Podcast- Star Hobson

This is a detailed account of the tragic case of Starr Hobson, a 16-month-old who died from child abuse. Her mother, Frankie Smith, and Smith's partner, Savannah Brockhill, were convicted. The podcast explores Smith's cognitive impairments, the sustained abuse Starr endured, and the failures of the system to protect her despite multiple referrals expressing concern. It discusses the role of coercive control, attachment theory, and systematic breakdowns in safeguarding vulnerable children. The case highlights the complexity of abuse cases and the need for a more comprehensive approach to child protection. Behind Closed Doors. The Psychological Collapse in the Case of Starr Hobson. Hello and welcome to Psychology of Criminal Behaviour. The podcast that explores the psychological mechanisms behind criminal acts with a focus on vulnerability, trauma and the dark intersections of psychology and the law. In today's deeply sensitive episode, we delve into one of the most tragic and complex child abuse homicide cases in recent UK history. The death of 16-month-old Starr Hobson and the subsequent conviction of her mother, Frankie Smith, and Smith's partner, Savannah Brockhill. This episode explores Frankie Smith's psychological profile, her cognitive impairments and how psychological theory and peer-reviewed research offer an explanation not just for her behaviour but for the tragic breakdown of protective instincts that allowed Starr's abuse to continue. It was her role as her mother to protect Starr from harm. These were the haunting words spoken by Justice Lambert QC during sentencing. A stark reminder of the legal and moral responsibilities Smith failed to uphold. But beneath the surface, we find layers of psychological vulnerability that challenge simplistic interpretations of guilt and force people to raise their predisposing views of black and white when it comes to abuse cases. The Crime and Conviction Starr Hobson died from a fatal abdominal injury in 2020, likened by pathologists to the force of a car crash. Her injuries were consistent with repeated, escalating abuse. The sustained pattern of physical and emotional abuse in the months leading up to her death was primarily inflicted by Savannah. This included repeated blows, slaps, kicks and deliberate psychological torment. In one scenario it was reported that Savannah even picked up Starr and thrown her deliberately into furniture. Starr was subjected to manipulative disciplinary techniques such as being forced to stand facing a wall for extended periods and sometimes even filmed from amusement. The injuries that Starr sustained were so forceful that it ruptured her liver and tore her internal tissue. Now these injuries are only consistent with high impact trauma. This shows the level of aggression and anger that Brockhill must have had deep inside of her. The person who inflicted the fatal blows was Savannah Brockhill, Frankie Smith's partner. A security guard with a reputation for jealousy, possessiveness and violence. All traits that shedding a light do not create an image of a woman who should have been allowed around children from the get-go. In addition to physical assault, Starr experienced emotional neglect and witnessed violence between both her caregivers. As a 16-month-old she was in a critical period where she needed to receive the slap in order to form healthy attachments when she grew older. Brockhill, having delivered the final blow, was sentenced to life in prison with a minimum serving of 25 years. Frankie Smith, only 20 at the time, was convicted not of murder but of causing or allowing the death of a child. Her sentence was later increased to 12 years from 8 following an appeal. The court described her behaviour as showing deliberate disregard and callous indifference. But are those labels sufficient to capture what really happened within this case? The psychological profile of Frankie Smith. To really begin unpacking this case, we must first understand the cognitive limitations Smith faced. According to court reports and psychiatric assessments, her IQ was only of 17. This now places her in the bottom 2% of the population. This aligns with what psychologists describe as Borderline Intellectual Functioning, BIF. This was seen by Alloway in 2010 and then later further by Emerson in 2014. Now people in this range often struggle with long-term planning, resisting social pressure and recognising manipulative behaviour. They typically lack abstract reasoning and have difficulty assessing risk, all behaviour that Frankie Smith displayed. Research by Dagnon and Wetherill in 2022 shows that parents with cognitive impairments are often overly compliant with authority figures and highly susceptible to coercion. Smith's therapist described her as abnormally compliant. But what does that mean psychologically? It's a suggestion that's easily manipulated, particularly by dominant partners, in this case, Voxel. On the opposing factor, there is a huge risk of stigmatising disability when attributing neglect to low IQ. Research cautions against deterministic interpretations without considering systematic context. IQ-based decision-making has sometimes led to punitive child protection actions in other jurisdictions, not rehabilitative support. Conversely, literature shows that with early structured interventions and adaptive maladies, parents with BIF can successfully develop safe parenting capacities. Therefore, is it fair to use Frankie Smith's low IQ as a defence within her case? The role of coercive control. Enter Savannah Brockhill. According to staff in 2007, coercive control is not just about physical violence, but a pattern of domination involving intimidation, surveillance and isolation. Multiple witnesses described Brockhill's relationship with Smith as controlling, jealous and violent. In this situation, this now creates the image that Smith was not just simply the perpetrator, but also a victim. This immediately sets off alarm bells that the case is not as simple as we once yet believed. The psychological literature supports this. Seligman in 1972 describes how victims in coercively controlling relationships often develop blind helplessness. This is a state in which they no longer believe they can escape or influence their circumstances. Smith believed and known to be isolated from all other family. She became emotionally dependent and may have felt resistance was not only futile, but dangerous. Not to mention her cognitive limitations would have adapted this as well. This leads us to a deeper concept. Attachment theory. Balby in 1969 proposed that early caregiving shapes how we form and maintain relationships. Those raised in chaotic or neglectful environments often develop insecure attachment styles. This is characterised by fear of abandonment and dependency. Berthelot in 2015 and Madigan in 2019 found strong links between insecure attachment and a failure to parent effectively. Smith, with a reportedly unstable upbringing, may have come to Brockhill for emotional stability. Her fear of losing that attachment may have overridden her protective instincts to act as a mother. Smith's individual problems may have occurred long before Brockhill was even on the scene. Missed opportunity and the role the system played in failing young Starr Hobson. Between January and September in the year 2020, a total of five referrals were made to social services expressing concern for Starr's wellbeing. As a listener, before even hearing each referral, you can begin to see that she was failed. These included reports from great-grandparents, babysitters and Starr's biological father. Injuries were visible, behaviour had changed and what each referral dismissed. According to Cy Bofferman in 2016, confirmation bias among professionals is a tendency to interpret new evidence as confirming existing beliefs. This can lead to catastrophic oversights in child protection. In this case, the narrative that concerns were malicious or exaggerated took precedence over obvious signs of trauma due to plausible lies from Smith and Brockhill. This is not just a personal failure of Smith or the professionals involved. It represents a systematic breakdown in safeguarding where risk assessment tools failed to account for complex coercive relationships and the role cognitive disability plays in neglect. The five referrals to social services in the case of Starr Hobson are critical for understanding both the systematic failures that contributed to her death and the missed opportunities for interviewing. Here is now a detailed breakdown of each referral based on court proceedings, case reviews and investigative journalism. Referral 1. January 2020. The reports begin. Starr's great-grandmother, Anita Smith, raised concerns over bruising on Starr's face and Brockhill's violent and controlling behaviour. The referral was dismissed by Fitz Children's Services. Social workers visited the home but were persuaded by Frankie and Savannah that their injuries were accidental. Brockhill claimed that the bruises were caused when Starr bumped into a coffee table. Practitioners accepted verbal explanations without corroboration, relying on the parent's narrative. This is a classic example of confirmation bias and professional over-optimism, where workers believed the risk was low, despite possible red flags. Research by Munro in 2011 on child protection errors emphasises that over-reliance on parental self-report and failure to triangulate evidence often led to overlooked abuse. Practitioners failed to apply defensible decision-making, a principle that demands clear evidence, not just plausible explanations that could lead to lies. Referral 2. May 2020. This time, it was allegedly reported by a close friend of Frankie's, which was known by the family. This time, the concerns were raised by ongoing bruises, Starr becoming withdrawn and suspicion of escalating abuse. Social workers visited once more. Frankie and Savannah claimed Starr had fallen down the stairs this time. The injuries, again, dismissed as accidental and the case was closed shortly thereafter. No independent medical assessment was sought. Professionals did not escalate the case, despite a patent now emerging. Brockhill was present at the visit and took control of the conversation, according to later reports. Brandon et al. in 2020 found that report referrals in the same case should automatically trigger case review panels. Bradford Social Services failed to use cumulative risk assessment models, a key tool in preventing escalating abuse. Coercive control, a now well-established safeguarding risk, was completely missed. Starr was failed. Referral 3. Already raising alarm bells, the new referral was made just simply a month after the prior. June 2020. Starr's biological father, Jordan Hobson, saw photos of bruises and raised concerns that Starr was being physically harmed and neglected. The concerns were again, allegedly, investigated. But no action was ever taken, so how can we believe they were ever investigated? Social workers were reassured by the couple and considered the father's concern to be motivated by hostility due to the separation. Why it might have failed? The team allegedly viewed the concern as a custodial dispute, not a genuine safeguarding issue. They did not take the seriousness of this case. No psychological evaluation of either parent was conducted. According to the NSPCC, in 2021, practitioners often misattribute concerns raised by separated parents as malicious or vindictive. However, domestic abuse literature, including the Delos model, identifies post-separation abuse as a high-risk factor for child endangerment. This was completely ignored. Referral 4. Following the same shocking pattern, just a month later, in July 2020, a new report was made. This time by a babysitter who noticed Starr becoming increasingly withdrawn, fearful of adults and presenting with new bruises. She was visibly afraid, had unexplained injuries, with her whole demeanour changing significantly. Classic signs of trauma in infants. These were signs that even a babysitter and the general public began to notice. So we are led to believe, how could a social worker who was trained in this department not see these visible signs? A brief visit was conducted by social workers who found, quote-unquote, no cause for concern. Once again, Starr was not spoken to away from parents and no medical check-up was conducted, therefore leading us to believe that no investigation steps were ever taken. The social worker accepted the explanation that Starr bruised easily and no escalation occurred. There was a clear failure to apply the signs of safety framework or consult even a medical professional. Studies on trauma in infants show that behavioural withdrawal is a classic trauma response, something a social worker would have known. Safeguarding teams did not apply the basic developmental trauma indications or consult child psychologists. There is also evidence of threshold drift. The raising of the bar for intervention after multiple false alarms leading to desensitisation. As this was the fourth referral, this should have happened. Referral 5, September 2020. The last and final referral was made for Starr Hobson. This was made just simply days before her death, days where she was still in a position where she could have been saved if anyone had taken notice. The report was done by a concerned relative due to increasing signs of abuse, changing Starr's behaviour and appearance. As a 16-month-old girl, she should have been full of curiosity and excitement for the world, and yet she was full of withdrawn behaviour, disassociation and frightenedness. A social worker visited Frankie and Savannah for the last time just days before the passing. They again were persuaded there was no cause for concern. Smith and Brockhill worked together to lie their way out of the situation each and every time. The fact that they could lie showed that they were consciously aware of what they were doing and their behaviour was wrong. There was malicious intention behind every move. The file was marked closed. After all of these referrals, you may wonder now, how could this have failed? How could it have gone unnoticed? Despite the prior four referrals, no chronology was referenced and no passing was seen. Social services missed the opportunity to safeguard Starr one last final time. In fact, reports show the social worker concluded that Frankie and Savannah had, quote-unquote, turned things around. Brockhill used her manipulative skills to cover up her behaviour each and every time and come up with an elaborate storyline. The final failure illustrates the problem of start-again syndrome. This is where each referral is viewed in isolation instead of reviewing the entire case history as a whole. To have one referral go dismissed wrongfully, we could justify that there were instances that stopped this. However, to have five different referrals all dismissed shows just a state of misjustice that Starr was left into. According to Ofsted in 2020, this is the most common error that leaves miscommunicative harm in child protection cases. Starr could have been saved. The evidence was there, the storylines were false and the workers got lazy. The psychological case formulation. To truly understand Frankie Smith's behaviour, we must use a biopsychological framework. This includes a various set of four factors that interplay within the case. First up, we have predisposing factors. These include the low IQ, developmental immaturity, insecure attachment style and the childhood trauma. Next is the precipitating factors, which include the start of the caressively controlling relationship and isolation from family and support networks. Next up is the perpetrating factors, which include learned helplessness, cognitive limitations, emotional dependence on Brockhill and finally ongoing coercion and fear of abandonment. The last factor is protective factors, or more or less the absent protective factors, which include a strong social support, access to adapted psychological intervention and recognition and action from safeguarding services. All these factors interplayed into Frankie Smith's behaviour and can be used as an explanation as to why this occurred and why her motherly instinct didn't interplay within the situation. Drawing from these points, we can establish that Frankie Smith, whether there was reason as to why she did this crime, she deserved time within prison. She failed a young girl and her life was lost. So what could rehabilitation look like? Smith's case raises pressing questions about rehabilitation. What does meaningful change look like for someone with borderline intellectual function and a history of emotional abuse? First up, we have adaptive CBT. This is a traditional therapy and it must be modified. Dagman and Wetherell suggest visual aids, reputation and concrete language. Sessions should focus on recognising coercion, improving emotional regulation and building self-work. Trauma-informed therapy. Smith may suffer from dissociation or emotional numbing. These could find in the way of her having emotions in regards to her young daughter. EMDR or trauma-informed CBT can help process abuse and reduce vulnerability to manipulation. Parenting interventions. Programs like Cycle of Security and Triple P have proven effective in supporting at-risk parents with cognitive limitations. This was named by Sanders et al. in 2003 and Hoffman in 2006. Supported reintegration. Any reintegration must include wraparound support, housing, social care and counselling, alongside close monitoring to prevent future risk. To conclude all of these points, Frankie Smith was in fact a terrible mother. Even her own legal counsel admitted she was selfish and at times cruel. But to understand her role in Starr's death, we must go beyond blame. Smith was not simply negligent. She was cognitively impaired, emotionally dependent and caught in a web of coercion. She didn't protect Starr, but she may have believed she couldn't. Understanding criminal behaviour isn't just about asking who is to blame. It's about asking how did it happen and how do we prevent it from happening again. Thank you for listening to Psychology of Criminal Behaviour. Stay safe, stay curious and never stop asking how psychology can help us protect the most vulnerable.