Girls locked in their bedroom every night.....

elena - why not? Councils make these sort of statements all the time, denying some media-lead rumour. They need breach no confidence. Just a general statement that this is untrue.

I am no one! I have no connection with this case or anything to do with safeguarding children at all. I do know how the press works and what local authorities can and can't comment on. I can assure you they will not sue for libel if the reported situation is not true. It is naive to assume that because they have not sued it is not true.

There are many safeguarding issues reported in the press which are simply not true, or are only one side of the story, or which are a distortion. Institutions do not sue.

If these little girls are living in a house with a known sex offender, then that is absolutely awful. The mother cannot have her children's welfare as her priority. But it is not automatically illegal to be a terrible mother! It is not automatically illegal for a sex offender to partner up with a mother. Rightly, the authorities in this case are watching the situation and by their own admissions, they have set certain conditions in place which allow social workers, police and other agencies to monitor the situation. We have no idea if this includes locking the girls in their room. The court will have decided how the monitoring can take place legally. It would be mad if a sex offender could challenge conditions because they had not been put in place without due process.

Of course courts may make wrong decisions. But we just don't know and cannot know the facts in this case. Getting on high horses and saying everything is wrong and why aren't they fostered and why can't the grandmother take them etc etc is to pretend knowledge you cannot have.

Mishap, councils do deny media rumours. But not, you will find, in safeguarding issues.

There are many safeguarding issues reported in the press which are simply not true
How do you know this?
Are you a lawyer working for local authority councils?
We are all someone.

I'm not so sure about that elena, unless the rules have changed since I was in SW. Anonymity and confidentiality were (and still are) paramount of course.

Mishap I don't think the rules have changed. LA's do comment on cases all the time, they have lawyers and media spokespersons to deal with just this kind of matter.

I don't think anyone on here has been 'getting on high horses and saying everything is wrong' * elena*. People have been discussing the reports, just as we do with many things. You seem to be saying that unless we know the facts of everything we shouldn't be discussing them, which seems to suggest we shouldn't be discussing anything much at all.

With regard to 'why aren't they fostered and why can't the grandmother take them' I don't think anyone has said that either. People have suggested that fostering could be an alternative to the awful situation described (if it is accurate) and I have pointed out that family care could be an alternative to fostering, and could be enforced by the courts.

I am not generally very positive about the media and its reporting of social work cases. I am all too aware that they often get facts wrong and sometimes deliberately misrepresent them. Even worse they target individual social workers and make their lives hell. However, I have to say that the media has a valuable role to play in bringing cases like this one to the public's attention and can lead to useful consideration of how sex offenders can be managed safely around children. So if these reports lead to more discussion around these issues and perhaps lead to more enlightened practice then I don't think it's a bad thing. Safeguarding is everyone's business.

Great post, Nightowl. I think the professionals who have reached whatever decisions have been made here have underestimated the strength of feeling being expressed by the grandmother, who hasn't been party to decision-making and been left to draw her own conclusions. Hopefully, someone will be listening to her and reviewing the situation or be able to reassure her that she has received some misinformation. Whatever, as it stands there are clear safeguarding concerns and it should not be left as it is.

I agree, and I think the father is also very concerned; from reports (which apparently may or may not be believed) he has a new partner and has moved away from the area. I am surprised that his input does not carry more weight.