How could we have let Sara down so badly?

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.

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.

Its got a paywall.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Thanks *Wyllow" for your previous post.

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.

Thank you Wyllow

Anniebach

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

Yes, they should be asked.

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.

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.

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.

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"

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.

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.

How many social worker have come across racial bias in the profession?

www.communitycare.co.uk/2024/12/03/case-reviews-silent-on-racial-bias-in-child-protection-decision-making/

Wyllow thanks for finding that report, I doubt many will read it but hopefully a few people will and begin to understand why our most vulnerable children are deprived of the care they need and why SW departments are so impoverished.
OH and I were invited to a lovely charity event, we didn't know two of the couples who were on the table taking advantage of the wine and spilling the beans on their role running a private fostering agency. Who knew it could be so lucrative, I certainly didn't! The changes made in 2014 pushed a swinging door wide open and there's always some who see the opportunity to line their pockets at the public expense.

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.

Allira

^Home-schooling needs to be closely monitored for all children, not just those believed to be at risk. The idea that any parent can effectively home-school a child is flawed, witness covid. Some children flourish because most of their tutoring is one-to one and they receive all the attention they crave. But many are let down by this system and reach working age with an inadequate knowledge and poor preparation for the outside world^.
These children are failed in their preparation for life just as surely as the victims of abuse.

👏👏👏

There are extremely few places in the UK where this might be considered a preferable alternative, as schools in the vast majority of areas are within a reasonable reach.

Until we have an education system suited to all children, parents will be forced to homeschool. At the moment we have an almost one size fits all system and it is failing a lot of those with neurodiversity, medical problems and quite a lot of bright, conscientious children. It isn’t the fault of the teachers. The whole system needs adjusting with the finances to support it.
My daughter home-schooled because she was disabled and as she couldn’t get her daughter to the school next to her house, she was unable to take her child to the only available school. Apparently disabled parents aren’t part of the consideration in the admissions policy. It took a year before she was able to get into the local school. My daughter never wanted to home school.
I have met very few parents who wanted to home school but felt forced to for the sake of their child’s mental health.

Iam it took me so long to compose my last post that I missed yours, covering the same ground.

I’m afraid the ship of privatisation of fostering and residential services for looked after children sailed some 30 years ago. As far back as the mid 90s local authorities were forced to make cuts and hard decisions had to be made, so recruitment of foster carers was reduced, existing carers were not well supported, children’s homes were closed down and sold off. At the same time, services were deregulated and opened up to the private sector - enterprising individuals already working in the services saw an opportunity and took it. Local authorities with no resources of their own were forced to pay inflated fees and ironically were worse off than when they had their own provision. Since then, these agencies have been taken over by huge companies making huge profits. The staff are still social workers and are not paid any more than their local authority counterparts. The carers are paid more on paper than local authority foster carers but with no extras and I don’t believe they come out much better off. Private residential care homes for children are hugely expensive and standards of care do not merit the fees charged (in my opinion).

I agree that no one should be making a profit from vulnerable children, or from vulnerable older people, or from sick people etc but I’m afraid that’s the world we now live in and it has all happened under our noses, driven by both Labour and Conservative governments.

You're right - I started looking it up Iam. How the privatisation rapidly happened despite warnings of the dangers ahead.

www.communitycare.co.uk/2015/01/07/stealth-privatisation-childrens-services/