Do you think other cases should be reviewed that the judge on the Sara Sharif case made judgment on?

[Wishitsnows]

Reading the horrific background and documents that were submitted to the judge, police and social services that were dismissed and poor little Sara Sharif was then forced to live with her abusers. Do you think that that family court will review cases that the same judge and teams were involved with will be reviewed? I'm thinking that this can't be a one off and there will be other children suffering due to these judgments. If not then it really shows when they say lessons will be learned that it really does mean nothing and they won't.

I want to know what information she had access to.
Did she know he had poured petrol over his ex, locked her up bitten other children and so on.
If she knew that why did she hand children over. What level of investigation takes place in these circumstances.

If she didn't know why on earth not

I don't think the other cases should be investigated but I definately think this one should.

There is something very very odd about her giving the children to him.

In America a few years ago, one judge was found to be taking bribes to take children from one parent and placing them with another. Just saying.

It wasn’t odd it was on the recommendation of all of the services involved with Sara. The judge never wanted to be anonymous, that was ruled entirely independently from her - she wanted to be named. Hindsight is a wonderful thing isn’t it - the judge can only go on the evidence presented to them

@72hoursinaande you might not think that the decision to give Sara to her father was odd but I do and on this, we must fundamentally disagree.

Not odd it was on the recommendation of the services involved- we do not know what the challenges with her mother were. In hindsight of course it was the wrong decision - that said the only right decision would probably have been to put her into care. The reality is family courts operate under the ideology that it is best for a child to remain with a parent and the state cannot afford care for every child that needs it. If based on your example you are insinuating the judge took a bribe - you are definitely wrong

From what I've read, the judge in question was presented with inaccurate evidence. She was basically unaware of the father's violent past and seemed to be only aware of the mother's inadequacies - although to my knowledge these have never been fully explained. The Police and Social Services deemed the father's history as inadmissible (or something to that effect) for reasons known only to themselves. But I want to know why. Why was a man with a history of violence, particularly towards 3 former partners and his own children allowed custody and why was it "hidden" from the judge.

I don't think so, no. The Judge couldn't control for the fact the father was determined to get the kids back and, if reports are to be believed, was making up lies against the mother saying she had abused them. What I do think is they should have taken into consideration social services hadn't been called on the mother but had previously been called on the father. The court system is very frustrating when they seem to ignore the psychology of manipulation men use to hurt their ex wives (it is about them winning, not the kid). If anything more needs to be noted on that as a pattern of behaviour for future cases.

And your evidence for her taking a bribe is? Oh, none. But I can see that hasn’t stopped you from making some extraordinarily unjustified and lurid accusations. Forgive me for pointing out that you have access to much much less information than she did; and that the conclusions you have drawn from that make any of your views seriously questionable. I think we will simply have to thank our lucky stars that you aren’t a judge and only get to carp from the sidelines from the advantageous position of your armchair.

She didn’t “give” the children to him. The article explains that the mother consented to the children living with their father, but the judge wouldn’t approve that change without a social services report.

Wasn’t there more than one judge involved? I thought there were 3 names released?

It’s a societal problem and not an individual failing. I really fail to see the logic in demanding the names of the judges. It does not one bit of good and could cause extreme harm.

The whole f ING team of people who let her down need to be reviewed. Why was the history of the dad inadmissable? Why the was sibling was in foster care but not the others. So many whys and Sara suffered and suffered...

I think the judge in question made an impossible decision based on poor and lacking evidence, the social workers here really didn't have the scope and experience to make the appropriate recommendations imo.
Although I think the judge was vile to make Sara's mother shake the hands of her daughters future killers, absolutely disgusting.

The family courts in this country are failing children and mothers. So many heartbreaking stories, lies, manipulations, parental alienation bullshit, I heard mother suiciding, their kids having to go to abusers, rapists cos they are their dads. I'm sick of reading children's preventable torture and deaths. Not every other country is like this. We are clearly doing something wrong.

Have you read about it? Clearly the judge completely ignored quite serious issues and seemed determined to punish the mother.

But you and we have no idea what happened during the care proceedings - so stop speculating. We do not know what evidence the judge was presented with. As a PP said, this problem is political and runs much deeper than blaming one judge. The whole system needs an overhaul and more funding. Women and mothers need more support before it gets to the crisis point of care proceedings. Sure Start centres were great for this - but the Tories scrapped ( or greatly reduced) them.
I have no idea who the judge in this case was but you cannot blame any one individual for what is a social / political problem. It's far too simplistic to do this. It's Daily Mail thinking.

If everyone who possibly could registered as foster carers, and was willing to take on just one traumatised child and learn how to parent them, how many Sara's could be saved?

As it is, those saying these children should be removed- where to?

It's been known for a long time that the Family Courts aren't fit for purpose.

I've heard too many examples of children being forced to see abusers and women being dragged through the system by abusive men.

I don't know enough about this case, but it was evidently a complete shit show.

Yes, I'm not sure people always understand just what a shit parent the state is, and how badly we look after children in care.

Social services and the care system need money - a lot of it. But this is short-termism again, it would cost a lot of money up front but would have long-term savings for the criminal justice system, NHS and social services, the Tories were only interested in austerity and screw the consequences, and unfortunately, I can't see Labour being a great deal better. If we judge a society on how they treat their most vulnerable we're not doing very well.

I was a foster carer. Did my damndest for those kids. Despite everything, they have missed their potential, so far at least.

The outcomes really are poor, which is why they hesitate to remove children. You can put them in a ‘better’ home and family but that doesn’t guarantee a better outcome.