Systemic Failures in Child Protection: The Case of Emily

17th May 2025

This communication will further expose the systemic failures and questionable practices surrounding court processes, safeguarding failures, and cross-jurisdictional breaches that continue to affect families and children in both England and Northern Ireland.

Please stay tuned – the next post will contain the full text of the communication.

#JusticeForEmily #SecretCourts #ChildProtection #FamilyLawReform #NorthernIreland #England #TheStealingOfEmily #ClosedMaterialProceduresRequest for PACAC Scrutiny of Systemic Failures in Ombudsman and Oversight Bodies

My references: 2417-7910-f011-9989-000d3aaaeb97, CRM:0392500326,CRM:0028765030 PNX-5460997-W7K9, 24 012 899, [O] AE.145.25 NCA

My Legal References: Case Number: 1741 7947 6145 5930

Serious Fraud Office: c98c91180d570dc, 5e118dc08da84da, NFRC241207046189
ICO Complaint Reference: IC-337307-W2B4
IBAC & OVIC Reference: CASE-20246844
United Nations Human Rights: Ref: 2025-0012619 CRM:0221975
IBAC Formal Complaint (Ref: F243411550406, 24 December 2024)
OVIC Formal Complaint (Ref: CD/25/5885, 11 February 2025), C/25/00916
Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO): Reference IC-362648-R4R7.
Formal Negligence: East Sussex County Council: 19567481
OPNI: PONI 50239746-2024,
LGSO: 24012899,24/351 – 24 012 899 and 24/365

Dear Members of the Committee,

I write further to the automated acknowledgements of 13 May 2025 confirming receipt of my earlier correspondence (subject: Suspected unlawful concealment of a minor by Newry Social Services and related oversight failures).

I appreciate that PACAC cannot investigate individual cases. My purpose, therefore, is to invite the Committee to consider wider, systemic issues that fall squarely within its mandate to scrutinise constitutional matters, Civil Service administration and the performance of the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO).

I contacted Date: 13th May 2025 as I was not receiving any reply from my MP who appeared to be incommunicado One issue that I believe remains particularly relevant to your remit—especially in light of recent public interest—is the situation concerning my daughter’s Child Trust Fund (CTF). This matter is now before the court and appears to link directly to the broader national concern over the approximately 430,000 missing or mismanaged CTFs. Given the implications for children’s welfare, financial security, and data handling, I believe it is worthy of continued attention and would welcome your views or guidance on what might be done to ensure proper oversight and redress.

This all began with a private residency hearing I initiated out of concern for the deteriorating mental health of my partner, Catherine. My intention was to safeguard my daughter’s wellbeing and create a stable environment—so that I could at least put food on the table. However, instead of support, social services abruptly intervened in the hearing without a proper care order. Their actions led to chaos, and they ultimately failed in their duty of care. I firmly believe that their neglect directly contributed to the death of Catherine, Emily’s mother. I now understand that it was an illegal action by the Local Authority to serve papers on a court hearing to which they had no prior invitation or jurisdiction.

I wish to formally state that I have had multiple cases mishandled or entirely ignored by the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman (PHSO). Not only were my concerns not investigated appropriately, but correspondence I sent was wrongly directed to the Department of Health, leading to unnecessary delays. When PHSO finally received my letters via the DOH, they declined to investigate, compounding the harm and showing a total lack of engagement. My attempts to escalate and draw attention to the seriousness of the matter were deemed “rude,” though no specific issue could be identified in the recorded calls. I was offered no meaningful help. As a result, years later, my daughter remains missing, now the subject of an international missing persons case and a pending court action concerning the alleged theft of her trust fund. Her estrangement from her family has, in my view, been caused by a cynical creation of wealth from her misfortune and wrongful financial gain

I contacted William Moore urgently as following is information that I want you to pass to the PHSO

I am writing to seek an urgent response and action regarding the ongoing situation involving my daughter, Emily Newbold Smith. Despite repeated efforts to clarify her whereabouts and ensure proper legal processes, there has been a concerning lack of transparency and accountability.

Unlawful Removal of Emily

It is my understanding that the proceedings regarding Emily’s care were initiated under a private law application, yet no Form C110A was ever submitted by the Local Authority, making the Family Court’s jurisdiction over the matter invalid. As such, any orders issued by the court, including the removal of Emily from my care, were ultra vires (beyond the court’s lawful authority).

This constitutes not only a civil wrong but could also involve criminal acts, including procedural fraud, contempt of court, and misfeasance in public office. The unlawful actions by the Local Authority and judicial misconduct require immediate attention.

State-Sponsored Concealment

The UK Government’s stance that it “cannot intervene in civil or criminal matters” is an evasive response that fails to recognize the gravity of this situation. When the state is facilitating or financing care arrangements for a child removed under an unlawful order, it becomes more than a civil matter—it involves state-sponsored concealment of a child and a failure to uphold statutory safeguarding duties. This is a clear breach of Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to family and private life.

Immediate Demand for Answers

I now formally demand an immediate response to the following:

Where is my daughter, Emily?
Who authorized her removal, on what date, and under what legal power?
Where is Emily currently placed, and under what legal basis is her placement being funded?
Has Emily been adopted, placed in care, or otherwise detained without parental consent or the correct paperwork?

Request for Full Disclosure

I demand the full disclosure of the following documents to clarify the situation and ensure transparency:

Full court files, including the non-existence of Form C110A.
Complete court transcripts and judicial reasoning.
Disclosure of all legal submissions, internal notes, and records from Legal Gateway Meetings.
Records from East Sussex County Council detailing their involvement.
An investigation into potential judicial misconduct by Judge Hollis for acting without jurisdiction.

Legal Consequences of Continued Obstruction

If these questions remain unanswered or if there is continued obstruction of justice, I will pursue legal action for institutional negligence, abuse of power, and actionable harm. This letter serves as formal notice that failure to act in good faith or to secure the return of my wrongfully removed child will be cited in future litigation.

I expect an immediate response, which includes:

A clear answer to the whereabouts of my daughter.
Confirmation of all legal bases for her removal and current care.
Full disclosure of the requested documents.

Please consider this a matter of utmost urgency. I also encourage you to review the following posts which provide further context:

I look forward to your prompt and thorough response.

1. Pattern of failed oversight

Body	Case / ref.	Systemic concern
PHSO	RM SD SF 5814 9031 4GB (child-safeguarding complaint, lodged 04 Jan 2021)	Serial referrals to agencies that had already disclaimed jurisdiction; no primary evidence gathered; 4-year delay with no resolution.
Local Government & Social Care Ombudsman	Parliamentary ref. SF 8012 6763 9GB (Dept. of Health, 21 Feb 2022)	Decisions reached without considering complete record; reliance on closed material from local authority.
Information Commissioner’s Office	IC-337307-W2B4 (28 Oct 2024)	SAR delays far beyond statutory limits; failure to compel disclosure from data controllers despite clear breach.
Police Ombudsman for Northern Ireland	Complaints form (23 Sep 2024)	No acknowledgement of evidence of possible unlawful concealment of a minor; no timeline for investigation.

These individual files—copies already supplied—illustrate a coherent pattern: oversight bodies default to referral, data reduction, or procedural closure rather than investigation, leaving complainants without remedy and obscuring accountability.

2. Closed Material Procedures (CMP) and administrative “prorogation”

My case records show increasing use of CMP (or CMP-style restrictions) by both local authorities and ombudsman services. The effect is to withhold material evidence from the parties most affected, defeating Articles 6 & 8 ECHR and eroding public confidence.

3. Corruption & fraud allegations escalated

Action Fraud report 8872649 (forwarded to SFO, Oct 2024) cites potential misrepresentation of safeguarding data by a public official.
Documentation suggests misuse of public funds and falsified records to justify administrative inaction.

4. ECHR application now pending

An application titled “The Stealing of Emily” was lodged with the Strasbourg Court on 3 Dec 2024 (Articles 6, 8, 14; Children Act 1989 breaches). While the Court will decide the merits, the material submitted—over fifty PDFs and exhibits—provides a consolidated audit trail that may assist PACAC in future PHSO scrutiny.

Request to the Committee

Include these systemic issues—referral culture, CMP over-reach, ombudsman delay/inertia, data-protection non-enforcement—within the Committee’s next annual evidence session or any forthcoming inquiry into the PHSO and allied oversight bodies.
Invite written evidence from affected stakeholders (myself included) when such an inquiry opens; my compiled dossier can be supplied in whatever format the Committee requires.
Consider recommending cross-body standards for:
- time-limited referral loops;
- mandatory disclosure of anonymised-statistics methodologies;
- transparent HR escalation routes for complainants alleging staff misconduct.

I trust that framing these matters as systemic rather than personal places them within PACAC’s purview. I remain ready to assist and to provide source documentation in hard copy, electronic format, or under oath, as the Committee prefers.

Thank you for your consideration.

Yours faithfully,

Martin Newbold
Director, Hastings Badger Protection Ltd.
Author, The Stealing of Emily; The Badgers of Bunger Hill series
martinnewbold.co.uk | thestealingofemily.co.uk

Attachment list (available on request)
A consolidated index of 54 PDFs (2017–2025), including: Action Fraud/SFO reports, ICO correspondence, PHSO case files, CMP transcripts, SAR responses, and relevant tribunal pleading

thestealingofemily.co.uk