How could we have let Sara down so badly?

Race, ethnicity, faith, religion, any disability, developmental and life history and more are all involved in any assessment underpinned by the Children Act. The welfare checklist covers the physical, emotional and developmental needs of the children.
Social workers, like police and health workers are often criticised for being overly aware of the need to consider the race etc of individuals. We see comments on gransnet reflecting that. Lots of examples of comments asking posters why skin colour matters.

The Head Teacher did report it, but then Sara was taken out of school and "home-schooled".

Should the HT have persisted when her concerns had been passed on to Social Services and Sara was no longer her pupil?Probably not, because she might then have been vilified and accused of racism.
Yes she should have persisted. I don't believe the findings of the SS investigation into Sara's bruising has been made public, but the Head and Social services would have had full access to her records from birth, which made this case one of special concern. The Head is in a position to pursue concerns where teachers are not, and I know all the seven Heads I worked for were persistent in following up cases where abuse was suspected, as were the social workers involved. Moving children into 'home-schooling' was recognised as a calculated move to resist investigation, but social workers would then set up monitoring visits over health issues. The final move would be to move to another county, or as in the case of the Sharif family, move abroad, taking all their records with them.

Petra of course there's racism, I don't doubt it. However, when anyone accuses a white SW or head teacher of not acting in the best interests of a child from a minority ethnic group because of the fear of being called " racist", who is being racist? If someone else says its "wokeness" that stops professionals doing the their job, who is being "racist" If someone suggests a child is being abused because at nine she's of marriageable age because she's Muslim and that's what Muslims believe (when they don't and there's not a shred of evidence to suggest coercion for making marriage) who is being racist? When it's suggested that the hijab should be banned because it can be used to hide facial bruising what on earth does this say about people's attitude to the faith of Islam?
Were these things said when other children have been brutally abused and murdered. Did anyone pick over the religion or culture of the perpetrators to identify cultural reasons for horrific abuse? No, so why are we doing it now? Why do we try to find evidence that this poor child was in some way a victim of her cultural identity, (someone even mentioned FGM) when she wasn't? Surely that's what's "racist"

Pippa22

This poor little girl had teachers, other parents neighbours, why did they not do anything as well as all the other people paid to keep children safe ?
Why was this little girl allowed to be home schooled so the dad, stepmother and uncle were free to abuse without any checks and injuries were able to go unseen. Also why was she allowed to wear a hijab to cover all her injuries ? I really , really hope that the authorities and everyone were pussy footing around the family for fear of being called racist which has been suggested. If this is the case then shame on them all and there must be so many who must or should feel ashamed of themselves.

Oh give it a rest. I'm sick of hearing about the hijab. I don't know, none of us do. what part this played.Any decent professional will have been trained in safeguarding and observing cultural sensibilites.

There is no conspiracy which stops professionals carrying out their duties.
There are cuts to public services, the selling off for profit just about everything and the cult of the individual.

If one doesn’t know why should one not ask questions ?

Pippa22

This poor little girl had teachers, other parents neighbours, why did they not do anything as well as all the other people paid to keep children safe ?
Why was this little girl allowed to be home schooled so the dad, stepmother and uncle were free to abuse without any checks and injuries were able to go unseen. Also why was she allowed to wear a hijab to cover all her injuries ? I really , really hope that the authorities and everyone were pussy footing around the family for fear of being called racist which has been suggested. If this is the case then shame on them all and there must be so many who must or should feel ashamed of themselves.

You ask a lot of good questions which we all have - why the 15 attempts to intervene failed, why didn't the neighbours report it, and so on.

I just wanted to throw light on one sentence, "Also why was she allowed to wear a hijab to cover all her injuries "

It's documented that the staff were not aware of facial or head injuries when she started wearing the hijab. If they had it would have prompted action then, not later on.

She was at that time allowed to wear it because its normal practice for some pupils to wear one to school - the primary school near me has about half the girls wearing neat black headscarves as part of the school uniform if that is the family's choice.

Suspicions subsequently arose despite her apparently happy bubbly behaviour which ended up in the Headteacher's report and removal to home schooling.

Why the head didn't follow it up is something only the head teacher can answer - she may have assumed action would follow. She was reporting suspicions, she had not seen injuries.

Separately - abusers will use anything the cover their tracks, and the abused cover them too, which is seen in across the board sorts of abuse.

I don't think the hijab is any different from say making a child wear long sleeves to cover arm injuries, smearing with chocolate, or an abused woman covering with make up or clothes, and being forced to lie about it.

My concern here is that this will - and is - being used as an excuse to try and force measures through that forbids wearing the hijab in schools and link it per se with abuse, which it is not.

It's the normal wear/choice of one of our countries' cultures and as I said already in my local primary a neat black headscarf is a choice as part of a uniform. Just as we are used to women at work wearing a headscarf.

I'm glad we are now getting more women of muslim origin working in Social services just as they do in health and caring because of the rightful concerns people have talked about the lack of understanding on how to best help children with all kinds of needs.

Anniebach

If one doesn’t know why should one not ask questions ?

Yes, they should be asked.

Thank you Wyllow

Schools take safeguarding extremely seriously, every member of the school staff including volunteers does training annually and it's the first thing that is checked when Ofsted do an inspection. Fail that part of the inspection and the school fails the whole inspection. There are strict rules about how schools deal with any safeguarding issue, the chain of communication is set out with time scales and who and how the concern is reported on from the school. However, if a child is taken out of that school, the head teacher will not have any authority to follow up and because of the sensitivity of safeguarding concerns there are extremely strict protocols about this especially as it may result in a court case.
It really bothers me that it is so easy to attack professionals on social media with little understanding or knowledge of the role they play and the regulations they follow.
Remember the Head teacher who sadly committed suicide following an Ofsted inspection because her school was down graded? There were GNetters who understood why the school had been downgraded but I can't recall reading in any newspaper a proper explanation of why, so most of the population, unless they were involved in safeguarding in some way, would have thought it was a cruel, unjust and unnecessary action. There are extremely good reasons why record keeping , training and tight protocols are in place and if a Head teacher has not followed them to the letter, then she will be either strongly sanctioned or sacked. In Sara'a case it would have been good practice to keep a note on file of a facial bruise but not necessary to escalate it if the child gave a good explanation. None of know the timescale of anything that happened in the school but there will have been a file for Sara, staff might have made notes on her demeanor etc particularly if she became withdrawn or anxious but children will protect their parents. We none of us know anything more than we read in the press. There is absolutely no evidence that I have seen that suggests the school let Sara down, they might have done, but that Head is being pilloried on Social media there was even a suggestion she'll enjoy her Christmas meal! I would imagine she and her staff are still shocked and sickened about what happened to Sara and it will live them for the rest of their lives.

Thanks *Wyllow" for your previous post.

when anyone accuses a white SW or white headteacher

Do we know that the Social Workers were white?
Do we know the headteacher was white?

Assumptions being made here, I think.

I wish all this talk of racism would stop.
Sara died because her vicious, violent father tortured her and beat her to death.
And because of apparently fifteen failures of the authorities who were supposed to protect her.

However, if a child is taken out of that school, the head teacher will not have any authority to follow up and because of the sensitivity of safeguarding concerns there are extremely strict protocols about this especially as it may result in a court case.

It really bothers me that it is so easy to attack professionals on social media with little understanding or knowledge of the role they play and the regulations they follow.

Well said, foxie48

Thanks Allira

Petra you posted a link to a report about racial bias in child protection and I was prompted to comment because of that link.

Surrey social services were deemed to be seriously under performing in 2018 and neighbouring authorities were brought in to try to improve the situation. The link below shows the time line of when the authorities failed to act and it goes back to January 2013 as soon as Sara was born.
www.thetimes.com/uk/crime/article/sara-sharif-what-happened-timeline-sqrnpwmtq

Yes, and of course the paucity of resources to be effective.

It's been a learning curve on here for me to know many of the regulations and limitations. Responsible MSM need to give more context.

Its got a paywall.

Below is copied from the link I posted.
January 2013

From birth, Sara is made subject to a child protection plan. Her father, Urfan Sharif, had been arrested on suspicion of attacking three women including Sara’s mother, Olga Domin, as well as hitting and biting two children. But she is allowed to remain with her father. Police stated there was not enough evidence to charge Sharif despite each woman’s similar claims.
February 22, 2013

A month after Sara is born, social services and police are told that Sharif has slapped a child around the face.
May 7, 2013

A social worker spots a burn mark on a child’s leg. Sharif fails to report the incident and claims it was a barbecue accident.
October 7, 2013

A child is seen with a burn mark from a domestic iron. Sharif tells social services the child knocked into the iron. A child tells a social worker that Sharif smashed up a TV and punched Domin.
November, 2014

Sara is taken into foster care for a short period after a child tells a social worker about a bite mark but is then returned to Sharif.
February, 2015

A child tells their foster carer that Sharif used to hit them on the bottom with a belt. But Sara is returned to Sharif in 2015.
May 2015

Olga tells social services about Sharif tightening a belt around her neck and Sara is put into her mother’s care. Around this time social workers complain that Sharif is coercive and derogatory towards them.
2015

Sharif is reported to social services for waving a knife around at home in what he says was a “zombie” game. Social workers note that Sharif hit and kicked Domin at home and the pair threaten to kill each other.
December 2016

A child tells a social worker they don’t like Sharif because he punched them all over their body and gave them lots of bruises. Social workers observe Sara flinch when Sharif tells her off during supervised contact and seem surprised when he cuddles her.
October 2019

Sharif applies to Guildford family court for custody of Sara. Sara had made a claim of abuse by Domin and Surrey council supported returning her to her father. Sharif is given custody of Sara.
June 6, 2022

A teacher reports to the school’s online child protection monitoring system that Sara has a bruise under her eye. Sara initially will not say what happened, before saying that another child hit her.
The house in Woking where Sara’s body was discovered
March 10, 2023

A teacher sees bruises on Sara’s face. She says she fell on roller skates. When Sara gives a different story to a safeguarding lead, the school makes a referral to social services. Six days later social services decide to take no further action.
March 20, 2023

A report is logged on the school’s internal system after Sharif’s partner, Beinash Batool, is overheard referring to children as “motherf***er, sister f***er, bitch and whore” in the playground.
March 28, 2023

Batool claims a mark on Sara’s face was caused by a pen. The teacher tells the school safeguarding lead.
April 17, 2023

Sharif decides to homeschool Sara. The school rings the council for advice and is told it should make a referral if there are concerns. Staff see Sara later that day at school pick-up and she seems fine so they decide against it — but she had been beaten earlier that day. She is never seen outside her home again.

What everyone is ignoring is that the Sharif family was a family of concern, Known to Social Services for ten years, and the children, should have been on the At Risk register. most certainly should have been. There was evidence of previous violence and neglect within the family so the slightest evidence of bruising should have been taken very seriously, as it was by the teachers who worked with Sara.

Ruth Perry committed suicide because her whole school was deemed Inadequate, downgraded from the previous Outstanding, This grade was based solely fact that the Safeguarding paperwork was not up to date. The Coroner noted at the inquest that the term Inadequate 'can be given to a school that is dreadful in all respects, or to a school which is good but with issues that can be remedied before the Report is published' and hoped Ofsted would learn lessons from this case in their one word statements, which they seem now to have dropped.
St.Mary's School's Safeguarding Policy is full of the required platitudes, but they did not prevent Sara's death. Only vigilance could have done that.

St. Mary;s School. Byfleet, Surrey.
Ruth perry's suicide and the reasons behind it, the condemnation of the word Inadequate, were fully discussed and explained in news reports at the time

Petal53 Sincere apologies I confused you with another poster with a similar name.

Thank you foxie.
Words fail atm.

Thank you foxie so much to absorb

eazybee

We have not let Sara down; it is the Authorities and most notably, the Social Services Team who spent six days 'examining her case'after the teacher reported bruising, then closed the case. I don't normally blame Social Services because i know the pressure they are under, and how manipulative some parents can be but in this case they were negligent and the child died because of it.
Sara had a case history dating from before birth; she had lived with her mother, removed to live in care, then given into the 'care' of her father, a man with a history of violence. When bruising was reported was this child even seen and medically examined? If so, previous injuries would have been identified. The past history of her father would be on file, and the point of the 'paperless office' is that documentation is available on line immediately, not hidden in files on dusty top shelves.
But the case was closed; soon the father removed her from school for 'home schooling' something else which can conceal a multitude of sins. No check was made, and he was allowed the last few weeks of Sara's life to abuse her at will with the collusion of his wife and brother.
I believe the ideology of the Social Services is also to blame. Support the family, no matter what; don't break the family bond. At case conferences, nothing like as appalling as this, the needs of the mother, or father, seem to take precedence over those of the child, and excuse after excuse is proffered in defence.
The case was supposedly discussed over six days; why were examinations and investigations not carried out.?When the family moved from a flat to another area, were the records not received by the school? Did the social worker not make contact? I have been contacted by social workers from hundreds of miles away, to fill the school in on a new child's background; some visit personally to check information has been received and the staff are aware.

Already excuses are coming: lack of staff, senior workers pulled back, lack of money, when it rests with the incompetence of social services and their skewed focus. .
I know this is a rant, and I am sorry, but I am so angry that this abuse was allowed to go unchecked when all the signs were there. But no-one bothered to follow it up.

I didn't know the history of this case until now. Thankyou easybee.A truly heartbreaking scenario.The poor,poor child! The parents deserve the worst fate possible!

Foxie48, thanks for the summary. It makes depressingly familiar reading to anyone who has been involved in safeguarding. I’m not attempting to diminish the level of risk Sara and her sibling lived with, until Sara was killed by her father and step mother when I say I remain convinced that most people aren’t aware of the level of abuse and neglect children experience.
The head of the family division was interviewed on radio 4 this week. He stressed that sadly, Sara’s death and the abuse she lived with, was something he was familiar with

My first team manager told me there’s a pendulum, people learn about poor outcomes for looked after children and were pushed to keep children home. Then a child is murdered by parents and we are told we take too many risks

eayzbee for the record, I'm not defending the system used by Ofsted, I've gone through two harrowing inspections as COG of a school that had recently been down graded before I joined the governing board. What I was trying to do was show how seriously safe guarding is taken in schools. Perhaps you read different media to me but I commented several times to my husband that heads generally check their records carefully in the short time there is between "getting the phone call" and the inspectors arriving the next morning, because it's the very first thing that they look at and that's was not clear from the reports. For the record, most teachers I know thought it was overly punitive but no one wanted to be in the situation of the school in Soham either. I was also the governor responsible for safeguarding practice in the school, so I regularly sat down to check that records were up to date, asked staff including the catering staff etc about their responsibilities and on one occasion was involved with an issue that was escalated up to the designated safeguarding lead in the local authority (LADO) so I'm not totally ignorant of what procedures should have been followed but personally I don't think anyone knows enough to start condemning the head teacher or the staff of the school. They were in contact with the LADO and should have been receiving advice, I do wonder about the quality of that advice but hopefully that will come clear during the official independent safeguarding review.