Boy, three, starved to death by parents ‘had become invisible to authorities'
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'.
Naiyahmi (left) and Tai Yasharahyalah outside Coventry Crown Court (Matthew Cooper/PA)
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.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Rhyl Journal
an hour ago
- Rhyl Journal
Assisted dying law closer but MPs' support narrows in historic vote
Kim Leadbeater described backing for her Bill in the Commons as 'a convincing majority', after the number was slashed from 55 in November to 23 on Friday. The Labour MP declared 'thank goodness' after the result, but hospices are among those warning of the 'seismic change' for end-of-life care. Staunch supporter Dame Esther Rantzen, who is terminally ill but has said a new law is unlikely to come in time for her, thanked MPs for doing their bit to protect terminally ill people from a 'bad death'. She told the PA news agency: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death. 'Thank you, Parliament.' While 314 MPs voted for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading, 291 voted against. Some 14 MPs switched from voting in favour to against, while only one MP – Labour's Jack Abbott – switched from voting no to voting yes. The proposed legislation will now move to the House of Lords for further debate and votes, although one peer has already urged her colleagues they 'must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk'. Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England, said instead work is needed to better fund access to 'desperately needed palliative care services'. Her sentiment was echoed by a range of end-of-life care organisations including Marie Curie, which said legalising assisted dying will make it 'more crucial than ever' for governments across the UK 'ensure that there is palliative care available for anyone who needs it'. Ahead of the vote, MPs approved a change to the Bill, which will require ministers to assess within a year of any new law coming into effect the quality and distribution of palliative care services currently available and the impact of an assisted dying service on them. The charity said while it welcomed the change, 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need'. Ms Leadbeater said the vote result was one that 'so many people need', insisting her Bill has enough safeguards and will 'give dying people choice'. Asked about the narrower gap between supporters and opponents, Ms Leadbeater said she knew there would be 'some movement both ways' but insisted the vote showed a 'convincing majority'. She told reporters: 'The will of the House (of Commons) will now be respected by the Lords, and the Bill will go through to its next stage.' Acknowledging those who remain opposed to the Bill, she said she is 'happy to work with them to provide any reassurance or if they've got any questions about the Bill that they want to talk through with me, my door has always been open and remains open'. Conservative MP Danny Kruger, who opposes the Bill, said support 'is ebbing away very fast', telling of his disappointment the Bill passed but adding: 'The fact is, their majority's been cut in half.' Campaigners wept, jumped and hugged each other outside Parliament as the vote result was announced, while some MPs appeared visibly emotional as they left the chamber. Others lined up to shake hands with Ms Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons, with some, including Home Office minister Jess Phillips, stopping to hug the Spen Valley MP. Before a Bill can be signed into law, both the Lords and the Commons must agree the final text. Thanks to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's parliament – before assisted dying is offered. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer remained supportive of the Bill, voting yes on Friday as he had done last year. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who had urged MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide', voted no. During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died. Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill. MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
Assisted dying law closer but MPs' support narrows in historic vote
Kim Leadbeater described backing for her Bill in the Commons as 'a convincing majority', after the number was slashed from 55 in November to 23 on Friday. The Labour MP declared 'thank goodness' after the result, but hospices are among those warning of the 'seismic change' for end-of-life care. Staunch supporter Dame Esther Rantzen, who is terminally ill but has said a new law is unlikely to come in time for her, thanked MPs for doing their bit to protect terminally ill people from a 'bad death'. She told the PA news agency: 'This will make a huge positive difference, protecting millions of terminally ill patients and their families from the agony and loss of dignity created by a bad death. 'Thank you, Parliament.' While 314 MPs voted for the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill at third reading, 291 voted against. Some 14 MPs switched from voting in favour to against, while only one MP – Labour's Jack Abbott – switched from voting no to voting yes. The proposed legislation will now move to the House of Lords for further debate and votes, although one peer has already urged her colleagues they 'must oppose a law that puts the vulnerable at risk'. Labour MP Kim Leadbeater advocating for her Bill in the House of Commons (Parliament TV/PA) Bishop of London Dame Sarah Mullally, a former chief nursing officer for England, said instead work is needed to better fund access to 'desperately needed palliative care services'. Her sentiment was echoed by a range of end-of-life care organisations including Marie Curie, which said legalising assisted dying will make it 'more crucial than ever' for governments across the UK 'ensure that there is palliative care available for anyone who needs it'. Ahead of the vote, MPs approved a change to the Bill, which will require ministers to assess within a year of any new law coming into effect the quality and distribution of palliative care services currently available and the impact of an assisted dying service on them. The charity said while it welcomed the change, 'this will not on its own make the improvements needed to guarantee everyone is able to access the palliative care they need'. Ms Leadbeater said the vote result was one that 'so many people need', insisting her Bill has enough safeguards and will 'give dying people choice'. Asked about the narrower gap between supporters and opponents, Ms Leadbeater said she knew there would be 'some movement both ways' but insisted the vote showed a 'convincing majority'. She told reporters: 'The will of the House (of Commons) will now be respected by the Lords, and the Bill will go through to its next stage.' Campaigners in Parliament Square, central London, ahead of the vote (Yui Mok/PA) Acknowledging those who remain opposed to the Bill, she said she is 'happy to work with them to provide any reassurance or if they've got any questions about the Bill that they want to talk through with me, my door has always been open and remains open'. Conservative MP Danny Kruger, who opposes the Bill, said support 'is ebbing away very fast', telling of his disappointment the Bill passed but adding: 'The fact is, their majority's been cut in half.' Campaigners wept, jumped and hugged each other outside Parliament as the vote result was announced, while some MPs appeared visibly emotional as they left the chamber. Others lined up to shake hands with Ms Leadbeater, the Bill's sponsor through the Commons, with some, including Home Office minister Jess Phillips, stopping to hug the Spen Valley MP. Before a Bill can be signed into law, both the Lords and the Commons must agree the final text. Thanks to the four-year implementation period, it could be 2029 – potentially coinciding with the end of this Government's parliament – before assisted dying is offered. Encouraging or assisting suicide is currently against the law in England and Wales, with a maximum jail sentence of 14 years. Public support for a change in the law remains high, according to a poll (James Manning/PA) Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer remained supportive of the Bill, voting yes on Friday as he had done last year. Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch, who had urged MPs to vote against the legislation, describing it as 'a bad Bill' despite being 'previously supportive of assisted suicide', voted no. During an hours-long date on Friday, MPs on both sides of the issue recalled personal stories of loved ones who had died. Conservative former minister Sir James Cleverly, who led the opposition to the Bill in the Commons, spoke of a close friend who died 'painfully' from cancer. He said he comes at the divisive issue 'not from a position of faith nor from a position of ignorance', and was driven in his opposition by 'concerns about the practicalities' of the Bill. MPs had a free vote on the Bill, meaning they decided according to their conscience rather than along party lines. The proposed legislation would allow terminally ill adults in England and Wales, with fewer than six months to live, to apply for an assisted death, subject to approval by two doctors and a panel featuring a social worker, senior legal figure and psychiatrist.
Glasgow Times
an hour ago
- Glasgow Times
United Ireland should be new state that ‘can be better for all of us'- Varadkar
Leo Varadkar also said he hopes the current Irish government takes the decision to establish a forum to lead discussions on unity, and also appeared to dismiss concerns of potential loyalist violence in reaction to a united Ireland. Mr Varadkar, who stood down as taoiseach in April last year, said he believes he will see a united Ireland in his lifetime but warned it is not inevitable. He said that he has had no regrets so far since leaving elected politics, and is enjoying both 'a lot of personal and intellectual freedom to say what I think'. Former Sinn Fein president Gerry Adams listens to former taoiseach Leo Varadkar (Liam McBurney/PA) He was speaking at an In Conversation event with Rev Karen Sethuraman at St Mary's University college in west Belfast, hosted by Feile an Phobail and Ireland's Future. Former Sinn Fein president and West Belfast MP Gerry Adams was among those in the audience for the event. Mr Varadkar stressed that a united Ireland 'has to be a new Ireland that is better for everyone'. 'That includes a bill of rights, guarantees civil protections and liberties,' he said. 'Unification, in my view, is not the annexation of six more counties by the Republic of Ireland. It's a new state and one that can be better for all of us, an opportunity that only comes around every 100 years, which is to design your state and design your constitution.' In terms of what the current Irish Government is doing, Mr Varadkar described the Shared Island Unit, which was set up when he was Taoiseach, as really positive. But he said he would like to see the Irish Government lead a forum ahead of unity. 'Just saying it as an aspiration isn't enough anymore, it should be an objective and an objective is something you act on,' he said. 'One of the ideas that I would put forward, which could help to move on this discussion, is the establishment of some sort of forum.' He said there was the New Ireland Forum in the 1980s, and the Forum for Peace and Reconciliation in the 1990s. Former Taoiseach Leo Varadkar said that there is a 'strong case' to convene the parties interested in union (Liam McBurney/PA) 'I think there is a strong case now for us to convene the parties that are interested in talking about this, unions, business groups, civil society in a forum to have that discussion, but I don't see how that can happen if that isn't led by the Irish Government, and I hope at some point during the course of this five-year government, a decision will be taken to do that,' he said. Meanwhile, asked how he felt potential violent opposition to a united Ireland could be handled, Mr Varadkar suggested he felt 'only a very small minority may turn to violence'. 'I know there are people south of the border who, when I talk to them about reunification, express to me concerns that there might be a very small minority within unionism who may turn to violence,' he said. 'I don't think we should dismiss that as a possibility. I don't think it will happen, to be honest. 'In two referendums, both north and south, people would be very clearly giving their preference as to what should happen, it would be quite a different situation to when partition happened 100 years ago and it wasn't voted for. 'I don't think that would arise but I think it's a reasonable question.' Meanwhile, deputy First Minister Emma Little-Pengelly suggested Mr Varadkar was 'wrong in terms of the trajectory' towards a united Ireland, insisting the number of people voting for nationalist parties, around 40%, 'hasn't moved since 1998'. Mr Varadkar said he was in politics long enough to not respond to someone else's comments without hearing them in full, but said the case he is making is not just based on the percentage of people who vote for nationalist parties, adding it is clear the percentage voting for unionist parties has fallen. Earlier, Mr Varadkar visited nearby Colaiste Feirste where he heard about the growth in Irish medium education, and plans to build a new Irish Language Heritage and Interpretive Centre, An Spas Din. School principal Micheal Mac Giolla Ghunna said: 'We have grown a vibrant Irish language community from our base in the Gaeltacht Quarter, leading to challenges for us in terms of accommodation and teacher provision. 'But far from limiting our ambitions, we are now using the Sportlann facility and initiatives like our GaelStair heritage project to offer our pupils and the wider community further opportunities.'
