Updated 20 August 2026 following the publication of the Sara Sharif Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review and Royal Assent of the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026. Some Children Not in School measures are not yet in force and will require regulations and implementation guidance.
A System That Failed Sara Sharif Cannot Fail Another Child
By Aneeta Prem MBE
Ten-year-old Sara Sharif lost her life after repeated opportunities to protect her were missed. The independent Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review found serious learning for the agencies involved and made recommendations intended to strengthen safeguarding practice.
This case demands honest reflection. Not blame for its own sake, but responsibility. Not another set of words that disappear into a report, but changes that make it harder for a child to become invisible.
I have said many times:
“Sara wasn’t just out of school. She was out of sight. And when a child is out of sight, danger grows.”
How a child can become invisible
Sara’s history involved contact with several services over many years. The safeguarding review identified missed opportunities, problems in how information was understood and shared, and the need for stronger multi-agency working.
Schools matter enormously in that picture. Teachers often notice changes in a child before anyone else: attendance, behaviour, injuries, fear, tiredness, withdrawal or a sudden change in presentation. When a child leaves school, that daily line of sight can disappear.
Sara was withdrawn from school before her death. Her case does not mean that home education is itself unsafe. Most parents who home educate do so with care and commitment. But it does show why the system must be able to distinguish between a legitimate educational choice and a situation in which a vulnerable child is becoming harder for safeguarding professionals to see.
Home education: a balanced view
Parents should have choices about education, and many children thrive outside a conventional school setting. Good home education should not be treated with suspicion simply because it is different.
But safeguarding and education cannot be separated completely. If a child is already known to be vulnerable, subject to child-protection processes or attending certain special-school provision, withdrawal from school may require closer scrutiny.
The important question is not “school or home?” It is: is this child safe, visible and receiving a suitable education?
What the Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 changes
The Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026 received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026. It creates a new legal framework intended to stop vulnerable children falling through gaps between education, social care, health and other services.
Among the safeguarding measures are:
- compulsory Children Not in School registers for local authorities in England;
- additional local-authority involvement before certain vulnerable children can be withdrawn from school for home education;
- powers for local authorities to intervene where education or the home environment is unsuitable, including requiring school attendance in appropriate cases;
- stronger information-sharing duties between relevant services;
- provision for a Single Unique Identifier to help services match information about the same child; and
- a stronger role for education within local safeguarding arrangements.
Those changes matter. But passing an Act is not the same as implementing every measure overnight. The Department for Education has made clear that some Children Not in School provisions are not yet in force and will require regulations, guidance and preparation before they operate in practice.
That distinction matters for public trust. Families and professionals need to know what the law already does, what Parliament has approved, and what still has to be implemented.
What must change in practice
Safeguarding works only when professionals can ask difficult questions, share relevant information and join together fragments that may look unremarkable on their own.
Sara’s case shows the danger of seeing each contact as an isolated event. A bruise, an absence, a change in behaviour, a family-court concern or a withdrawal from school may each have a different explanation. The safeguarding task is to ask whether, together, they form a pattern.
Respect for family life, culture and parental choice must never mean silence about a child’s safety.
We need a system in which concerns are recorded clearly, schools are heard, information follows the child, and no agency assumes that someone else has the full picture.
Freedom Charity’s work
Through Freedom Charity, my work has focused for many years on forced marriage, FGM, dishonour abuse and safeguarding education. But It’s Not Fair and Cut Flowers were written to give young people and the adults around them language for difficult conversations and a route towards asking for help.
That work has reinforced one simple lesson: children are safer when trusted adults can see what is changing in their lives and feel able to act on concern.
Final word
Sara should have been safe. She should have been heard. She should have been protected by the systems designed to protect children.
Her story must lead to lasting change, including careful implementation of the new law and continued scrutiny of how safeguarding agencies work together.
No child should ever become invisible again.
Sources and further reading
- Surrey County Council: Sara Sharif Local Child Safeguarding Practice Review
- Children’s Wellbeing and Schools Act 2026
- Department for Education: what parents need to know
