Unanswered questions after Leeds sex offender was given custody of child who he then got pregnant

The city’s Safeguarding Children Partnership (LSCP) published a report last week which detailed how a child suffered years of abuse by her legal guardian, who later got her pregnant. He was given custody of Ruby (not her real name) by a family court, despite the authorities knowing that he was a convicted paedophile.

One of the city’s councillors called for a “top-to-bottom review” of Leeds’ safeguarding procedures following the case. But LSCP, which is made up of Leeds City Council, the local NHS and West Yorkshire Police representatives, has refused to discuss any issues surrounding the case.

A request for an interview on the report’s findings made by the Local Democracy Reporting Service was rejected. The Partnership also failed to respond to questions about its handling of the affair or other aspects of the case.

The review into Ruby’s case said professionals linked to the case were “concerned” when a family court gave the offender custody of the girl, despite his criminal past. But it did not make clear if any other alternative arrangements for Ruby’s care were put to the court.

The authorities were criticised in the report for an “overreliance” on an outdated assessment from years before, that suggested the offender posed minimal risk to children. That original assessment was carried out by a child protection charity, The Lucy Faithfull Foundation, which says its findings looked at a “different set of circumstances at a different time”.

Adrian McNulty, director of operations at the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, said: “Assessments of risk will change over time and under different circumstances, which is why we make clear in our reports that they are not to be used for any other purpose without first seeking our authorisation.”

The Partnership has not explained why the charity’s assessment was used without speaking to them first and why it quoted passages of it “out of context” when the issue of Ruby’s custody came to court. Leeds City Council has also declined to comment on a claim that it did not consider Ruby’s plight serious enough to refer it upwards to a national safeguarding panel.

Under legislation brought in in 2019, local authorities are supposed to notify this panel of cases where a child dies or suffers serious harm. Last February, the council’s children and young people scrutiny board was told that the local authority had fallen out with the NHS and police over its decision not to refer two specific safeguarding case to national level.

At this meeting, it was the independent chair of the Leeds Safeguarding Children Partnership, Jasvinder Sanghera CBE, who raised the alarm. On that occasion, she told councillors: “I am here as a last resort, in all honesty. The system I raised concerns about last year, but in the here and now, I am in the position where another case has been highlighted, and two partners feel very strongly that it is notifiable in the interests of learning and of children.”

Ms Sanghera later admitted she had considered resigning from her position as a result, such was her strength of feeling over the issue. Although not confirmed in that February 2022 meeting itself, it is understood that Ruby’s case was one of those that was the subject of concern.

The council’s then director of children and families apologised in that meeting for “not bringing this matter previously”, but claimed: “It’s not just here in Leeds where there are cases about agreements and disagreements.”

Conservative councillor Ryan Stephenson, who sits on the children and young people scrutiny committee, says lessons need to be learnt. Speaking this week, he said: “The fact the political leadership in Leeds had to be shamed into referring this case to the national review panel, and that the council argued the abuse inflicted on this young victim did not constitute serious harm, is reason why we now need a top-to-bottom review of safeguarding procedures.

“This harrowing case has national significance and requires a national response: there should never be any circumstances where vulnerable children are placed into the care of convicted sex offenders.”

The council declined to comment in response to Coun Stephenson’s remarks.

A special scrutiny committee meeting was supposed to take place at Leeds Civic Hall on January 31 to discuss the issue of child safeguarding. The council cancelled the meeting in advance last week, citing the disruption anticipated by strike action in the education sector. It has yet to be rearranged.