Meet the Other Phone. Only the apps you allow.

Meet the Other Phone.
Only the apps you allow.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Sara Sharif case - update - horrifying

1000 replies

amIloud · 13/11/2024 12:21

This case is just beyond the realms of horrifying,

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

This poor child.

OP posts:
Thread gallery
34
ThatIsNotMyNameSoWhyAreYouCallingMeThat · 12/12/2024 15:20

It does make you wonder what the fuck goes on in social services and what exactly these civil servants are being paid for,

social workers aren’t civil servants.

ContactNightmare · 12/12/2024 15:28

They took a calculated risk with this child. They got their bits of paper on the “no abusing your children” agreement, the special parenting course agreement where all they had to do was turn up for 10 weeks and not be conspicuously abusive, and then make nice for the half an hour allocated in front of a judge who naively decided that this new, entirely unrelated woman could supervise the contact.

Money saved all round, boxes ticked. Unfortunately all the paperwork did not save her from reality.

JSMill · 12/12/2024 15:32

@AlexaSetATimer you are right. The schools did everything they could. I am not currently working in a school but I have worked in several settings over the years. There have been a couple of times when I have had to make a safeguarding referral and SS have decided to take no further action and l couldn't understand on what basis they thought that. In this case given the history, it is outrageous the case was closed within six days. There was nothing more the school do.

ScrollingLeaves · 12/12/2024 15:35

louddumpernoise · 12/12/2024 13:45

Well it is, because the alternative is place into care and private childrens homes are charging a min of £5000 per week, £10,000 per week for more complex cases.
The mother was deemed unfit to care for the child, hence placed with the father.

Councils have no money for this.

Edited

In this case if the mother was also truly unfit, that would be right.

But councils put children into the hands of abusive men because they are the children’s’ fathers claiming their rights, and the fathers say the children are only scared of them because their mothers have been alientating the children telling them lies. This happens.

Tandora · 12/12/2024 15:42

TwigletsAndRadishes · 12/12/2024 15:18

Having read the full story now it doen't seem that she was ever safe with either of them. An older sibling (who is rarely mentioned) seems to have been removed while Sara was allowed to return to her mother, only to later be removed to the care of her father. But any idiot can see that based on the SS history of the family, neither parent was ever fit to care for her. It's beyond appalling that she was allowrd to fall off the radar of SS having had both her parents brought to their attention before she was even born.

It does make you wonder what the fuck goes on in social services and what exactly these civil servants are being paid for, when things like this can happen right under their noses, with every red flag in the book just standing their waving at them.

Every time we hear of yet another heartbreaking case like this it always transpires that the family were known to SS all along. It beggars belief.

Having read the full story now it doen't seem that she was ever safe with either of them

why are people still drawing an equivalence between mother and father? This is how deep rooted misogyny is.

The child was systematically tortured and then murdered by her father.

Melaniais · 12/12/2024 15:54

I wonder what will happen with outer children the couple moved to Pakistan

TwigletsAndRadishes · 12/12/2024 15:54

I'm not drawing equivalence at all. But the information that has come out post-trial clearly shows that she wasn't safe with her mother either. It might be fair to assume that she would still be alive if she's remained with her mother, but clearly she was not capable of parenting adequately in a non--abusive, non-neglectful way. This poor child was failed by just about everybody.

Meemeows · 12/12/2024 16:11

It is a systemic issue. That's the point.

Removing incompetent people within the system, or idiotic judges, or overworked social workers who missed something and letting them take the fall might make people feel better and think "justice has been done". But it won't have been.

Of course people should be accountable for their decisions when they're responsible for child safeguarding, but it's a bit late by the time the child is dead.

And who will it help? Will it bring Sara back? Will it bring back the others, the list too sad to go through yet again. No, it won't. Will it stop this happening again? No, it won't. Because the entire basis upon which the decisions being made is wrong, so even if the protocols as they stand are followed properly children will still suffer and die. And these won't be the last incompetent judges or social workers who ever exist, realistically.

If people actually want this to change, want to not be reading about another child like Sara in 6 month's time, then the entire system must be changed. Children will continue to suffer and die like this until this happens.

The next Sara's process has already begun. In fact, there are hundreds of them, around the country, going through this right now. Just having got home from school to be welcomed by a beating, being burned, being locked in a cupboard, starved, humiliated, sexually abused, tortured. This is their reality, every day of their lives. And it will never change unless the voters of this country make clear to politicians that they will not vote for any party who does not fix this. It's barbaric, and it does not have to be like this.

It's all very well looking back afterwards about what went wrong and holding people to account (rightly) but the greatest service to Sara would be to look at what must be done now to stop others suffering to same hell of which he entirety of her short life consisted.

JSMill · 12/12/2024 16:33

Am I right in thinking neighbours heard crying etc and did nothing?

Meemeows · 12/12/2024 16:39

I'm sure everyone will just content themselves with expressing their sadness for Sara. Then get on with their lives and block the whole thing out. Go on with their daily routines without the slightest thought for the children that this is happening to now. Then, inevitably, one of the most serious cases will be publicised in the news again in a few months' time. The ones who die and the media bother to report are drops in the ocean of the sea of suffering of children, in what pretends it is a civilised country. And everyone knows this. But they'll get on with their own lovely family lives in the meantime and enjoy Christmas and then be outraged when of course, next year, finally the fate of one of these poor souls is publicised again, because this makes them feel better about hearing the reality. Then there will be cries of "how could this happen?", again. And repeat. For the 30 years since this was my reality nothing has changed and I don't expect that suddenly now it will.

TwigletsAndRadishes · 12/12/2024 16:41

ThatIsNotMyNameSoWhyAreYouCallingMeThat · 12/12/2024 15:20

It does make you wonder what the fuck goes on in social services and what exactly these civil servants are being paid for,

social workers aren’t civil servants.

The people who run social services are.

Peonies007 · 12/12/2024 16:42

5 kids gone to Pakistan. 3 of Batools. papers referred to child Z and U. U is 13yo who is a full sibling of Sara.
Anyone knows who the extra child is?

Sara Sharif case - update - horrifying
Meemeows · 12/12/2024 16:45

And presumably they are all UK citizens, so have been illegally trafficked to Pakistan. What is the UK doing to enforced the return of these illegally trafficked minors?

Let me guess: nothing.

sre123 · 12/12/2024 16:48

Meemeows · 12/12/2024 16:45

And presumably they are all UK citizens, so have been illegally trafficked to Pakistan. What is the UK doing to enforced the return of these illegally trafficked minors?

Let me guess: nothing.

There's an application by Surrey City Council in the high court in Lahore, Pakistan, to bring them back to the UK

Meemeows · 12/12/2024 16:52

Yeah... which will be ignored.

When it's deemed important to their political objectives the FCO can and does exert significant pressure on foreign Governments to repatriate our citizens. In this case, we are talking about abused and illegally trafficked children, not somebody who's committed any crime.

Yet, have they?

No, because children's welfare is not a priority. They got the Local Council to send them a form. I'm sure that'll work.

amIloud · 12/12/2024 17:43

If this isn't whole life I don't know what is. I hope the CPS appeal the sentence if it's not whole life.

OP posts:
WillowTit · 12/12/2024 18:22

seems the social workers are terrified of doing the right thing

Anonymousess · 12/12/2024 18:32

Peonies007 · 12/12/2024 16:42

5 kids gone to Pakistan. 3 of Batools. papers referred to child Z and U. U is 13yo who is a full sibling of Sara.
Anyone knows who the extra child is?

I believe a full sibling of Sara: www.getsurrey.co.uk/news/surrey-news/social-services-concerns-sara-sharifs-30572926.amp

ARichtGoodDram · 12/12/2024 18:37

Sara’s other full sibling was never returned to the family, they stayed in foster care. So if they are one of the children there then there are even more questions about how that was able to happen

ContactNightmare · 12/12/2024 18:47

I see the judge and social workers responsible have all been given anonymity orders by the Family Court. I would have said that the decision of the Judge makes their name being disclosed in the public interest. I wouldn’t want this person making decisions on the lives of children.

andHelenknowsimmiserablenow · 12/12/2024 18:51

That seems to be the norm after the baby P social workers were named and criticised.
Now people are free to make decisions that save money and lead to children bieng tortured knowing they will never be named and shamed.

ContactNightmare · 12/12/2024 18:55

It should be appealed. The public interest in the judge, who will be making decisions affecting children’s lives, is a strong case to change it.

Peonies007 · 12/12/2024 18:56

There is certailnly 1 (13 yo), but it seems she has another older sibling or someone similar age. Check child Z and U
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14183893/amp/Sara-Sharifs-childhood-protection-order-killer-father.html

Turmerictolly · 12/12/2024 18:58

The most major issue I think is the court judge allowing this child to return to a known violent man that other women had reported for DV. If you are a long term user of Mumsnet, you'll see this story several times a week. Violent partner has access to kids and court processes support this.

ContactNightmare · 12/12/2024 19:04

Turmerictolly · 12/12/2024 18:58

The most major issue I think is the court judge allowing this child to return to a known violent man that other women had reported for DV. If you are a long term user of Mumsnet, you'll see this story several times a week. Violent partner has access to kids and court processes support this.

Yeah. This isn’t so nice is it if you have to be public or accountable. The child is dead. Privacy in the family court is supposed to protect the child, not incompetence

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.