Boy, three, starved to death by parents ‘had become invisible to authorities'
A three-year-old boy who was starved by his parents and buried in a garden became 'invisible and lost' from the sight of child services early in his life, a review has concluded.
Abiyah Yasharahyalah died in early 2020 from a respiratory illness, worsened by a 'restricted' vegan diet which caused severe malnourishment, rickets, anaemia and stunted growth.
A review into his family's contact with authorities has found there was a lack of curiosity about how his parents' culture and lifestyle might have impacted on his wellbeing, warning that 'the safeguarding of children being impacted by harmful cultural practice is paramount'.
Abiyah's parents, Tai and Naiyahmi Yasharahyalah, aged 42 and 43, were handed lengthy jail terms in December with a judge saying they had both 'played a part in starving' their son when it would have been obvious he needed medical care.
London-born Tai, a medical genetics graduate who also used the first name Tai-Zamarai, and former shop worker Naiyahmi shunned mainstream society and left Abiyah's body buried at their property in Handsworth, Birmingham, when they were evicted in March 2022.
A two-month trial at Coventry Crown Court last year heard the couple had 'invented' a belief system featuring aspects of Igbo culture that Tai, who grew up in both Nigeria and Peckham in south-east London, adapted to form a legal system he called 'slick law'.
The court heard that they lived off the generosity of others, occupying at one point a shipping container and at another a caravan in the Somerset area.
A local child safeguarding practice review, published on Wednesday, noted that Abiyah 'was only ever seen by a small number of professionals during his lifetime, and for a limited time only'.
According to records, he was seen by a health visitor in April 2016 shortly after his birth, and the following month for a check-up.
There was some contact in 2018 with a local authority social worker in London and four visits to a children's centre in Birmingham, but the review said: 'Records of these contacts and interactions are very limited, reinforcing that there was very little insight into (Abiyah's) existence, health or welfare.'
Abiyah's parents' trial heard police visited the Clarence Road property in Handsworth three times, including in February 2018 when Abiyah was alive.
The review stated that with regard to this visit 'no details were recorded' about Abiyah, with his presence 'almost invisible on review of records'.
Elsewhere, the review noted 'no exploration or curiosity' from the health visiting service, run by Birmingham Community Health Care NHS Foundation Trust, about Abiyah's mother's desire for a home birth with no medical intervention.
In March 2020, health visitor records said it had been noted at a safeguarding meeting that Abiyah had not been seen by them since his six-week assessment, with appointments at the one and two-year marks since his birth not attended.
He had also not received any routine immunisations. While a follow-up inquiry was planned, there was no record of why it never happened, although the review stated that the coronavirus lockdown which began that year likely contributed.
The various authorities coming into contact with the child's family showed a 'general lack of knowledge or assessment of the parents' belief systems', leading to an 'insufficient understanding about the impact on his care, the review said.
It added that his parents' behaviour 'often distracted or diverted professional attention' away from his safety and welfare.
The review stated: 'Parental resistance of advice, support or authority ultimately resulted in (Abiyah) becoming invisible and lost from professional view.'
The report included reflections that while social workers had been aware of the family's culture and parents' beliefs and lifestyle, they appeared not to have considered 'with detailed curiosity' the impact on Abiyah's safety and wellbeing, 'such as if indeed his overall needs were being met'.
The review, published by Birmingham Safeguarding Children Partnership, warned that while navigating race, ethnicity, culture and beliefs 'can be challenging' for those working in child safeguarding, there is a need for them to be 'confident to ask questions about different cultures and belief systems without fear of being perceived as discriminatory'.
Report author Kevin Ball added: 'If any family engages in cultural practices which are harmful to children, this must not be overlooked, and the safeguarding of children being impacted by harmful cultural practice is paramount.'
Abiyah's mother opted to take part in the review, stating she had believed she was 'doing the right thing at the time' for her son based on her cultural beliefs but that she now wished she had done more research about diet and healthcare.
She said it was 'hard to accept that my approach did not lead to the best outcomes for my child and that it took the court process to take me out of that bubble'.
Among its recommendations, the review said workforce guidance should be looked at to ensure it 'supports effective assessment and intervention which safeguards those children that become hidden from professional sight and/or when parents choose to live an alternative, or more off-grid lifestyle'.
Annie Hudson, Chair of the Child Safeguarding Practice Review Panel, said the case raised 'very serious questions' about local and national safeguarding systems.
She added: 'The local child safeguarding review published today highlights important learning, including about how Abiyah became invisible and lost from the view and oversight of professionals. It evidences strongly the paramount importance of understanding what life is like for children, and not being distracted or diverted away by parental behaviour when considering children's safety and welfare.
'It is important to respect parents' faith and beliefs. However, as this review highlights, professionals must always be mindful of whether their views about parents, including their faith, race and culture, is inhibiting their capacity to be questioning and act together in a timely way to safeguard and protect children.'
Partnership co-chairs James Thomas and Sue Harrison said: 'Protecting children out of professional sight is a real challenge, given the limits of statutory powers to ensure all children are regularly seen. Our partnership has made this one of our top strategic priorities to ensure that we do everything we possibly can to identify risk to those children who are out of sight.'
Abiyah's parents were arrested on December 9 2022, leading to the discovery of their son's body five days later.
Tai and Naiyahmi Yasharahyalah were sentenced to 24 and a half years and 19 and a half years, respectively, having been found guilty of perverting the course of justice, causing or allowing the death of a child, and child neglect.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Women with genetic cancer risk being ‘missed' due to testing gaps
Families of some cancer patients are being denied the chance to find out about their cancer risk due to gaps in genetic testing, a new study has suggested. A lack of testing for Lynch syndrome also means some cancer patients are unaware of their risk of developing other cancers, academics said. Lynch syndrome is a rare condition which runs in families which puts people at a higher risk of developing cancers of the bowel, womb and ovaries. It is caused by a mutation in the gene that fixes mistakes in DNA when it is copied, which can lead to uncontrolled cell growth. Patients with bowel or womb cancer should have their tumours assessed for markers of Lynch syndrome, according to guidance for the NHS. If these markers are identified, patients should be referred for genetic testing so the diagnosis can be confirmed and they can get support and advice about cancer risk for themselves and their family. A new study by academics at the University of Edinburgh found not all womb cancer patients are being sent for genetic testing. Researchers examined data on 2,500 womb cancer patients across the UK and Ireland between 2022 and 2023. They found that 91% of tumours were tested for markers of Lynch syndrome, but the test results were not routinely communicated to the wider clinical team. This means that follow-up genetic counselling and blood tests were not always arranged. Of the 181 participants eligible for genetic counselling, just under two-thirds (64%) were referred for appointments, according to the study, which has been published in the journal BMJ Oncology. Researchers said those who were referred faced long waits, resulting in high dropout rates, meaning only 48% of those eligible went on to get the test. Experts from the university said gaps in testing mean some womb cancer patients with Lynch syndrome go undetected. Family members are also left vulnerable to cancer risk, unaware they may have the condition. Dr Neil Ryan, from the University of Edinburgh, who leads the UK audit and research collaborative in obstetrics and gynaecology, said: 'Despite clear guidance and excellent rates of tumour testing, too many women with Lynch syndrome are still being missed because they're not referred for definitive blood testing in a timely way. 'This not only denies them the chance to reduce their future cancer risk but also prevents their relatives from being tested and protected. 'Tumour testing is only cost-effective if it leads to diagnosis — we urgently need to make mainstream testing truly mainstream.'
Sky News
an hour ago
- Sky News
Paternity pay in UK is one of the lowest in the developed world, MPs say
The UK has one of the "worst statutory leave offers for fathers and other parents in the developed world", the chairwoman of the Women and Equalities Committee has warned. Sarah Owen said the UK's parental leave system was in "urgent need of an overhaul to fit with the reality of working parents' lives". "The UK's parental leave system has fallen far behind most comparable countries," she added. Her comments come as a new report by her House of Commons committee found that a maximum of two weeks' paternity leave is "completely out of step with how most couples want to share their parenting responsibilities" and "entrenches outdated gender stereotypes about caring". The UK's rate of parental pay is "completely out of kilter with the cost of living, has not kept pace with inflation and is far below rates in most comparable countries", the report states. The Women and Equalities Committee has urged the government to consider raising paternity pay to the level of maternity pay during the first six weeks, which equals 90% of someone's average earnings. It also called on the government to either amend the Employment Rights Bill to legislate for a day one right to paid leave or commit to "considering this vital change within its review" in consultation with employers. The report stated that working parents "will be let down by a review that leads only to tinkering around the edges of the system". In its report, the committee also recommended a phased introduction of increases to statutory pay across the system to improve the rates for all working parents up to 80% or more of average earnings or the real living wage. Additionally, it urged the government to consider options for providing statutory paid leave for all self-employed working fathers as part of its review of the parental leave system, as the lack of provision for self-employed fathers was "deeply unfair". The report suggests considering the introduction of a paternity allowance for self-employed fathers and other parents, similar to the maternity allowance. The upcoming review into the parental leave system must examine the function and necessity of eligibility rules, with a view to "simplifying or removing the employment status, time in service and earnings criteria", the committee added.
Sky News
2 hours ago
- Sky News
Spending review 2025: Cutting agricultural budget could be 'catastrophic' for nature, farmers and charities warn
The National Trust and RSPB have joined forces with farmers to warn the government that cutting the agricultural budget could be "catastrophic" for nature and rural businesses. In a letter to food security and rural affairs minister Daniel Zeichner, exclusively seen by Sky News, a dozen of the biggest rural industry organisations say they are "deeply concerned" about rumoured cuts that will be made to the agricultural budget in Wednesday's spending review. Chancellor Rachel Reeves will set out budgets for each government department for the rest of this parliament, set to end in 2029. The letter says cutting funding for existing and new environmental farming schemes will be "catastrophic" to the government's aims for the environment. "Many of the environmental features present in the countryside and enjoyed by the public will be under threat and will disappear," the letter says. "This would be a poor legacy for this government." Sir Keir Starmer's government has made getting to net zero by 2050 a key goal, already initiating several policies to restrict carbon emissions and make the UK greener since winning the election last July. However, the government shocked farmers in March when it shut down applications for the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI), which rewards farmers for managing their land in environmentally sustainable ways, with just a few hours' notice as they said a cap had been reached for the year. The rural organisations say the Environmental Land Management (ELM) scheme payments are "critical to the government's statutory targets on environmental improvement", including the main goal of halting the decline of biodiversity. 3:26 The letter states farmers and landowners are fully committed to environmental schemes, with 77,000 live agri-environment scheme agreements, according to the latest government figures, "with millions of hectares under environmental land management". "So much good has been done by these agreements, the oldest of which has run for decades," the letter says. "The unprecedented engagement in the Sustainable Farming Incentive (SFI) is testament to the appetite of farmers and land managers to rise to the challenge and do more." The letter finishes with: "The industry would like to have your assurances that this critical work will continue to be funded at the same level." David Wilson, a farmer for 53 years, told Sky News it took many years for farmers to get on board with the environmental schemes but they are now joined up, and reducing funding could damage years of work and be a backwards step for not just the UK's environment, but the world's. "This is ultimately about sustainability. To produce good food, you need good ecology and reducing this funding could damage the UK's ecology and our food security," he added. A return to intensive farming Alex Robinson, 39, a farmer from Gloucestershire with 424 hectares, said the schemes have been "a lifeline for nature", with birds, bees and wildflowers returning - including 14 red-listed bird species, many that had not been seen in decades. His farm's soil health is improving, which means he can grow more resilient nutrient dense crops for people to eat. If funding is cut he said he "may have no choice but to return to intensive farming methods sooner than the soils are ready for", with wildflowers and field margins becoming "difficult to justify", which will put the UK's climate, biodiversity and long-term food security "in real danger". Government will be abandoning nature Signatory Victoria Vyvyan, farmer and president of the Country Land and Business Association (CLA), said: "If sustainable farming contracts are cut, government won't just abandon nature - it will abandon its own environmental and legal commitments. "The Sustainable Farming Incentive is working - for farmers, for nature, for the public, and for the Treasury. It's bringing back wildlife, cleaning up rivers, and restoring the health of our soil. "Take away the funding for nature contracts, and farmers will be pushed back to intensive methods - forced to undo years of progress. Nature will suffer as well as farmers, and on the environment, it will go against everything government claims to agree with." The letter has been signed by the heads of The National Trust, the National Farmers' Union (NFU), the RSPB, the Soil Association, the CLA, the Tenant Farmers Association, the Game and Wildlife Conservation Trust, the Nature Friendly Farming Network, the Central Association of Agricultural Valuers, the National Federation of Young Farmers' Clubs, the British Institute of Agricultural Consultants and the Agricultural Industries Confederation.
