Sara Sharif case - update - horrifying

[amIloud]

This case is just beyond the realms of horrifying,

www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cgl461xwg3do

This poor child.

This is just bollocks. Do these people operate in a world where abusive people only portray their cruelty in plain sight? Actually the opposite is the case. They do it out of sight as a matter of routine.

What is the matter with the UK where it will barely fund protection but throw endless resources after a child has died. It is morbid bureaucracy. It should stop. It is morally repugnant.

I think sometimes it’s about the simplest explanation. He likes battering people? He loved and was addicted to Sara being in pain, bleeding, using her as a punching bag. It made him feel good. There was possibly an aspect of him one-upping her mum/his ex, the schools/social services etc and being able to get away with it. He must have felt like god in his head.

Yes. He was a sadist. And he could use our court system to gratify himself. It is not the only case.

I’m convinced a lot of these systems in place are just there to find the simplest “resolution” to interpersonal disputes. Whichever party is easiest to side with, they’ll just go with that. So if a victim kicks up a fuss, support them. If the perpetrator kicks up a fuss, support them. I have worked in public sector for a while and just think it’s full of mediocre people who are stressed and incapable and who are just trying to put the least amount of effort in. It’s all cursory work. They just don’t want to get involved in anything that rocks the boat.

I agree.

I worked briefly for a LA and had to leave - the bloat and lack of any dynamism or ownership or drive to improve was unbearable. I was so upset as I’d really wanted to make a difference somewhere but all I was told was that it wasn’t my role to assist. Utterly bonkers.

I had to email them recently - the automated reply said I’d have a response in 20 days. Sweet Jesus.

He will live very comfortably in prison, actually.

What a cowardly society we’ve
become, wishing that prisoners will exact a measure of justice because we refuse to do so.

There is a detailed report in The Times. Sara Sharif’s father Urfan Sharif was accused of abuse before she was born

https://www.thetimes.com/article/4fef7f2c-13e1-47c5-aefe-89331b1c633e?shareToken=cc4d21bc8859e7b94efb877183f0c5fe

A "guardian" appointed by the family court wrote in a report: “Whilst the guardian is satisfied that there may be reasonable grounds to believe that the children are likely to suffer significant harm … The advantages of the children remaining at home should [be] weighed against the potential harm to the children of removal, particularly to Sara as a newborn child, before we have a full assessment and understanding of these children and their parents’ ability to meet their individual needs.”

This is what is wrong. Someone appointed for the specific purpose of protecting the children recommended that despite knowing they are likely to suffer significant harm they should be returned to their parents. Why would removal be more damaging? Obviously removal always comes with some trauma but as I noted earlier with a properly funded care system children in care can have the same outcomes as those living with families (this has been achieved in some countries so we know it is possible). It is an indictment on the family courts and the care system that they fail children so appallingly that they are effectively saying being cared for by the state would be as harmful as living with known abusers, and therefore leaving children to live with abusive parents.

To be fair to the social workers in this case, according to this summary the majority did raise repeatedly that there were very significant concerns and the children should be removed. The family court ignored this.

There were, however, inexplicable statements from some social workers e.g. concluding in 2013 that the children shoudl be returned to the parents and they were capable of meeting their needs". If that was the case they wouldn't have been removed, would they?

Then, in February 2015, a social work assessment found Sharif and Domin “could not safely care” for one of the children but could meet Sara’s needs. A report by a chartered psychologist in March 2015 stated that the couple were “able to provide good enough parenting” to Sara.

Then decided in March 2019 they advised Sharif they were not taking any further action as the children were with him so were “not at risk”. A known abuser.

The bar needs to be raised off the floor. There needs to be absolutely zero tolerance of any abuse to children and no further contact with parents after the first instance. The whole system is rotten to the core and family courts are a disgrace. Nothing will change and this will continue to happen over and over again until this is totally overhauled, centring the safety and welfare of children, which is manifestly not the case currently.

Totally agree. It’s disgusting.

I really doubt a whole life tariff will be the case. I’m possibly just sceptical, but I think the step
mother’s legal team have played this very well:

-They ensured it was documented in the trial that she suffered honour-based violence in the past (before Sharif). They will use this as mitigation, possibly paint her as an ongoing victim

-Her lack of providing evidence in trial, she will attribute to being scared of Sharif and didn’t feel comfortable saying anything in trial in case he wasn’t prosecuted then retaliated.

-Her lack of submitting bite marks will be used to say there was a negative inference made with no evidence. She’ll then appeal any sentence posed. I imagine there may be a review of her sentence/conviction at some point.

So overall, well played by her legal team. Guilty verdict in the best possible way for her to get special treatment.

Your experience sounds all too familiar. I do think the “lifers” within these employers just tend to be mediocre and someone like you coming in is seen as challenging the status quo. I had a similar experience and want to leave public sector completely now

I was saying to my husband last night-why didn't social services make more of a fuss when she was pulled from school. Her teachers said she was thriving there, probably because it was her only refuge. Seeing this was just after the school raised a safeguarding alert, and as she'd been known to social services before, there was to me only one reason for this.

Poor Sara, may she R.I.P.

I was told my expectations were too high. Because I asked for a phone and expected someone to sort it out.

I watched a very challenging documentary on child protection and the inadequacies from
management when the workers on the ground were doing such amazing work was so upsetting. One had to fight to get her manager to listen. There was definitely an impression that the SW was being dramatic and creating more work.

“If you have concerns please report”

But don’t imagine anyone will actually think about it

Re the below, Oxford educated. I truly believe we need more diversity in this sector, people from different socio-economic backgrounds if anything is to change.

Rachel seems quite unpopular in Surrey, I wonder why and what the back story is.

I'd also love to know how she climbed up that ladder and what her professional background is that led her to this very senior role. State school or privately educated? Which university? There is this too"

This

So is Rachel Oxford educated?

Yup

To be fair to the social workers in this case, according to this summary the majority did raise repeatedly that there were very significant concerns and the children should be removed. The family court ignored this

Family courts are known for ignoring this and prioritising fathers’ equal ‘rights’ to their children over and above their children’s
well being - which they believe will always be enhanced by the fathers’ presence in their lives.

She is Oxford educated and that was my guess. I have worked in the civil service and the number of over promoted totally and hopelessly incompetent people in leadership roles was tragic. All came form private schools and then Oxbridge and they didn't care for their responsibilities. You see it on Mn all the time, Oxbridge is like a magic wand such is the reverence to these institutions. How much is a person form such a privilege background with a handsome pay check going to care or dare rock the boat? I hope she will be held accountable as this case was allowed to happen under her leadership. Her position is untenable.

Honestly, I think the "heads should roll" reaction - although understandable, and clearly some of the individual people involved in this were utterly incompetent - will not fix the problem.

The system they are operating within does not work. Even the children who are lucky enough to happen to get competent social workers/ judges are failed frequently.

The rules are wrong. The priorities are wrong. The assumptions underpinning the entire system and the basis upon which decisions should be taken are wrong so even if procedures are followed appropriately children are still failed and subjected to abuse and neglect, completely needlessly.

Furthermore, any system should account for the fact that a certain proportion of social workers/ judges will be incompetent, as is the case in any profession. Safeguards to ensure that this is picked up at the time and there is sufficient oversight and independent review as decisions are made (not hand-wringing after the fact) should be an inherent feature of the proceedings, given that the purpose of the system is (or rather, should be) about the protection of vulnerable minors.

Unless the entire system as it stands is ripped down and rewritten from scratch nothing will change.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c6241k940n2o.amp

How awful for you. I am very sorry. Keep going.

Hi all god I feel really distressed today after reading more details about Sara’s story and her life from the BBC yesterday. I don’t know what to do! Please help. Any suggestions. I need to focus on my work but this is truly horrifying.

I came on to say the exact same thing. I'm sitting here feeling angry and sad but helpless. Sara won't be the last child this happens to. If I could save every child I would 😭

It isn't awful for us as we have money and can home educate.
But many are pushed into home ed in Surrey for reasons similar to us and people are unaware and then get all the mob stating home education should be banned etc.
It's quite often no choice and I think LA should be brought to account for it. Make them pay for lack of education, salary loss, etc.
We took them to ombudsman and 'won' 10k for loss of education and an apology. Fundamentally it changed nothing in LA, everything carries as normal.
If I kept pushing, we would be landed with s47 safeguarding as some of my friends who choose to fight even longer.
That's where significant portion of SS resources are diverted.
Schools quite often side with LA and fight against parents. It's frequent to be accused of Munchhausen. People who haven't been through it have no idea.
And Surrey loses 95% of SEN tribunals and 97% of Ombudsman cases. It's systemic.