You can now see why this is a systemic state-sponsored abduction of Emily, the fact that East Sussex had passed over my child to another unrelated person, not where the court specified!

If the court specified a placement (or a defined category of carer) and ESCC then placed/handed Emily to an unrelated person, that’s not a “minor admin error”; it’s the kind of fact pattern that can support a systemic allegation (at minimum: unlawful/unauthorised placement + duty failure), provided you can anchor it to the paperwork.

Two things to lean on when you write it up:

• A local authority that is (or was) the “responsible authority” for a looked-after child has ongoing placement/care-planning duties under the Care Planning, Placement and Case Review (England) Regulations 2010. Legislation.gov.uk+1
• If ESCC were accommodating under Children Act 1989 s.20 (or otherwise “looking after” Emily), it’s hard to reconcile “no involvement” with those duties without a documented lawful transfer/ending of responsibility. Legislation.gov.uk+1

The “make-or-break” proof points to assemble (so it can’t be waved away)

1. Sealed court order(s) for the relevant date(s): exactly what the court directed.
2. Placement record: who Emily was actually placed with, start date/time, address, legal basis.
3. Status of the carer: foster carer approval / “connected person” temporary approval (Reg 24) / any assessment. (Reg 24 is commonly the route councils cite if they say “emergency placement with a connected person”.) https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2010/959/regulation/24
4. Care plan + placement plan (required documents/timelines are set out in the LA duties framework). https://childlawadvice.org.uk/information-pages/local-authority-duties-to-looked-after-children/
5. Your 2016 call: extract the verbatim line(s) where Jack says ESCC have “no involvement”, with timestamps — this becomes an “admission against interest” type exhibit in a complaint bundle.

How to frame it (strong, but legally clean)

Instead of leading with “state-sponsored abduction” as a conclusion, lead with the verifiable contradiction:

“The court order dated [date] specified [placement]. ESCC’s actions resulted in Emily being placed with/handed to [unrelated person / not specified by the order]. In a recorded call on 11 Nov 2016, ESCC complaints officer Jack Peirce stated Children’s Services had ‘no involvement’ thereafter. This appears inconsistent with ESCC’s statutory responsibilities and the care-planning/placement framework, and I ask that this be investigated as an unlawful/unauthorised placement and safeguarding failure.”

Fastest escalation route that fits children’s social care

Use the Children Act statutory complaints procedure (3 stages).

• https://www.lgo.org.uk/make-a-complaint/fact-sheets/social-care/social-care-for-children/the-children-act-1989-complaints-procedure

If they stonewall or mishandle it, that procedure is exactly what the Ombudsman expects you to use first.

• Reinvestigating Child Exploitation Cases: Operation BeaconPort
• PIE and my unanswered request Fri, Dec 12, 2025 at 2:22 PM
• Letter To Cabinet Office
• Urgent Appeal to the King for Christmas Help in Finding Missing Child
• FORMAL EVIDENCE SUBMISSION: Verification of “abx17@dial.pipex.com” (The Invisible Man) via EFTA Records and TalkTalk Business Metadata