Tuesday, 7 May 2024

Judge will probe how three sisters all aged under 10 caught an STI

Judge will probe how three sisters all aged under 10 caught sexually-transmitted disease in family known to social workers for nearly a decade

  • A High Court judge will investigate how three sisters under 10 developed an STI 
  • Social service bosses responsible for them began litigation nearly a year ago 
  • Abuse concerns over the sisters emerged after their parents were evicted twice 
  • Appeal judges said the family were known to social services for nearly a decade 

A High Court judge will investigate how three sisters all aged under 10 developed a sexually transmitted infection.

Abuse concerns emerged after the children’s parents had twice been evicted from different homes and the family spent a month living in temporary accommodation arranged by council staff. 

Social services bosses with responsibility for the children, who are now in foster care, began family court litigation nearly a year ago.

A family court judge considered the case at private hearings in London and concluded that the girls’ father might have caused the infection.

A judge at London’s High Court will investigate how three sisters aged under 10 developed a sexually transmitted infection (pictured: Royal Courts of Justice, which houses the High Court)

The father appealed against that finding and detail of the case has emerged as a result of three Court of Appeal judges examining issues at a public hearing in London in late March.

They said the family had been known to social workers for nearly a decade. 

The family had lived in north London, and were evicted in 2017. They found accommodation in Essex, but were evicted again in early 2018.

Council staff then found them temporary accommodation in two caravans and a hotel – and later that year the family moved back to London.

The girls tested positive for a sexually transmitted infection during the summer of 2018.

Appeal judges said staff at Islington Council now had responsibility for the children and had begun litigation.

They have not identified the family in their ruling.

Source: Read Full Article

Related Posts