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.

Olga was not on trial. This question is redundant.

Exactly.

She was such a lovely, beautiful girl.

So many people would have felt so lucky and blessed to be able to adopt her.

you think this question is redundant, then I despair.

It's not a question we can answer, so yes, it is redundant. Or perhaps moot.

That video of her singing and playing guitar hits hard.

It is not ‘moot’ when considering what policies would prevent harm in the future.

No.
There is a reason in these cases why case reviews happen, to ask what should and could have been done differently that may have resulted in a different outcome.
It is vital we ask these questions.

Right, so we remove children from men with a history of DV against women?

Good luck funding that, the extra social workers, the courts and the care homes needed.

Its also not a male vs female thing either, numerous cases of women involved in the murder of their own or someone else's child.

These cases continue because social workers have too many cases, there isn't the care homes available and there is not an early intervention strategy... in other words, more and targeted funding would prevent, not all but a great deal of these awful cases.

Oh and thats not my original opinion but that of Lard Laming who has led 2 reports into child deaths.

I thought it was understood that by 'we' I meant you and I and the people on this thread.

Your post to me said nothing about a case review. I understand Surry Council will carry out a review. Of course everyone would welcome that.

See above post.

🤦🏼‍♀️😭

Of course the public also need to ask questions- to hold the institutions to account.

Exactly this

Tandora, you're preaching to the converted.

I agree BUT they are only any good if the recommendations are followed through, they are not.. lessons are not being learned and we keep repeating the same mistakes.

You cannot expect a SW in many large cities, to be able to do their job properly when they have case loads of 15 to 20 at risk children and with high turn overs of staff too.

The gender-bias issues are not related to case load.

These cases continue because social workers have too many cases, there isn't the care homes available and there is not an early intervention strategy...

However, in this case there was an early intervention - Sara was on their radar before she was even born. And there were care places for her on multiple occasions .

So whilst you make valid points generally in this case they’re not relevant. There was early intervention. There was multiple care places.

This was a child in a clearly high risk situation where all the ground work was actually done. She wasn’t missed. She wasn’t an unknown. She was a child who had all of the initial things done correctly.

She was then left to be abused for years despite all of that because of a seeming sheer determination that she must, unlike her sibling, be with one of her parents.

all of that because of a seeming sheer determination that she must, unlike her sibling, be with one of her parent be with her father.

there I corrected it for you.

But this was a child, who was at risk of very serious harm.

While it's true that social workers have a very high case load, this case should have been pushed right to the top of their pile and should have been number 1 priority.

Social workers sometimes remove children because of future risk of potential harm and giving people a really hard time, when nothing even has happened yet.

In this case there was good evidence that the children already have come to harm and nothing was done.

Too simplistic.

In Sara’s case, they seemed to think the step-mother was a safe person to leave Sara with.

Eh? The only reason the step mother was involved is because she was married to Sara’s father. They wouldn’t have just placed her in the care of an unrelated woman

But thats the problem.. what was or at the time, suspected of happening to her probably wasn't the worst of their cases.

I recall that she was placed on a second tier "at risk" level?

As Laming said, for most people, they cannot comprehend what some people will do to a child.

I just think we all rush to judge people who aren't really paid a great deal of money, considering the responsibility, but we let off the hook the people who are responsible for budgets etc.

Have we ever had a case review outcome that blames the minister in Govt? or is the blame lumped onto the social worker?

It should not take years to review this. This child was unlawfully killed. There was precious little public money spent protecting her. The review needs to be done post haste. Not to the convenience of a bunch of people who need to get their own house in order

You need to read up on it, Tandora. The family court judge factored the step-mother into the decision to leave Sara with her father:

The judge praised Batool for taking on Sara and her siblings, saying 'it is a big ask, it's amazing to be frank'.

The judge recommended Ms Domin get help for 'anger management', adding: 'It would be good if you could at least be courteous to her [Batool], be polite to her, be slightly grateful even to her.'

The judge told the two women to shake hands, suggesting: 'Maybe you could see if you could shake hands, say hello and see if things could go forward a bit differently.'

Social workers claimed Sara had 'a really good relationship' with Batool, which was 'a point of safety' for her.

ive read that. As stated the only reason Batool was relevant is she was married to sharif . They wouldn’t have considered her otherwise.