There is a clear policy timeline in which family-court contact reforms and DfE safeguarding reforms altered the framework for parent-child contact and child protection reporting. My concern is that these powers can be misused where social care reports are exaggerated, selectively drafted, or ‘sexed up’, resulting in children being isolated from a parent without proper evidential scrutiny.

Family court/contact reform — removal/repeal of the presumption that parental involvement is automatically in the child’s best interests. The public justification is child safety/domestic abuse, but your argument is that it can also be used to stop children speaking to a parent.

“In October 2025, the Government announced its intention to repeal the statutory presumption of parental involvement. The stated justification was child safety and domestic abuse. My concern is that, without strong evidential safeguards, the same change may also be used to justify preventing children from speaking to a parent on the basis of contested or exaggerated social care material.”

Cite

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-action-to-protect-children-from-abusive-parents and
2. https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-statements/detail/2025-10-22/hlws976

DfE social care reforms — DfE is responsible for child protection policy and statutory guidance, and 2026 changes strengthen multi-agency safeguarding, information sharing, family help, and child protection teams. Your allegation — that those mechanisms create the conditions for “sexed-up” social care reports: risk language, safeguarding labels, and professional assertions being used to justify separation or non-contact.

DfE’s note on multi-agency child protection teams says the Bill requires those teams to support local authorities in discharging child protection duties under section 47 of the Children Act 1989, while local authorities remain responsible for enquiries and decisions about action to protect a child.

Cite

1. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/working-together-to-safeguard-children–2
2. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/multi-agency-child-protection-teams-regulation-making-powers/multi-agency-child-protection-teams-regulation-making-powers

Government immigration and public health policies should ensure appropriate health screening and disease control measures to minimise the risk of importing infectious diseases and protect the wider population.

1. Communications were sent to the Prime Minister’s office / Cabinet Office and were not answered.

2. At the same time, the oversight route you were expected to use — the LGSO/LGSCO — had been weakened by lack of funding or investigation capacity.

The state cannot lawfully ignore safeguarding communications while also leaving the oversight body under-resourced or unable to investigate. That creates an accountability gap.

For the record: I have contacted 640 MPs regarding my missing daughter, Emily, and I have received a reply from each MP. This matter is now also part of my complaint to the Department for Education. Approximately 640 MPs were contacted regarding a safeguarding concern relating to Emily Newbold and wider child traceability issues. This generated approximately 3,200 email responses, acknowledgements, referrals, constituency notices and office replies. None of those responses addressed the core safeguarding question or provided confirmation of Emily Newbold’s location, safeguarding status, education status, NHS status, or traceability through public systems.

Previous Communication Evidence.

1. https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps.php
2. https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_missing_emily.php
3. https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_shadowban_video.php
4. https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_mps_missing_emily_please_contact%20DFE.php
5. https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_parliamentary_mp_safeguarding_epstein_bbc.php
6. https://www.stealingofemily.world/mailout/mail_surrey_police_non_safe_guarding_of_mps.php

Mail sent out to MP’s today

• formal notice of safeguarding concerns
• asking whether Emily Newbold is alive, safe, or deceased
• asking for police/professional standards reference numbers
• arguing that failure to act may enable continuing risk asking MPs and police to preserve audit trails and routing decisions
• reference to mandamus / mandatory order language

---

• Kiers Starmers abuse of Children and Parents a legacy
• Mistakes in Child Protection: An Open Letter to Social Work England
• Prime minister Apologized to Epstein Victims
• Fabian Society Members in the Labour Party (2026)
• Well, you view the optics and answer the question is this case of body snatchers?