If these reforms are law and guidance — why are families still being failed?

• Why are local authorities still operating in opaque, adversarial ways — often outside jurisdiction — in breach of law and guidance?
• Why are Special Guardianship Orders (SGOs) ending in death or breakdown not triggering mandatory reviews or parental contact as required?
• Why are some authorities still using deceptive or secretive measures, including Closed Material Procedures (CMPs), to bypass scrutiny in child protection cases?

Worse still, why are the very individuals and departments who oversee or enable these failures — instead of being subject to independent inquiry or formal sanction — receiving public honours, promotions, or peerage recognition?

(House of Lords – Children: Protection) Asked 9 December 2024 Ref UIN HL3304

“My Lords, I welcome the Government’s commitment to early intervention and their £500 million support for local authorities. However, reports such as Eroding the Right to Family Life and The Stealing of Emily highlight not only systemic delays but also the misuse of closed material procedures and cross-jurisdictional confusion, particularly in cases where English children are placed under the authority of Northern Irish institutions without proper oversight.

What specific mechanisms will the Department introduce to ensure that these reforms include mandatory safeguards against such practices—ensuring transparency in care proceedings, proper notification to parents, regular legal review of placements, and a robust appeal process? And will the new guidance explicitly prohibit secretive hearings that remove children from families without access to full evidence or cross-examination?”

Despite Baroness Smith of Malvern’s written assurance on 20 December 2024 — that local authorities “are required to provide services for children in need for the purposes of safeguarding and promoting their welfare” — why is it that:

• Early intervention is still routinely denied to vulnerable families?
• Parents who seek advocacy or clarification are often sidelined or labelled “hostile”?
• And those professionals or authorities who breach these obligations — sometimes with catastrophic effects — are rewarded with public honours rather than facing scrutiny, sanction, or removal?

The government guidance cited in the response (Working Together to Safeguard Children (2023), Keeping Children Safe, Helping Families Thrive (2024)) is both clear and commendable on paper — but what mechanisms ensure accountability when those tasked with upholding it do not?

What enforcement exists to prevent:

• Unlawful care placements, including across jurisdictions?
• Deliberate failure to notify family members of events such as the death of a Special Guardian (as exposed in The Stealing of Emily)?
• And the use of Closed Material Procedures (CMPs) to deny transparency in child protection?

Baroness Smith spoke of reforms, of seamless services and empowerment. But for many parents — especially those targeted by professionals with personal vendettas or unlawful motivations — these reforms are fiction.

Safeguarding isn’t a form.
It isn’t a performance review.
It’s a duty — to act lawfully, humanely, and with integrity.

If individuals like Dunkley can climb the ladder unchallenged, while good parents are thrown into silence — then the ladder itself is broken.

As Such

To access and complete the new survey , please visit: PFAN Parent and Carer Survey.

Please Choose ‘User’ fields to add additional information.

What the House of Lords should answer (House of Lords – Children: Protection)

“I welcome the Government’s commitment to early intervention and their £500 million support for local authorities. However, reports such as Eroding the Right to Family Life and The Stealing of Emily highlight not only systemic delays but also the misuse of closed material procedures and cross-jurisdictional confusion, particularly in cases where English children are placed under the authority of Northern Irish institutions without proper oversight.

What specific mechanisms will the Department introduce to ensure that these reforms include mandatory safeguards against such practices—ensuring transparency in care proceedings, proper notification to parents, regular legal review of placements, and a robust appeal process? And will the new guidance explicitly prohibit secretive hearings that remove children from families without access to full evidence or cross-examination?”

• Investigating Local Authority Failures in Child Care
• FOIA Request for Investigations on Little St James and Texas Ranch
• Re: Notification of Assessment Outcome – CASE-20246844 [SEC=OFFICIAL]
• Alleged Deletion of Specific Email Evidence
• Clarifying eGov’s History and Missing Video Insight