The review’s findings state: “The police investigation and this review uncovered information about the potential adopter’s mental health, alcohol use, and financial circumstances that was not known or shared.
“The potential adopters did not share their negative views of Leiland-James and there was no awareness of the nature of private text messages shared between the potential adoptive mother and father.”
The review, published on Thursday, said social workers and other professionals were only too happy to take what the Castles said outright, and that they should “improve the direct questioning of other children living in the house to daily experiences and understand what life is like for them”.
Castle ‘misled and lied to social workers’
Commenting on the report, John Readman, the Executive Director for People at Cumbria County Council, said: “The Castles have gone through a full eight-month review and approval process involving criminal records checks, multiple references and extensive training. No one, in any instance, was concerned about their suitability to become adopters.
“What we now know, from the trial and this review, is that Laura Castle deliberately and repeatedly misled and lied to social workers about vital aspects of her life.
“We also now know that relevant information about Laura Castle was not shared between agencies and more could have been done to clarify some of the information we were given.
“Had the full picture of Laura Castle’s life been known, the assessment of her adopter suitability would have been better able to consider the vulnerabilities and potential risks of adoption.”
Prof Sarah O’Brien, the Chief Nurse at NHS Lancashire and South Cumbria Integrated Care Board, said: “Ensuring that professionals share information openly and proactively throughout the adoption process is vital and we are saddened and disappointed that the assessment some gaps where this needs to be improved.
“The lack of robust information sharing continues to be a national concern in infant mortality assessments and for Leiland-James, information sharing was not good enough during the critical stages of the adoption process.”