Sara Shafiq- A Life Surrounded by Risk
Sara Shafiq’s life unfolded within a landscape of known risk, risk which was present long before she was born. Her parents met in Poland in 2009.
Her birthmother, a Polish national, later moved to the UK to live with Sara’s father, a Pakistani national. At the time they formed their relationship, the father already had a documented pattern of abusive behaviour, including allegations of false imprisonment of Polish women reported to police in 2007 and 2009. These concerns were known to agencies before Sara entered the world.
By 2010, police were raising concerns about neglect involving Sara’s older half-sibling, then aged three. Later that same year, Sara’s maternal grandmother reported domestic abuse perpetrated by the father. The birthmother fled the family home with the children and sought refuge in a hotel. During subsequent child protection medical examinations, the half-sibling was found to have finger-mark bruising. As would later become a recurring feature, the father denied responsibility and instead alleged that he was the victim.
Surrey Children’s Services initiated Section 47 enquiries, and all children were placed on a child protection plan for emotional abuse and domestic abuse. Despite the seriousness of these concerns, the child protection plan was closed in August 2011 without evidence that the father’s abusive behaviour had been addressed. Within weeks, a further domestic abuse incident occurred. The older half-sibling was again seen with bruising, and a second child protection plan was initiated. Once more, the father responded with counter-allegations.
Sara was born in January 2013 into this already high-risk environment, while her siblings remained subject to child protection planning. The Local Authority initially sought interim care orders, proposing separation from both parents. However, this plan was withdrawn early in the proceedings, and interim supervision orders were granted instead. Around this time, the father was convicted of theft. A disclosure by the older half-sibling, that the father had kicked them, was closed as ‘no further action,’ despite professional unease.
The first set of care proceedings concluded in September 2013 with a 12-month supervision order for all children. As was common practice at the time, the child protection plans were ended once the supervision order was made. Practitioners later reflected that the Children’s Guardian had overridden their professional judgments, and that the court had been reluctant to authorise removal. The outcome left the Local Authority providing high-intensity support in the home without a robust, multi-agency supervision framework; a missed opportunity that would have lasting consequences.
Concerns resurfaced in March 2014 when Sara’s older half-sibling told a police officer that the father had hit them. Although injuries were not observed at that time, the disclosure was shared with Children’s Services. The situation escalated dramatically in November 2014, when the half-sibling alleged that the birthmother had bitten them. The birthmother was arrested and cautioned, admitting the bite but describing it as part of a game. All three children were placed into police protection, though within 24 hours, the emergency protection order remained only for the older half-sibling.
This incident marked a pivotal shift. The parents separated, and the court required the birthmother to live elsewhere while Sara and her sibling remained with their father. This separation later became central to professional assessments. Surrey Children’s Services applied for interim care orders for all children, but an agreement was reached allowing Sara and her sibling to stay temporarily with the father while the birthmother lived apart. The following month, she was permitted to return home after assessment, while the older half-sibling remained in foster care.
During foster care, the half-sibling made further disclosures of physical abuse by both parents and expressed significant fear of the father. Psychological and parenting assessments were undertaken. In May 2015, the court made a final care order for the older half-sibling by parental consent. That child went on to thrive with foster carers and the support of her school and the virtual school.
For Sara and her sibling, the Local Authority initially planned adoption due to cumulative concerns: domestic abuse, physical chastisement, instability, and inconsistent parental engagement. However, professional views shifted after the birthmother disclosed ongoing domestic abuse, demonstrated insight into harm, and expressed a desire to protect the children. Her separation from the father, itself prompted by domestic abuse, was treated as a protective factor by the Children’s Guardian, who emphasised the importance of maintaining the children’s relationship with her. Following an updated parenting assessment and legal consultation, the Local Authority amended its plan to a supervision order.
In November 2015, final court orders were made for Sara and her sibling to live with their birthmother under a 12-month supervision order. The father’s contact was to be supervised only, unless otherwise agreed, and he was required to attend a domestic abuse perpetrator programme. He was prohibited from harassing or contacting the birthmother outside contact arrangements. Supervised sibling contact with the older half-sibling was also to be maintained. During this period, the stepmother’s pregnancy was disclosed, yet no assessment of risks to her was undertaken despite the father’s known history of domestic abuse.
Critical analysis later highlighted the absence of a fact-finding hearing into the father’s violence, an over-reliance on parental separation as protection, the failure to use Clare’s Law to warn the stepmother, and the lack of follow-up to ensure completion of the perpetrator programme.
By 2016, the stepmother had given birth, and a child protection plan was initiated for the baby due to the father’s history. The stepmother disclosed serious mental health episodes from the previous year, but follow-up was limited. The domestic abuse programme revealed serious incidents, yet the father failed to complete it. Crucially, this information was not uploaded to the main child record, creating a significant gap.
Despite unresolved risks, the child protection plans for the babies were ended.
Between 2016 and 2017, the supervision order for Sara and her sibling lapsed without consideration of extension. Unsupervised contact with the father was permitted without assessment, and the case was closed. In 2018, Home-Start became involved but was unaware of the family’s extensive safeguarding history. They reported overcrowding, isolation, and pressure relating to the stepmother, while describing the father as charming and helpful to professionals.
In March 2019, the father alleged that the birthmother had injured Sara and her sibling. Hospital assessments found no marks. Under pressure, the birthmother agreed that the children should live with the father. Surrey Children’s Services concluded that the father had taken ‘appropriate steps,’ without verifying key information. Private law proceedings followed. Cafcass highlighted the father’s domestic abuse history, yet recommended the children remain with him pending checks. A Section 7 report was allocated to an inexperienced social worker.
Historical files were not fully reviewed, the Cafcass safeguarding letter was not seen early, GP health checks returned blank, and no contact was made with the older half-sibling’s social worker.
In October 2019, the court ordered that Sara and her sibling live with the father and stepmother. The stepmother gained parental responsibility. The birthmother’s contact became supervised and controlled by the stepmother. No interpreter was provided, effectively silencing the birthmother’s voice.
From this point onward, abuse escalated behind closed doors. Text messages later recovered by police showed that the father began assaulting Sara soon after she moved in. The stepmother shared photos of bruises with her sisters and reported that the father ‘went crazy’ and beat Sara. Agencies remained unaware.
During the COVID-19 lockdown, Sara became increasingly isolated in an overcrowded home. Although her school identified her as a young carer, referrals were not pursued. Contact with her older half-sibling ceased. In June 2022, a visible bruise was accepted as accidental. A week later, following a poor school report, the father withdrew Sara for elective home education.
Failures in Elected Home Education (EHE) oversight followed. Referrals were delayed, home visits not arranged, address discrepancies ignored, and the birthmother was not informed despite holding parental responsibility. In March 2023, Sara returned to school with significant facial bruising. Despite a safeguarding referral, incomplete checks, over-reliance on the father’s explanation, and lack of professional curiosity resulted in no further action.
From April 2023, Sara disappeared from professional view. In August 2023, her father phoned the police to say he had killed her. Sara was found deceased, having endured prolonged torture and abuse. Her father and stepmother were convicted of murder; her uncle was convicted of causing or allowing her death.
Sara’s life reveals a consistent pattern of known domestic abuse, fragmented systems, lost information, misplaced faith in court orders, and repeated missed opportunities. Elective home education became a critical blind spot. Her story is not one failure but many, layered over years, across agencies, with devastating consequences.
The tragic safeguarding failures to protect Sara are yet another indication that statutory multi-agency practice is lacking with professionals working in silos. This case clearly demonstrates the void between statutory guidance and its application in everyday practice.
SSS Learning
15 December 2025