Former teacher guilty of sexually abusing and murdering baby boy he wanted to adopt - CPS

[IwantToRetire]

Distressing content
-----

A former teacher has been found guilty of sexually abusing and murdering a baby boy that he planned to adopt.

Jamie Varley, 37, was convicted at Preston Crown Court of murder, child cruelty, sexual offences and indecent images relating to 13-month-old Preston Davey.

John McGowan-Fazakerley, 32, was convicted of allowing the death of a child, child cruelty and sexual assault.

Varley was in the process of adopting baby Preston (also known as Elijah) with his partner McGowan-Fazakerley. Just four months after being placed with the couple, Preston was taken to Blackpool Victoria Hospital unconscious and in cardiac arrest. Sadly, Preston could not be saved.

Varley tried falsely claiming that Preston had accidentally drowned in a bath, but prosecutors were able to prove that his injuries were consistent with his airways being obstructed.

The evidence presented by the prosecution proved that in the final months of Preston’s life, he was routinely ill-treated, sexually abused and physically assaulted – suffering more than 40 separate injuries.

CPS statement continues at https://www.cps.gov.uk/north-west/news/former-teacher-guilty-sexually-abusing-and-murdering-baby-boy-he-wanted-adopt

More from a BBC report - also distressing:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyp77l79e9o

I thought there was a thread about this, but cant find one. But sorry if a duplicate.

I really only wanted to post out of respect for this poor baby and the horror of his short life.

RIP

Nope it will be another “lessons have been learnt” not so moment

Thank you @Arran2024 and @Hedgehogforshort for answering.

Just pointing out that the Blackpool Victoria Hospital has the most appalling record for safeguarding so it may not be surprising that repeated non accidental injuries in a baby are not noticed. They ignored the sexual assaults to this woman who died as a result of them while in their care.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwy85lz5ppdo

Not wishing to derail the discussion about this appalling incident, but sometimes there are institutional reasons when professionals fail to safeguard children (and vulnerable adults).

Can people stop suggesting the care plan and wokeness were intertwined. A child is not put for adoption because social workers want to give a gay couple a baby.

For a child to be adopted THE COURT needs to agree.
Usual process is that after assessments of family the local authority recommends a care plan to the court.
Parents are represented.
The child is represented via cafcass and a guardian.
Every party can have legal representation.
Adoption should be a last resort.
If the court, after months, sometimes a year or more, of hearing evidence, agrees the care plan a Placement Order is made. This essentially tells the local authority to find him adopters.
The court will have agreed, rightly or wrongly, that no one in the birth family could care for Preston and he should be adopted. The court will have decided not to wait for gran. The local authority then have an obligation to find him a match.

The care plan is decided then the match found. The care plan was not decided in order to tick any social work woke boxes.

I am not defending these social workers, or the hospital or anyone else involved. But to suggest the options were either these men for woke points or birth family is just unhelpful. He would have been placed with other adopters if not these.

Powerplay. Should be recognised as a flag in its own right.

I suspect a not insignificant number of SWs and their managers wouldn’t recognise professional curiosity if they tripped over it in the dark. Excuse it away, refer it elsewhere, close the file and move on.

The item is roughly 21 minutes into the bulletin.

@Arran2024 Another reason social workers like males as parents is the lack of an adoptive mother, who can be real red flags for adopted children, for very complex reasons

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what you mean by this- could you explain?

They must have training on cognitive bias though? And reflective practice?

I suggest that all-male couples shouldn't be allowed to adopt, not because they are same-sex attracted, but because there is no woman present.

Likewise, I suggest that men shouldn't be allowed to serve as DSLs.

The risk to children is men: gay, straight, bi, black, white, arabic, asian, old, young, whatever, they are all MEN.

@Scout2016, so what do you say to @CraftandGlamour’s post above about adoption agencies being “encouraged” to consider “non monogamous couples”?

I am a trainee social worker and am wondering how long I might last in my eventual job once I graduate. As a cynical middle aged woman, a feminist and blessed with a healthy level of suspicion (especially around men) I don’t expect I’ll find it at all easy. My current job involves clinical coding and summarising and absolutely nothing about people shocks or surprises me these days, but I’ve been thoroughly sickened by this case.

I am in the extremely fortunate position that I need not have any designs on a ‘career’ in social work and will be able to question and be a fully paid up member of the awkward squad should it be necessary.

My own personal view, that I obviously will never express openly, is that rapists and child abusers should be surgically castrated, with no recourse to compensatory prescription hormones. I don’t relish the talk of retribution in jail for these men, but can completely understand the anger that posters on the other thread are feeling.

R.I.P. Preston.

That would be my suspicion too.

Of course people should be allowed to raise this as an issue. There's a long history of some people believing that certain groups are unchallengeable because they're a "sacred caste".

Yes it's difficult and challenging but when we're looking at children's safety and wellbeing we must be able to think the unthinkable. Predators rely on being able to bully others into silence and many posters have raised thoughtful and challenging issues about all this.

I cant believe anyone would defend these monsters!!! It's sickening.

Often adopted children don't even know who the birth dad is. He may have been a minor figure in the birth mother's life. He may well have been abusive - men often target vulnerable girls for access to their existing children.

But every adopted child knows who their birth mother is and then the question arises: "why didn't she look after me?"

My adopted children never gave their birth father (a very dark figure) a moment's thought but they were consumed by why their birth mother didn't care for them.

This taps into society's expectations about how mothers should behave but also something vital within the children themselves. They were not removed straight after birth, they spent months (younger daughter)/ years (older daughter) being neglected by birth mother and even though they can't physically recall it, they experienced it and it is in there, and therapy can't touch it.

There is a theory called the Primal wound which relates more to babies removed at birth, like Preston was. It is about the sudden loss of the person you have been attached to for 9 months and how it impacts the child longer term.

So mothers can be tricky in adoption in a way that the dads aren't.

Here is some other info https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1&source=android-browser&q=why+do+adopted+children+have+mother+issues#lfId=ChxjMe

Absolutely agree.

I think most people are talking about within the adoption placement and the matching itself, not the decision to remove Preston from his birth mother in the first place. Have I misunderstood or is that what you're saying about the care plan? That's an earlier stage surely? Before looking for a suitable match for adoption? I don't think people were referring to "woke" potentially being involved at that stage at all,

We do need to be able to talk about the adoption matching process itself though and whether it is vigorous enough or fit for purpose (it's not just this case, obviously and it has many facets ). As, I'm sure, will any subsequent investigation.

I do think it is interesting though that men are being placed with babies these days - see also social media stars Matthew and Ryan and baby Lincoln.

When i adopted in 2001, babies mostly went to traditional couples. There has been a huge shift.

For the longest time, ethnicity was the big matching criteria. I don't know if this was a factor in this case. It could explain why these men were chosen over other prospective adopters available.

I have already mentioned that I think that sws love male adopters because they think they will cope better with challenging teenage behaviours, especially among boys.

There is a desperate shortage of both adopters and foster carers. Personally I don't think approving non monogamous couples is the answer, not by a long shot.

Yet another innocent child has lost their life because of disgusting, specimens of Men.

What has sickened me is the reaction to the guilty verdict by Varley. Apparently he put his hands to his face before collapsing to his knees, retching and vomiting. He knows he was guilty, so why behave in such a strange manner. Does he know what awaits him in jail do you think?

A child is dead and he vomits because he’s found guilty. Oh please!

Someone cut his balls off!

Bastards. Some people don’t deserve to live.
The poor jurors who had to hear all the evidence.

It just doesn’t make sense why he’d try to adopt a baby if he intended to treat them badly. It is the most callous, calculated and horrific thing I’ve heard in ages. Poor baby.

Apparently 'semen' was found in his stomach contents. DNA was from one of the men. Im not sure how true this is, but ive read this in several places now. And with the beyond awful reports we have all heard... Ive no doubt this is true. Those two pieces of total shit need justice delivered in prison and very quickly.

You are missing my point. This is from an earlier poster's comment and are the sort of post I am referring to

"The foster mother was eager to just extend the foster period a little, so she could keep him until grandmother was strong enough. Social workers would not allow anything so obviously in the best interests of the baby. Not if it spoiled their aim of ticking a box on gay ideology."

I am not suggesting that the fact they were men, or gay, can be discussed. I am pointing out that this is not how the care proceedings and adoption process work.