Are we serious about protecting children from sexual predators?

The conviction earlier this week of a male nursery worker for raping and sexually assaulting five toddlers in his care is a stark reminder that there are still huge cracks in our safeguarding systems. Parents and staff raised concerns about his behaviour months before he was finally stopped, yet the abuse continued until CCTV evidence triggered police action.

At Families Alliance for Change, our hearts go out to the children and families whose lives have been devastated by these crimes.

It is not safe to wait for “proof beyond all reasonable doubt”

It is incredibly difficult for survivors to report abuse. It is also hard for parents, carers, or professionals to raise concerns when they do not have definitive proof. This reality gives perpetrators a profound advantage and leaves children dangerously exposed to predators who are skilled at hiding abuse in plain sight.

In the nursery case, action was only taken once CCTV footage existed — despite repeated warnings being raised beforehand. Children were harmed while adults waited for certainty.

This same flawed logic is embedded in parts of our child protection system.

Foster care guidance is dangerously out of step with safeguarding reality

Under current national fostering guidance, individuals are barred from fostering if they are convicted of child sexual abuse — but not if they are merely charged.

In practice, this means it is possible for a child to be removed from their birth family on safeguarding grounds, only to be placed into foster care with a man who has been formally charged with child rape but not convicted.

That position is indefensible.

The Crown Prosecution Service only brings charges after police have gathered evidence and prosecutors believe there is a realistic prospect of conviction. A charge is not speculative; it represents a serious, evidence-based assessment.

Safeguarding decisions should not be governed by the criminal standard of proof. They should be made on the civil standard — the balance of probabilities — with the child’s safety as the overriding priority.

This principle is already applied — but inconsistently.

In family courts, parents routinely lose their children not because harm has occurred, but because professionals assess a risk of future harm. Children can be removed on the basis of predicted risk, not proven injury.

Yet when the state itself is responsible for children, that same logic suddenly disappears.

In July 2025, The Observer reported on a deeply troubling case in Herefordshire, where children have been placed into long-term care with a man previously charged with 15 counts of child sexual abuse, including child rape. The allegations are that he serially abused a child over a four-year period. He was found not guilty.

Despite repeated warnings from the police, the victim, and others — raised through formal safeguarding channels — Herefordshire Council refused to act.

In desperation, the victim met with the Director of Children’s Services, Tina Russell, and disclosed what had happened to her as a child. Ms Russell has since confirmed in writing, in two separate email exchanges, that she does not believe the victim is lying.

And yet the children remain in the placement.

The Director has justified this by saying she cannot take pre-emptive action, despite acknowledging what she herself describes as a “potential risk”.

A profound double standard

Parents are routinely judged on what might happen to their children. Local authorities remove children because of perceived risk. But when the state holds the duty of care, it claims it must wait.

Safeguarding cannot mean anticipating harm when judging families but waiting for harm when judging state placements. That is not child protection. It is institutional inconsistency — and children pay the price.

Most child sexual abuse never results in a conviction

Independent data from the National Crime Agency and others consistently show that hundreds of thousands of children experience sexual abuse each year in England and Wales. Only a tiny fraction of these cases ever result in a criminal conviction.

If our safeguarding system relies on convictions as the primary trigger for action, it is structurally incapable of protecting children.

In the Herefordshire case, the council is ignoring explicit warnings from both the police and the victim. This is not caution. It is failure.

Urgent action is needed from the Department for Education

The Families Alliance for Change calls on the Department for Education to urgently amend national fostering guidance so that any individual charged with a sexual offence against a child is barred from fostering. 

This may mean a small number of adults are unfairly prevented from fostering. But safeguarding has always required proportionate restraint in the face of risk. Children do not get a second chance at safety. Birth families do not get a second chance at justice.

If we are serious about preventing abuse — in nurseries, foster homes, and all care settings — our policies must reflect the reality of how abuse occurs, how rarely it is proven to a criminal standard, and how often early warnings are ignored.

Listening to victims means acting on what they tell us — not offering sympathy while leaving children exposed to foreseeable harm.

The Herefordshire case and the nursery worker conviction show that we are still failing to act when red flags are raised.

It is time to raise our collective game — for every child, in every care setting.