Parents engaged because the government asked them to. The failure is the state’s barrier to access and its operational gaps when children cross systems, leaving families locked out of money and records. Contrary to PAC framing, parents did not sign their children’s removal and did not sign their children away. The “lack of capacity” explanation assumes a clean legal pathway via parental authority, while ignoring the possibility that some of these young people may be in, or have been through, the care system. If so, Virtual School infrastructure and its data chain should be able to account for them — and if it cannot, that is not parental failure but a system accountability collapse.

1) The Child Trust Fund (CTF) and Parental Engagement
Parents were actively engaged by the government to open or accept Child Trust Funds. The failure is not parental non-participation at the outset. The failure is what happens when the child turns 18. Where a young person is assessed as lacking capacity, families are forced into expensive and complex legal routes to gain authority over relatively modest sums. The parents did their part; the state created a barrier that disproportionately locks out its most vulnerable citizens.

The state engaged parents to open the funds, then built a legal and data maze that can leave the most vulnerable young people untraceable, their families locked out, and the system unable — or unwilling — to account clearly for where they are.

2) Why Clear Law on Child Removal Can Still Fail in Practice
The law on removal without consent is clear on paper, but the system often fails in practice because enforcement becomes harder once a child crosses borders. Where international frameworks do not apply, or where the case is treated as a civil dispute rather than an urgent safeguarding emergency, parents can be left without a fast, effective mechanism to recover the child. This is not a theoretical gap; it is a real-world breakdown that families confront.

“Parents engaged because the government asked them to — the failure is the state’s barrier to access and its operational gaps when a child reaches adulthood or crosses systems, leaving families locked out of both money and records. Contrary to PACS statements they Parents did not sign their children’s removal Parents did not sign their children away contrary to PAC statements that a child is lacking capacity it also notes that a parental signature is require and fails to realize that these children may well be in the care system and Gary Daniels and Virtual school is clueless as to where they are!”

3) NHS Records and Safeguarding “Information Black Holes”
Where children move across jurisdictions — or where they go missing from systems entirely — parents can experience what feels like the rescinding or disappearance of records. Whether from data fragmentation, system failures, or poor cross-agency coordination, the effect is the same: a collapse of continuity of care and a reduced ability to protect the child.

Core Point
This is how systems can become a pipeline: not because parents did nothing, but because institutional design, legal bottlenecks, and enforcement gaps create a predictable pattern of harm.

Why many CTFs go unclaimed (without blaming parents)

Even aside from capacity cases, lots of 18–20-year-olds simply don’t claim because of mundane but systemic reasons:

• people don’t know the account exists,
• letters went to old addresses,
• families moved,
• the account is small so it’s not on anyone’s radar,
• providers’ outreach isn’t strong enough.

That’s a governance failure of access, tracing, and communication, not a story about parental apathy.

• 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