Emily Newbold and Juliette Lewin – Side-by-Side Factual Synopsis

Emily Newbold’s case	Juliette Lewin / granddaughter’s case
Emily was in the care of her father, Martin Newbold, at his mother’s home. Martin states that he was caring for Emily and arranging her schooling at the time East Sussex intervened. Source: https://martinnewboldmn.substack.com/p/east-sussex-section-47-offences	Juliette Lewin publicly describes herself as a grandmother seeking answers about, and contact with, her grandchildren. Her published material centres particularly on concerns for a granddaughter and her efforts to have safeguarding concerns investigated. Source: https://juliettelewin-socfb.wordpress.com/
Martin states that no proper assessment was carried out of him or of Emily in that placement before the matter went before the Family Court. His central Section 47 question is therefore what enquiries East Sussex actually undertook before deciding Emily should be removed from his care. Source: https://martinnewboldmn.substack.com/p/east-sussex-section-47-offences	Public material concerning Juliette’s case alleges that she has repeatedly raised safeguarding concerns about her granddaughter with social services and police, and that those concerns have not been dealt with adequately. A June 2026 petition makes those allegations explicitly, although those allegations are not themselves proof that the authorities acted unlawfully. Source: https://www.change.org/p/expose-social-services-dismissive-of-eveayah-s-abuse
Martin says Emily was removed from his care and returned to her mother, and that her mother later lost the children through neglect. Source: https://martinnewboldmn.substack.com/p/east-sussex-section-47-offences	Juliette’s public campaign seeks intervention concerning her granddaughter and argues that the child should instead be in Juliette’s care. That is the position advanced by Juliette and supporters, rather than an independently established court finding located in the material reviewed here. Source: https://www.change.org/p/expose-social-services-dismissive-of-eveayah-s-abuse
Martin’s case raises a specific Section 47 process issue: Section 47 required East Sussex to make such enquiries as it considered necessary to determine what safeguarding action should be taken. The disputed factual question is whether meaningful enquiries were made concerning Martin and Emily’s actual circumstances before action was taken. Source: https://martinnewboldmn.substack.com/p/east-sussex-section-47-offences	Juliette’s case raises the converse safeguarding question: where a relative repeatedly reports alleged risks to a child, what enquiries were actually undertaken in response to those reports, what evidence was examined, and how were the concerns resolved? The publicly available campaign material alleges that her representations were dismissed or inadequately addressed. Source: https://www.change.org/p/expose-social-services-dismissive-of-eveayah-s-abuse
Martin independently undertook a six-week Solihull assessment/course through another local authority and says that he passed it. He states that this positive evidence was subsequently dismissed by the East Sussex social worker. Source: https://martinnewboldmn.substack.com/p/east-sussex-section-47-offences	Juliette’s published material presents her as having continued to pursue safeguarding concerns and contact with her grandchildren. I have not found comparable independent assessment documentation concerning Juliette in the publicly accessible material, so it would be unsafe to suggest that such an assessment either did or did not occur. Source: https://juliettelewin-socfb.wordpress.com/
Martin alleges that false information was subsequently placed before the Family Court, including evidence connected with Christine Elizabeth Stirling and a disputed genogram. His published account expressly treats the question of knowingly false evidence as something requiring proof of what was said, its materiality and the speaker’s knowledge. Source: https://martinnewboldmn.substack.com/p/east-sussex-section-47-offences	Juliette and supporters make serious allegations concerning the response of social services and police. The public sources reviewed do not provide enough primary court or authority documentation to state those allegations as established findings of fact. Source: https://www.change.org/p/expose-social-services-dismissive-of-eveayah-s-abuse
Core question: How could a decision to remove Emily from the person actually caring for her be properly reached if that carer and that placement had not first been adequately assessed? Source: https://martinnewboldmn.substack.com/p/east-sussex-section-47-offences	Core question: How were repeated allegations of risk to a child investigated, recorded and resolved, and is there documentary evidence demonstrating that the required safeguarding enquiries actually occurred? Source: https://www.change.org/p/expose-social-services-dismissive-of-eveayah-s-abuse
Common safeguarding issue: whether the statutory process followed the evidence, or whether a predetermined conclusion was reached without adequate examination of the child’s actual circumstances.	Common safeguarding issue: whether concerns raised by family members were properly investigated through evidence-based safeguarding enquiries rather than simply accepted or dismissed without adequate examination.

The common thread

The two cases are not being presented as identical.

They raise a common, testable documentary question:

What safeguarding enquiries were actually performed, what evidence did the authority possess, and does the contemporaneous record support the decision that was eventually made?