Social services had concerns about Sara Sharif’s care within a week of her birth

Concerns were raised about Sara Sharif’s care within a week of her birth in 2013, with her parents known to social services as early as 2010, it can now be reported.

Details from previous family court proceedings can now be published after the guilty verdicts in the criminal trial over the 10-year-old’s death, according to a High Court order approved on Thursday.

They include that Surrey County Council repeatedly raised “significant concerns” that Sara was likely to suffer physical and emotional abuse at the hands of her parents, amid allegations that her father, Urfan Sharif, was physically abusing her and her siblings.

The documents disclosed to the media show that Surrey County Council first had contact with Sharif and Sara’s mother, Olga Sharif, in 2010 – more than two years before Sara was born – having received “referrals indicative of neglect” relating to her two older siblings, known only as Z and U.

This began several years of council involvement with the family which featured allegations of domestic abuse by both parents towards each other and the children.

The authority began the first set of care proceedings in relation to Z and U in January 2013, which then involved Sara within a week of her birth.

“There are concerns that the children are not adequately supervised.”

Between 2013 and 2015, several more abuse allegations were made, with concerns raised for each of the three children and that the parents did “not fully accept the professional concerns and the need to work cooperatively with agencies”.

In December 2013, allegations were made that Urfan Sharif abused U, with an investigation also launched after it was alleged that Z had suffered a burn from an iron at the family home.

This was deemed to be accidental and the abuse allegation was never tested in court, but Olga Sharif later said Urfan Sharif had deliberately burned Z – a claim that was also never proven.

In November 2014, after Z was found with an arm injury consistent with an adult bite mark, Sara and her two siblings were taken into police protection, with Olga Sharif arrested and charged with assault occasioning actual bodily harm and later accepting a caution.

A judge was told at a hearing that Sara was “observed to stand facing a wall” by carers and “is very small and doesn’t eat a lot”.

The court also heard: “Sara doesn’t respond to being carried, doesn’t wrap her legs around her carer.”

The judge described Sara’s behaviour as “disturbing”, but she was again placed back in the care of her parents under supervision.

The situation did not improve, with a court hearing in 2015 told that the authority was “extremely concerned” that Sara and U were “likely to suffer significant emotional and physical harm in their parents’ care”, as both alleged the other was violent.

During that hearing, Olga Sharif announced she was separating from Urfan Sharif, and told the council that allegations made by Z and U about domestic abuse by him were true.

She also alleged that she was the victim of controlling and coercive behaviour including financial abuse, and the victim of sexual violence.

Urfan Sharif denied the claims, which were also never tested, but the council still concluded that “the risk can be managed” if Sara was returned home.

She then moved to live with Urfan Sharif and his new partner, Batool, with reports that this followed Sara making accusations of physical abuse by her mother, which were also never proved.

A judge at Guildford Family Court approved the change, with Sara moving to the family home in Woking, Surrey.

It was there that she was subjected to years of abuse, which culminated in her murder in August last year.

On Wednesday, Urfan Sharif and Batool were convicted of Sara’s murder. Her uncle, Faisal Malik, was found guilty of causing or allowing her death. All three will be sentenced on Tuesday.

While no timeframe has been given, it is usually expected reports are published within six months.

Rachael Wardell, executive director for children, families and lifelong learning at Surrey County Council, said: “Sara’s death is incredibly distressing and we share in the profound horror at the terrible details that have emerged during the trial.

“We cannot begin to comprehend the suffering that poor Sara endured at the hands of members of her family who should have loved, protected, and cared for her.

“The focus of the trial has been on the evidence needed to secure the convictions of those responsible for Sara’s death. This means that until the independent safeguarding review concludes, a complete picture cannot be understood or commented upon.

“What is clear from the evidence we’ve heard in court is that the perpetrators went to extreme lengths to conceal the truth from everyone.

“We are resolute in our commitment to protecting children, and we are determined to play a full and active part in the forthcoming review alongside partner agencies, to thoroughly understand the wider circumstances surrounding Sara’s tragic death.”