needs, remained in A&E for over two weeks due to the absence of a coordinated discharge and placement plan. Despite the existence of inter-agency protocols, their inconsistent application delayed care and led to further harm when Cassie later self-harmed and required secure accommodation. Learning Themes: Child’s voice was secondary to systems-focused discussions around process, placement, and risk ownership Failure to escalate proportionately, with decisions relying on relationships rather than structured processes Mental health interventions were not prioritised early enough, delaying access to essential care Why Read the Full Briefing: Cassie’s case underscores the importance of professional vigilance in managing escalation, monitoring care pathways, and ensuring the child’s emotional safety is never sidelined by procedural complexity. Cassie: 7 minute briefing Carlos: Discharge Failures and Dual Victimhood Carlos sustained injuries after being attacked by a group of young people, but was discharged from hospital into police custody shortly after surgery. His mother was not informed, and he was interviewed under general anaesthetic recovery, with a scheme-allocated adult instead of a family member. Learning Themes: Unconscious bias: Carlos’s identity as a child was overshadowed by his perceived criminality Lack of joined-up communication meant agreed safety plans were not followed Insufficient safeguarding lens during critical transition points such as discharge and police procedures Why Read the Full Briefing: Carlos’s case demonstrates how safeguarding can fail when children are viewed through a deficit lens, and how professional curiosity is needed to challenge assumptions and see the whole child. Carlos: 7 minute briefing Camille: Placement Breakdown, Crisis Response and Unseen Harm Camille was placed in emergency accommodation due to an urgent lack of suitable placements. The environment failed to meet her complex needs, resulting in multiple police callouts and hospital admissions. The case prompted questions about national placement sufficiency and local agency coordination. Learning Themes: Her voice became lost amidst urgency and structural limitations Systemic strain on placements left professionals to make difficult compromises Reactive rather than trauma-informed response, escalating Camille’s vulnerabilities Camille’s case illustrates the importance of building resilient systems that prevent short-term placement decisions from compounding trauma. It also highlights the importance of listening to the child, even under crisis conditions. Further Resources and Tools Practitioners are encouraged to revisit: CSCP Escalation and Resolution Policy CSCP Multi-Agency Practice Guidance Reflective Supervision Prompts: Embedding Learning into Practice These prompts are designed to support reflective dialogue during supervision, team debriefs, and case audits. They move beyond task completion to explore the quality, intent, and impact of professional interventions Voice of the Child How have we ensured the child’s voice is represented in this case? What are we hearing from the child—not just through their words, but through their behaviour and circumstances? Have we made space for the child to contribute meaningfully to decisions affecting them? Professional Curiosity What assumptions are we making about this child, and where have they come from? Have we explored all alternative explanations for what we are seeing or being told? What do we know, what are we inferring, and what do we need to test or challenge? Decision-making and Escalation Are the decisions being made grounded in process and evidence, or shaped by informal dynamics? Have we escalated this concern through the right channels, at the right time? Do all partners understand and agree the plan—and is it being implemented with accountability? Placement and Planning Is this placement in the child’s best interests, or is it the only available option? How is the child experiencing this placement, and have we reviewed their safety, wellbeing, and sense of belonging? Are we advocating robustly enough when the system is not meeting the child’s needs? System-wide Practice What does this case tell us about wider practice issues in our service or partnership? Are there recurring themes from other cases that this situation reflects? How are we capturing learning and applying it to improve systemic responses, not just individual casework?

Information on managing allegations against professionals working with children, and how to contact Croydon’s LADO. Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) Managing allegations against adults who work with Children The LADO is responsible for managing allegations against adults who work with children. This includes overseeing investigations and working with multi-agencies including the Police and Children's Social Care to ensure fair and thorough processes are followed. The LADO provides a comprehensive and impartial process for all parties. The Local Authority Designated Officer (LADO) must be alerted when concerns arise regarding a professional or volunteer working with children has: Behaved in a way that has harmed or may have harmed a child. Possibly committed a criminal offence against or related to a child. Behaved towards a child or children in a way that indicates they may pose a risk of harm to children. Behaved in a way that indicates they may not be suitable to work with children. If the allegation meets any of the above criteria, the employer or agency MUST report it to the LADO within one working day. The LADO Referral All documents relating to allegations against adults who work with children should be retained in a secure place and should only be shared with the express agreement of the LADO. Do ensure that urgent medical treatment is sought if required, and that the child is supported. Please record the information and facts given to you as soon as possible. Do not discuss or inform the member of staff concerned that this referral is being made unless advised to by the Local Authority Designated Officer. It is not your duty to investigate the allegation as this may lead to evidence being lost/contaminated or may even put the child, or others, at risk. The referral form is designed for professionals, families, and members of the public. Please state the allegation/safeguarding incident in the description section and the LADO will contact you if more is required. Download Croydon LADO referral form Croydon LADO Contact Details: Jane Rowe (Formerly Jane Parr) - Email: lado@croydon.gov.uk - Tel: 0208 726 6000 ext. 24817 Managing allegations Leadership, Trust & Accountability 7-Minute Briefing: Leadership, Trust, and Accountability This 7-minute briefing is a concise, yet powerful resource designed to reinforce the critical role of leadership, trust, and accountability in safeguarding vulnerable individuals—particularly children and young people. Why This Matters Safeguarding failures in trusted institutions—such as the Church of England’s mishandling of abuse allegations—highlight the catastrophic consequences of weak leadership and systemic neglect. This briefing distils key lessons from past failures and provides actionable steps to ensure your organisation upholds the highest standards of safeguarding. Download briefing

Oops! You've wandered off the path. Head back to our homepage or explore other content! Check the URL, or go back to the homepage and try again. Back to Homepage

Official learning hub Multi-Agency Audits - Access key findings from Domestic Abuse cases and relevant resources.

Practical advice and resources to help parents and caregivers support children's safety, wellbeing, and development.

Information on the procedures followed when a child dies, including review processes and support for families and professionals. What happens when a child dies We understand that reporting the death of a child is an incredibly difficult and sensitive task. Thank you for taking this important step to help ensure the right support and learning can follow. If you are a professional needing to report a child’s death, please complete the eCDOP form so that the appropriate agencies are notified and the necessary review processes can begin. Once submitted, a coordinator will contact all professionals and agencies who were involved with the child or family. Those identified will be sent a reporting form to complete and return as soon as possible to support the review process. If abuse or neglect is suspected as a possible cause of death, the Child Death SPOC will inform the Head of Safeguarding for Children and Business Manager of CSCP who will then log a Serious Incident Notification . Child Death Reviews The Child Death Review process applies to all children, defined by the Children Act 1989 as individuals under 18 years of age. A review should be conducted for every child death, regardless of the cause. This includes the death of any live-born baby for whom a death certificate has been issued. Croydon is part of the Southwest London Child Death Overview Panel (SWL CDOP), which also includes the boroughs of Sutton, Merton, Wandsworth, Richmond, and Kingston. All child deaths of Croydon residents will be reviewed by Croydon / SWL CDOP. Prior to review at the SWL CDOP, there will have been a Joint Agency Response (JAR) meeting IF the JAR criteria is met. This must be held within 5 working days of a child’s death. The Joint Agency Response meeting is chaired by the Designated Doctor for Child Death Reviews. Joint Agency Response (JAR) criteria are set out in Working Together 2023 . A JAR is required if a child’s death: is or could be due to external causes is sudden and there is no immediately apparent cause (including sudden unexpected death in infancy/childhood) occurs in custody, or where the child was detained under the Mental Health Act occurs where the initial circumstances raise any suspicions that the death may not have been natural occurs in the case of a stillbirth where no healthcare professional was in attendance. All child deaths will be subject of a Child Death Review Meeting (CDRM). The CDRM is chaired by a Consultant Paediatrician from Croydon University Hospital. This is the multi-professional meeting that takes place prior to the child death review partners review (SWL CDOP). At the meeting, all matters relating to an individual child’s death are discussed by professionals involved with the case. Learning from cases will be published in an annual report this data is also shared with the National Child Mortality Database. Child Death Reviews The CDOP Process Guidance for professionals What professionals need to complete Professionals who receive a reporting form are asked to review their agency’s case records for the child or family members. Any information known to them or their organisation should be included on the form. If certain details are not available, please make a note of this on the form, rather than leaving any sections blank. Supporting guides Please read the following useful guides: eCDOP B Report Form User Guide (PDF, 463KB) Child Death Reporting Form Flowchart (PDF, 107KB) For further detailed information about child death reviews read the child death review statutory and operational guidance . Croydon SPOC for Child Deaths contact details Email: CDOPCroydon@croydon.gov.uk Resources South West London CDOP Annual Report 2023-24 Samaritans Bereavement Support Lullaby Trust National Child Mortality Database (NCMD) Guidance