An inexperienced social worker tasked by a local authority with assessing Sara Sharif’s parents did not identify her father as posing any risk despite noting safeguarding concerns.
The social worker’s report, described as “very thorough”, was submitted as evidence ahead of a final hearing in 2019 at which a senior judge made the ultimate decision that Sara should live with her father, Urfan Sharif, and stepmother, Beinash Batool, who were last week found guilty of murdering the 10-year-old schoolgirl.
The document, which was shared with the press following an unprecedented disclosure of private court papers, failed to provide any analysis of the harm posed by Sharif despite listing a string of allegations made against him between 2010 and 2015.
Now the Observer can reveal the author was allocated the complex case in July 2019 only nine months after starting their employment with Surrey county council (SCC), having gained their social work qualification two years earlier.
It raises serious questions as to why Surrey did not place the burden of such a sensitive case involving an extremely volatile family with a more experienced staff member.
Surrey’s children’s services department was tasked with preparing the report before a hearing on 9 October 2019 by which point Sara was no longer living with her mother, Olga Domin, 38. The children had already moved to live with Sharif and Batool because, according to Sharif, Sara told him she was being abused by Domin.
In May, Sharif, 42, and Batool, 30, had applied with Domin’s consent for Sara and her sibling to live with them and an initial hearing was held in July 2019. The outcome was for the two children to live with the couple and for Domin to have supervised contact until a further order was made, pending the local authority’s welfare assessment.
At the hearing on 9 October, the judge put the recommendations of the social worker to Domin, who appeared without legal representation, and agreed to the children living with their father and her contact being supervised.
It was said at the hearing by a member of Surrey’s social work team that “at the conclusion of the proceedings the intention would be that Surrey county council children’s services do not have any further involvement”, although the local authority did agree to do some work to support Domin and Batool’s tense relationship so that the supervised contact could progress.
The senior judge at the hearing described the SCC document as a “very thorough report” and “a very good piece of work”, before going on to adopt its recommendations.
The report outlines allegations against Domin, which – as with other claims against both parents – were not tested in court, stating that Sara said she was “pinched, punched, threatened with lighters and being drowned in the bath by her mother”.
Domin went on to admit “smacking” Sara, then aged six, on the bottom but without leaving a mark, and to finding her behaviour “hard to manage”, but said further allegations against her were untrue.
The family’s contact with two different local authorities – Surrey and Hampshire – is detailed by the social worker along with safeguarding concerns relating to both Sharif and Domin over a nine-year period. It notes that in 2015 Sharif had sought sole care of Sara and her sibling but this was ruled out.
It notes that Domin reported fleeing domestic abuse by Sharif as early as 2010 and there were reports from the same year that he struck one of Sara’s siblings three times on the head. Her other sibling had also been assaulted, with a handprint on their back identified by hospital staff.
Sharif denied the allegations. But further concerns were raised, including in 2011 when one of Sara’s siblings reported to their school that a bruise seen on their temple was caused by Sharif, the report notes.
However, when it comes to the analysis, no link is made by the social worker between these incidents and the fact that Sharif, a taxi driver, could pose an ongoing danger to his children.
This is despite the fact his past behaviour had given sufficient concern to the same senior judge who made the final order – and who is unusually anonymised by a court order – to the point that in November 2015 they ordered Sara should only be permitted to see her father under supervision.
This was ordered subject to “the father undertaking work to address the domestic violence issues and until he has been assessed as posing no risk to the children in unsupervised contact”.
Instead, the risks identified in the report are laid out in relation to the more recent allegations against Domin, with the author adding: “However, I do not have any concerns for the children remaining in the care of their father, as the children have reported being happy and feeling safe, and not suffering any form of physical harm in the care of their father and Beinash.”
Strikingly, the report fails to reference a letter from the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service (Cafcass) submitted to the court three months earlier which highlights “safeguarding concerns” in relation to Sharif.
The letter reports that Domin had no criminal convictions but had accepted a caution for biting one of Sara’s siblings in 2014. That child was later removed from the parents, who were still together at the time, and placed in foster care.
But details of Sharif’s police contact were also listed by Cafcass, including four incidents in which serious allegations of assault and abuse had been made against him between 2007 and 2012. They resulted in no further action.
Those incidents include reports of punching and hitting a former partner over a period of three days, hitting a very young child, and false imprisonment of a woman who was held against her will for five days. A further report of false imprisonment two years earlier included threatening a woman with a knife and threats to kill. No charges were made.
It is unclear as to whether Surrey children’s services had sight of the Cafcass letter which found: “The four ‘no further actions’ on Mr Sharif’s police check do expose safeguarding concerns.”
The Cafcass letter notes Domin “admits experiencing domestic violence by Mr Sharif” and fled to a refuge with Sara and one sibling; it goes on to observe that Domin felt Sharif had addressed his issues and no longer posed a risk to the children.
It states that the court referred Sharif to a domestic abuse perpetrators’ programme “for six months in around 2015/2016” at which time his contact with the children was being supervised by SCC.
The letter states: “Mr Sharif reports that he has addressed his anger issues. He considers that any repetition of previous types of his angry behaviour will not happen again.” It does not indicate whether or not the course was completed.
The Cafcass family court adviser who wrote the letter said their initial advice was for the children to remain in the care of Sharif and Batool “in the interim and until the Surrey LA check is returned and evidences no ongoing safeguarding issues”.
In making their recommendations in the report three months later, SCC found the risk to Sara and her sibling in their mother’s care would be “high” and that they would be at risk of physical harm if they were to have any unsupervised contact with her “at present”.
The report concluded the children should reside with Sharif and Batool, “given how much safer they state they feel”, and urged that Batool should continue to supervise the children’s contact with their mother, a point that was later also urged by the judge. In the social worker’s opinion, Sharif “appears to have the children’s welfare at heart”.
The social worker recommended that Sharif should be given responsibility for deciding whether and when to increase the children’s contact with their mother, an alleged victim of his abuse.
“I have assessed Urfan as being able to make decisions, in line with the safety and wellbeing of the children,” the report said.
The application for the release of documents was made in September 2023 by two freelance journalists (the authors of this piece) and later joined by other media organisations.
A criminal trial heard how Sara suffered unimaginable cruelty living with her father and stepmother. By the time she died from an accumulation of the abuse inflicted on her, Sara had sustained about 100 separate internal and external injuries having been bitten, burned and beaten.
Sharif and Batool were found guilty of murdering Sara at the Old Bailey last week. Sara’s paternal uncle who had been living with the family was found guilty of allowing or causing the death of a child. They are due to be sentenced on Tuesday.
Surrey county council would not comment while an independent review of professionals who had contact with Sara’s family was under way.
