Children like Sara Sharif deserve to be seen, heard and believed

Sara’s death should mark a turning point, writes Professor Michelle McManus. We owe it to her and to every child who has suffered systemic failures to do more than state the same routine findings and recommendations

In recent weeks, the heartbreaking details surrounding the death of Sara Sharif have dominated headlines. Her father and stepmother have now been sentenced to life in prison for murdering the 10-year-old schoolgirl.

Sara now joins the long list of tragic cases like Baby P, Victoria Climbié and Arthur Labinjo-Hughes – children let down by those who were supposed to protect them.

Each time such a tragedy unfolds, there is an outpouring of grief and outrage, followed by promises of lessons learnt and systemic reform. Yet, here we are again, asking the same devastating question: why do these failures keep happening?

As someone deeply involved in child safeguarding and policy through Manchester Met’s Institute for Children’s Futures, particularly in my work on child practice reviews and safeguarding responses in Wales and wider work across England’s safeguarding partnerships, these cases feel personal.

Each child’s death represents a systemic breakdown; a series of missed opportunities where warning signs such as unexplained injuries, frequent absences from school, or missed health appointments were overlooked. In some cases, agencies failed to follow up on reports of domestic violence, while in others, professionals accepted parental narratives without sufficient scrutiny.

These tragedies demonstrate a lack of collective responsibility across safeguarding systems. Their findings are not new, with the lack of action to address them as damning as the issues themselves.

Our Wales child practice review findings echo those in England’s latest safeguarding reports, which highlight recurring systemic issues such as inadequate inter-agency communication, over-reliance on self-reported family accounts, and the failure to recognise patterns of cumulative harm.

These same issues were evident in Sara’s case. Reports of injuries were made, but they weren’t followed up effectively. Concerns about her safety were shared, but the system failed to act.

These reports also stress the urgent need for improved training, better-defined intervention thresholds, and a child-centric approach to safeguarding processes. They identify a clear need for stronger multi-agency collaboration and enhanced training for professionals to recognise and address risk.

The repeated nature of these recommendations underscores the systemic inertia that plagues child safeguarding. It’s not that we don’t know what needs to be done – it’s that we fail to implement these changes at scale and with urgency.

The tragic thread running through these cases is the consistent failure to centre children’s voices in safeguarding processes. Had Sara’s voice been truly heard, professionals might have acted on her visible distress, school absences, and injuries with greater urgency.

Prioritising children’s lived experiences can transform safeguarding outcomes. In too many instances, the daily lived experiences of children like Sara are overlooked. Professionals often focus on managing parental relationships or administrative thresholds rather than truly understanding the child’s daily life. This was highlighted in the Victoria Climbié case over two decades ago, and it’s just as relevant today. Children must be seen, heard, and believed.

The solution isn’t simply more recommendations or another inquiry; it’s action. We need a transformative change in how we approach safeguarding.

First, we must overhaul inter-agency collaboration. Enabling our ability to see the child and wider family through our complicated, disconnected systems is a priority. The Department for Education’s report, improving multi-agency information sharing, has already explored the feasibility of implementing a consistent child identifier to address this issue. Such a system could significantly enhance the ability of professionals to access a full picture of a child’s circumstances, bridging gaps across agencies.

Practitioners must also be equipped to exercise “professional curiosity” (a much-used term in most safeguarding key findings and recommendations), challenge family narratives, and recognise disguised compliance. However, this is nearly impossible when social workers face unmanageable workloads and systemic instability.

We need to move beyond “meeting thresholds” and adopt a whole-family, cumulative harm approach. Safeguarding shouldn’t hinge on a single incident meeting a prescribed level of concern. Instead, we need a system that recognises patterns of harm over time, considering historical and co-occurring risks.

Recent policy documents such as the government’s Plan for Change offer some hope for progress. The Plan for Change’s safer streets mission proposes legislative reforms and enhanced multi-agency collaboration to dismantle criminal networks and protect vulnerable children.

If implemented effectively, these strategies could bridge the gap between recommendations and meaningful action. They demonstrate a recognition of the systemic failings and a commitment to holistic, child-centred solutions.

Crucially, the voice of the child must be central to every decision. This isn’t just about listening; it’s about ensuring that safeguarding processes actively reflect and prioritise children’s lived experiences.

For too long, we’ve been stuck in a cycle of tragedy, inquiry and inaction. However, our evidence on effective safeguarding highlighted that multi-agency teams who work collectively with health, education, and social services have successfully developed holistic care plans, ensuring children remain visible across systems.

Early intervention efforts, prioritising family-based support, have demonstrated how vulnerabilities can be addressed before escalating into crises, as noted by the Institute for Fiscal Studies’ examination of the impacts of Sure Start programmes.

These successes often hinge on strong professional relationships and clear communication, preventing tragic outcomes. Such outcomes should not be left to chance or the presence of particularly motivated teams or individuals. Instead, they must become the standard nationwide.

Sara’s death should mark a turning point. We owe it to her and to every child who has suffered systemic failures to do more than state the same findings and recommendations.

We must demand accountability from those tasked with implementing change. We must insist on adequate resources for safeguarding systems. Most importantly, we must act – decisively, urgently, and with the child at the centre of everything we do.

The question is no longer what needs to change – we already know the answers. The real question is whether we have the collective will to ensure that these tragic outcomes never happen again.

Michelle McManus is a professor in safeguarding and violence prevention at Manchester Metropolitan University