What will early years workers make of the outcome of the Attorney General's review of almost 300 child-killing cases? Many will be wondering: what outcome?
The review was promised by children's minister Margaret Hodge and prompted by the release of Angela Cannings, who was jailed after being convicted of killing her babies.
Some reckoned the review could yield hundreds or even thousands of appeals against criminal convictions for killing children and a Daily Telegraph columnist described the review as 'the greatest single volte face in the history of the British judicial system'.
This was a crisis: these cases come from a revolution in our knowledge about life-threatening events in childhood. But unlike research into the great diseases, these revelations concern not plagues but people - parents.
Inevitably, the pioneers attracted enemies.
To pre-empt charges of bias, the review was conducted by both prosecution and defence lawyers, police and law officers. It has completed its work, but there have been no headlines, nothing to match the sense of scandal and injustice that launched the review.
The explanation lies in the outcome: out of almost 300 cases reviewed, the Attorney General estimates that fewer than 30 might apply for leave to appeal.
But only two cases have applied to the Criminal Cases Review Commission. A third is expected. 'I have been astonished,' comments commission chair Professor Graham Zelick.
So, no cavalry is heading for the Appeal Courts from an army of unjustly accused adults languishing in prison. Was there a massive miscarriage of justice or were we conned by misguided campaigners? Who knows. Neither the children's minister nor the Attorney General have anything to say. And professionals are still scared of being sued or sacked.
There are implications for early years workers who, after all, work with some of the children allegedly at risk, either of being harmed by caring but catastrophically stressed-out parents, or by that tiny group of plausible parents who may seem marvellous but may also be murderous.
Millions of pounds have been spent on confidential inquiries and reviews prompted by impressive campaigners who have shaped public opinion. But what we really needed was public debate and a public inquiry prompted not by the reaction but by the research itself, and sponsored by the Government.
Instead, we've had impenetrable controversies and crises. The outcome: we are none the wiser.
