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.

It was beyond wrong to place Sara with her father. I can only imagine that they did that, based on the reports, because they imagined a woman in the house (particularly an Asian woman, as Asian women are idealised as mother figures) would protect Sara. They made a gross and lazy miscalculation.

But we also can’t deduce that Sara would have been safe with her mother, based on the available evidence. It’s likely that there would have been significantly less violence at her mother’s but the reports of biting / pinching / no bedding / no lighting / 3yo child wandering a mile away don’t point to a safe life.

And punching children and covering them in bruises. And burning them with a lighter. Yeah, great place for an already-traumatised child to live.

Sara would definitely have been better off with a properly vetted, loving adoptive family.

I would be very uncomfortable with anyone saying the mother is responsible for what the father (and step-mother and uncle) did to Sara. The perpetrators are fully responsible.

But I think the poster has a point in that Sara not having a strong, protective mother hindered her from being placed with her birth mother.

An absent, good parent is factor in most child murders. Usually the absent father is male, who laments his lost child whilst we all ask ‘why weren’t you there?’

it’s more that I find your manner intimidating

I’m sorry if I come across that way. It is not my intention to be intimidating.

I don’t think anyone condones what happened to Sara. Not at all.
But I do think that some people are looking at the facts of this case through a lens of misogyny; meanwhile, misogyny was also at the core of the terrible decision-making in this case.

To me it seems that Batool's demeanor and perceived influence on Sharif may have contributed to a narrative that downplayed or dismissed his history of violence, leading professionals to conclude that he was reformed or stable.

Batool's "prim and proper" demeanor, coupled with her cultural background, might have played into assumptions that she represented stability or moral authority. Professionals might subconsciously stereotype her as someone who could "fix" or manage Sharif, viewing her as a calming influence rather than considering the full dynamics of their relationship.

There's also often an implicit bias to associate men’s violent behavior with their environment or their partners rather than holding them fully accountable. If professionals subconsciously believed that Sharif’s previous partners "brought out the violence" in him, they might see Batool as the opposite—a "solution" to his problems. This is a deeply flawed perspective that shifts blame from the abuser to the victims.

If Sharif’s past victims were seen as vulnerable or struggling, they may have been unfairly discredited or perceived as unreliable witnesses. This reinforces the harmful stereotype that abuse victims are responsible for their abuse or that they exaggerate their abuse.

The absence of reported violence against Batool may have led professionals to wrongly assume that Sharif was no longer dangerous. This ignores the broader context of his history and the patterns of behavior that are often consistent among abusers. Just because he did not abuse Batool (or it was not reported) does not mean he was incapable of harm.

Reports of Sara having a good relationship with Batool might have reinforced the view that this was a harmonious family environment, further downplaying concerns about Sharif’s past. Professionals often prioritize evidence of a child’s immediate well-being ("does the child seem happy right now in this moment?") without fully considering underlying risks.

Usually the absent father is male, who laments his lost child whilst we all ask ‘why weren’t you there?

Yes agree. And it would absolutely be right in that case to blame the father for his absence. Nothing more , nothing less. Would we say that he was just as bad as the person who murdered the child? No. Would we say he was irresponsible and selfish and a crap parent ? . Yes.

a factor that doesn’t make that scenario analogous to this one, however, is that Olga was also a victim of Sharif’s abuse- so in that sense her failure to fulfil the role of protective parent is more understandable.

There aren't 'many many different options' from where I'm standing. There's rattling around the care system for your entire childhood (hugely damaging) or being handed back to an abusive mother (also hugely damaging).

We all agree that it was wrong to hand her over to her father. Where we differ is that you seem convinced that Olga was stitched up by her lying ex-husband and the family court who was in his thrall. You seem weirdly reluctant to acknowledge that she was abusive and unfit to care adequately for her children.

My hunch is that If there was any bias that led to Sara being placed with her father, I'd say it was a cultural/religious bias in favour of her being in the care of her Muslim side of the family. Not simply a gender bias. Although admittedly that particular cultural/religious bias would have had some gender bias attached to it. I really don't think this gender bias in favour of fathers in general is quite the known 'thing' you are determined to paint it as.

I think you may be spot on here with all of this

I agree we would not say the absent parent is as bad as the parent who murdered their child or allowed their child to be murdered. I don’t think anyone has suggested that though.

And I accept that Olga was also a victim of Sharif’s abuse.

If keeping Sara with Olga would have meant that Sara was alive today then of course that would have been by far the better outcome. I have my doubts based on the reports of Olga’s behaviour that she wouldn’t have abused Sara but I accept that Sara would likely be alive today.

I don’t think anyone has suggested that though.

Someone posted a Reddit thread claiming that a few pages back.

If true, he was likely referring to when he lived with Olga and Urfan. Not when Sara lived with her dad and step-mum.

Me too.

This Guardian article published an hour ago states that it is clear that the report put before the judge in the decision to leave Sara with Sharif was flawed and was made by a very inexperienced social worker (whose report the judge praised).

It raises serious questions as to why Surrey did not place the burden of such a sensitive case involving an extremely volatile family with a more experienced staff member.

Surrey’s children’s services department was tasked with preparing the report before a hearing on 9 October 2019 by which point Sara was no longer living with her mother, Olga Domin, 38. The children had already moved to live with Sharif and Batool because, according to Sharif, Sara told him she was being abused by Domin.…

It states that it was Sharif who alleged that Olga Domin had abused Sara:

“according to Sharif, Sara told him she was being abused by Domin”

and this was never tested in court:

The report outlines allegations against Domin, which – as with other claims against both parents – were not tested in court, stating that Sara said she was “pinched, punched, threatened with lighters and being drowned in the bath by her mother”.

Domin went on to admit “smacking” Sara, then aged six, on the bottom but without leaving a mark, and to finding her behaviour “hard to manage”, but said further allegations against her were untrue.

Domin had no legal representation at the final hearing.

These quotes above are excerpts. The article is much longer and has further information regarding all the elements from Sharif’s past which the social worker failed to report. The judge praised the social worker’s report.

www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/dec/14/inexperienced-social-worker-sara-sharif-father-risk

I really don't think this gender bias in favour of fathers in general is quite the known 'thing' you are determined to paint it as.

She is not ‘determined to paint it that way’
She is trying to show what really can happen.

From Family Law barrister Charlotte Proudman:
As a family law barrister, I have seen far too many cases where the rights of violent and manipulative fathers are prioritised over the safety and well-being of children and their mothers.

The tragic killing of nine-month-old Kobi Shepherdson starkly illustrates the fatal consequences of a system that often minimises or overlooks patterns of domestic abuse, coercive control, and violence. Despite his documented history, the court granted her father child contact. Questions will be asked about whether the family justice system failed to recognise the inherent risks the father posed. This case is a devastating reminder that the Family Court must put the safety of children above all else, adopt a trauma-informed approach, and refuse to facilitate contact that places children and survivors of abuse in harm’s way.
www.instagram.com/p/DCmv6pEsNZc/

Unregulated experts appointed by family courts in England and Wales have caused harm to children by separating them from their mothers and forcing them to live with and have contact with fathers accused of violence and abuse, according to a new study by a UCL researcher.
https://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/2024/nov/unregulated-experts-can-cause-harm-children-family-courts

Family courts: Children forced into contact with fathers accused of abuse
Dozens of children have been forced into contact with fathers accused of abuse, a study has found.
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-66531409

Thank you.

Her older children also reported her repeatedly hitting them and burning them and them being terrified to go home. Unlike Sara, one of her older siblings spoke up and reported the abuse from both his mother and his father, to teachers and social workers and others. That is why he was placed in care permanently before Sara and her other sibling were inexplicably sent to live with Sharif who was also abusive.

Neither of their parents were fit to care for them. Both were known abusers. This is documented fact and was abundantly clear from years and years of reported injuries and incidents from both parents.

Strikingly, the report fails to reference a letter from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) submitted to the court three months earlier which highlights “safeguarding concerns” in relation to Sharif.

The letter reports that Domin had no criminal convictions but had accepted a caution for biting one of Sara’s siblings in 2014.

But details of Sharif’s police contact were also listed by Cafcass, including four incidents in which serious allegations of assault and abuse had been made against him between 2007 and 2012.

Those incidents include reports of punching and hitting a former partner over a period of three days, hitting a very young child, and false imprisonment of a woman who was held against her will for five days. A further report of false imprisonment two years earlier included threatening a woman with a knife and threats to kill.

The Cafcass letter notes Domin “admits experiencing domestic violence by Mr Sharif” and fled to a refuge with Sara and one sibling.

In making their recommendations in the report three months later, SCC found the risk to Sara and her sibling in their mother’s care would be “high” and that they would be at risk of physical harm if they were to have any unsupervised contact with her “at present”.
The report concluded the children should reside with Sharif and Batool... In the social worker’s opinion, Sharif “appears to have the children’s welfare at heart”.

The social worker recommended that Sharif should be given responsibility for deciding whether and when to increase the children’s contact with their mother, an alleged victim of his abuse.

“I have assessed Urfan as being able to make decisions, in line with the safety and wellbeing of the children,” the report said.

Update on the other children

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-14193977/sara-sharif-grandfather-block-siblings-returning-uk.html?ico=article_preview_xp_mobile#

I really hope that the children are returned to the UK. I don't believe that their grandfather is a suitable person to look after them. This, after all, is the man who raised the abusive father who killed poor Sara and the uncle who stood by and let it happen. He described the stepmother's abuse of Sara as "inappropriate" but seemingly did nothing to intervene.

The children have been failed by the authorities in both the UK and Pakistan, failed by their abusive parents and failed by their entire extended family who did nothing to protect them. They deserve better and I sincerely hope that they get it.

He claimed: 'My five grandchildren reside with me in Jhelum at my family home. The children have not inquired about their parents and are happy living with us.

I cannot believe this is true unless they are too frightened of their grandfather to speak of their father and stepmother.

How can we question whether it would have been better for Sara to have been adopted at birth? Surely the answer would be yes as she would still be alive and we would not be having this conversation. I know someone who had her children taken off her and I used to really sympathise and think it was terrible as she missed them so much but now I keep my mouth shut.

I read somewhere that it was a very unexperienced social worker, who has only received been qualified.

That doesn't matter, as social workers are closely supervised by a manager. Every report and decision that they make has to be signed off by a manager.

I agree. It is concerning that they haven't felt able to ask the many questions that they must inevitably have. We don't know whether they have been subjected to direct abuse themselves, but they have almost certainly witnessed some horrific stuff and they probably need intensive support to deal with the trauma. I don't have faith that the grandfather will make this happen.

I'd be worried about them living with people who had such a violent, abusive son. Where did he learn that from?