The tragic death of Sara Sharif once again sheds light on the systemic failures to adequately assess risk and protect vulnerable children. This is a recurring theme, as detailed in the article “What were the missed chances to prevent Sara Sharif’s death?” from December 11. What can we truly take away from these tragedies? There’s a certain frustration in reading Rachel de Souza’s statement, the children’s commissioner for England, urging that we need “no more reviews, no more strategies, no more debate,” as an homage to Sara’s memory.
However, if only it were that simple, wouldn’t we have succeeded in finding solutions over the past 50 years since the tragic case of Maria Colwell in 1973? The need for ongoing reviews, strategies, and discussions is undeniable, given the complex nature of child protection, both administratively and emotionally. Mistakes will, unfortunately, persist, but continuous adaptation and discourse are vital because protecting children cannot be boiled down to catchy slogans.
As someone who has worked as a social worker and educator, I felt compelled to express my thoughts when Arthur Labinjo-Hughes and Star Hobson lost their lives (Letters, May 30, 2022). Each time a tragedy strikes, we’re met with cries of “never again.” But two years on, have we addressed the underlying issues to prevent further deaths?
Research indicates that complete elimination of errors is impossible. Instead, the best approach lies in considering decisions as tentative, ready to evolve as new evidence emerges. But achieving this requires open debate—something we might lose if the children’s commissioner resists further discussion.
The phrase “never again” doesn’t stand up to reality. Although mistakes are made by social care professionals, it’s often those closest to the children—the carers—who commit these acts behind closed doors. I hope Sara’s legacy is not reduced to an empty mantra.
Dr. David Saltiel
Hebden Bridge, West Yorkshire
The children’s commissioner has pointed out the necessity of an integrated information system for seamless communication among social workers, teachers, and health professionals. She suggested a system to assign each child a reference number for identification. We had such a system called ContactPoint, created following the Children Act 2004, partly a result of Lord Laming’s report on Victoria Climbié. I, along with others, contributed to its development throughout England, and it was operational by 2010.
Regrettably, this system was dismantled due to the coalition agreement post-2010 election, which called for its discontinuation and the destruction of associated data. Consequently, five years of dedicated work and financial investment were abruptly discarded. More importantly, for nearly 15 years, children like Sara haven’t received the level of protection intended by parliament. It’s worth questioning the rationale behind removing this integral part of our child protection efforts, with figures like Sir Ed Davey offering explanations?
Tony Clamp
Cambridge
As a retired child protection social worker, I’d like to offer insights on this heartbreaking case. Often, social services bear the brunt of criticism. But we should also consider the role of judges in family courts; after all, they make the custody decisions. The workers dealing with cunning individuals who abuse children need incredible perseverance.
Studies show that a child’s risk escalates when step-parents are involved. Sara’s stepmother deceived not only social workers but everyone. Years ago, police and social workers collaborated more effectively on child abuse cases. It’s vital that we return to such partnerships.
Diane Johnson
Birmingham
Granting custody of Sara Sharif to her father, who ultimately caused her demise, underscores a persistent failure by both the courts and social services to safeguard children. The underlying assumption that maintaining contact with biological relatives serves the child’s best interests needs to be reassessed. My personal experience shows that this can lead to devastating consequences.
The proposed Judd report, aiming to simplify birth relatives’ involvement in adopted children’s lives, could exacerbate situations where children were previously removed from parental care. Supporting networks, often seen as sufficient for child safety, are practically nonexistent for those of us who’ve navigated this terrain.
Each time a tragedy occurs, there are promises of change. It’s high time to prioritize children’s rights above all else.
Name and address withheld
As a former local authority deputy director of children’s services, I reflect on the structural changes post-Victoria Climbié’s death in 2000. The Children Act 2004 mandated that child welfare bodies collaborate more closely. This led to merging local education authorities and children’s social care into new children’s services departments, demanding a new directorial role often hard to fill, necessitating substantial salary hikes to attract competent candidates.
This structural overhaul cost my authority hundreds of thousands, and nationwide, it was several million. While I benefited personally, I firmly believe that directing these funds towards expanding the workforce and improving salaries for social workers could have significantly mitigated risks to children like Sara Sharif. Governments tend to favor flashy measures (like the Dangerous Dogs Act), and while structures do have their place, it’s the dedicated individuals on the ground who truly make a difference. Let’s hope the current government takes cues from past lessons in child welfare.
John Surowiec
Devizes, Wiltshire
If you have a photo to share with Guardian readers, please click here to upload it. Selected pictures will appear in our Readers’ best photographs galleries and in Saturday’s print edition.
