Former teacher guilty of sexually abusing and murdering baby boy he wanted to adopt - CPS

[IwantToRetire]

Distressing content
-----

A former teacher has been found guilty of sexually abusing and murdering a baby boy that he planned to adopt.

Jamie Varley, 37, was convicted at Preston Crown Court of murder, child cruelty, sexual offences and indecent images relating to 13-month-old Preston Davey.

John McGowan-Fazakerley, 32, was convicted of allowing the death of a child, child cruelty and sexual assault.

Varley was in the process of adopting baby Preston (also known as Elijah) with his partner McGowan-Fazakerley. Just four months after being placed with the couple, Preston was taken to Blackpool Victoria Hospital unconscious and in cardiac arrest. Sadly, Preston could not be saved.

Varley tried falsely claiming that Preston had accidentally drowned in a bath, but prosecutors were able to prove that his injuries were consistent with his airways being obstructed.

The evidence presented by the prosecution proved that in the final months of Preston’s life, he was routinely ill-treated, sexually abused and physically assaulted – suffering more than 40 separate injuries.

CPS statement continues at https://www.cps.gov.uk/north-west/news/former-teacher-guilty-sexually-abusing-and-murdering-baby-boy-he-wanted-adopt

More from a BBC report - also distressing:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/clyp77l79e9o

I thought there was a thread about this, but cant find one. But sorry if a duplicate.

I really only wanted to post out of respect for this poor baby and the horror of his short life.

RIP

Because the aim is ultimately to have them adopted if possible (with the hope that they will be happily settled with one forever family)....rather than leaving them open to the instability of being moved at short notice from one foster family to another if for eg the foster carers decide they no longer want/able to carry on fostering.
Sadly, as it turned out, this was the worst thing that could have happened to him. That poor darling boy never stood a chance. What a cruel world we live in 😭

There's this in the Telegraph but I can't get it to archive so I've not read it.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2026/06/19/baby-preston-adoption-agency-pushed-staff-hit-strict-target/

I just have so many thoughts, swirling about in my head regarding this case. It has really rocked my world. Every time I see a little baby out and about, I well up.

DH & I adopted a baby girl who is 13 now. I keep thinking, how was this precious experience given to those two monsters? We found the adoption vetting process really thorough and intrusive. We also found SS very pervasive during our first year of parenthood, we had frequent long (and really annoying) visits, minimal 1.5 hours. When my DD was 18 months, we took her to AE with a temperature. The next day, we received a call from SS, and then OMG a 2-hour-long visit. I can't believe for a moment that SS would not have picked up on issues if they spend enough time with Preston and the men. You must be around long enough to observe family routines. If you're there for feeding, nappy changes, sleeping – you can tell for sure if the baby is traumatised.

WRT the foster mum, I imagine stories of Preston's not sleeping or settling must have filtered back to her. In the first year we often had back and forth with our FP checking on small things, asking their advice on behaviours. Like Preston's FP, they knew our DD since day two. So it would be concerning, if adopters kept on and on struggling with a baby who wouldn't settle and yet refused help. Especially if the FP's knew the baby as a happy and calm.

I'm so sorry for Preston, what a horrific and sickening thing to have happened to him.

Absolutely right.

I've come to believe that some social workers are so inept/indoctrinated that I could write the options available to them on a piece of paper, place it on the floor, and go with which option my cat places its paw upon.
In some cases, it's really hard to believe that Tiddles could have made a worse decision.
In fact, Tiddles may make a better decision. Go, Tiddles!

We all know that the so-called professionals were too afraid to say anything.
(And if the ones who were brave enough, no doubt told to stfu.)

I don't care if they never sleep again.
May all the guilt in the world be carried on their shoulders forever more.
I repeat: may all the guilt be carried on their shoulders forever more.

I saw on a youtube true crime podcast that V is on suicide watch. I hope they do not let him act on that impluse.

From the article: "She said the greater issue was that Varley and McGowan-Fazakerley appeared “very middle class, very professional”, and Varley, a head of year at a high school, was “highly manipulative”. That, she said, may have made social workers and medics less suspicious. “We don’t expect teachers to be paedophiles,” she added."

What??? This is exactly what the assessment is for because people might APPEAR to be decent onn the surface. Also, "We don't expect teachers to be paedophiles." We have so many stories in this county of teachers being paedophiles. Where do these SWs come from???

Just think on all the reasons social services give for turning down couples for adoption. One case someone posted was that bc they took their prospective child to a crèche for an hour, the child had been at risk of being distressed so social services referred things to halt adoption.

You only hear the parent's version of why they were turned down, not social services - so it's always things like 'we have too many books' or 'we earn too much' and never that they are a risk to the child.
I imagine the social worker's version would be very different.

Part of the problem is that prospective adopters are often approved by independent agencies, who get paid when a match to a child happens and the child is placed for adoption. The children are with the local authorities. Local authority family finders and the child's social workers identify suitable prospective adopters BUT they don't get to query the assessment.

They were approved after 8 face to face meetings. If you are clueless and say things like “most kids just need a good smack” or “it won’t change us, we will still host swinging club once a month and go to furry events” then you won’t get approved but I don’t think it’s that hard for a manipulative person to come across as an excited dad-to-be in meetings which probably totalled less than 20 hours. It’s an extended version of pulling yourself together for a job interview where you will say how much you thrive in fast paced environments and look forward to new challenges instead of saying that you hate your current boss, want more money and can walk to the office from your house. On paper they were fine. Preston’s injuries including his broken elbow, his “sadness”, the concerns of the experienced foster carer were ignored.

I honestly think it should be outlawed for anyone to profit from the social care system.

The trouble is, the Agencies have the expertise and the Gov insists on the approval process being as short as possible - in the past it could drift and drift with no one making a decision. Most local authorities don't need a full time adoption team tbf.

That doesn't really make sense.

Adopters would not be taking a prospective child anywhere until they have been matched, and the match approved by a panel, and transitions have started between foster carer and adoptive parents.

If they took the child to a creche for an hour during that transitional period, then that would be a major red flag. That period is intended to be to allow a child to become progressively more comfortable with you as their primary caregiver. Totally inappropriate for that time to be given up to a creche.

If you mean that after the child was placed with them, and after transitions had concluded, but presumably before the adoption order was made - then I don't believe for a second that SWs ended an adoption placement for the sole reason of taking a child to a creche for an hour. Willing to bet my house on there being a lot more to that story than someone was willing to say.

There are plenty of non-profit social organisations which could expand their remit, if they wanted.

There was another thread on this as I remember typing that I was sickened to the core reading the report.

There was a catalogue of errors made and chances to save Preston missed.

I believe someone had raised concerns about the adopters and they were ignored.

Another child failed by 'the system'.

Rest in peace Preston x

Tbf they are voluntary sector or some other not for profit, but they exist to manage much of the work of the adoption process and local authorities pay them a fee.

Anyway, this is interesting - investigators are being sent into the adoption agency, local authority and hospital https://www.communitycare.co.uk/content/news/preston-davey-macalister-sends-in-experts-to-scrutinise-agencies-involved-in-boys-case

Wtaf - that’s appalling. That’s ripe for corruption ffs

safeguarding is fucked.

Maybe it’s the training and the experiences I’ve personally had but no one is above suspicion

I mean, how many posh private boarding school teachers have been convicted of pedophilia?

Jimmy Saville hanging out with the royals and thatcher?

fuckin he’ll

The thing is, individual local authorities don't have that many children requiring adoption pa, so there is little point in them all having a team of social workers experienced enough to find adopters for their children. And as the point is to find the best match for a child, the chances of them having the right sort of adopter available for that child is pretty low - they might be looking for someone of a particular ethnicity for example, or with experience of a particular disability. The child might not be able to be placed within the LA, especially in small local authorities like the London boroughs. And in the past when local authorities did it themselves, they just recruited the sorts of adopters they thought they had children for, so people would be turned down because the LA didn't think they would have children for them. They would also hold on to prospective adopters they had approved in the hope they would find children for them, not letting them look further afield.

These agencies have always existed - i adopted 25 years ago and was approved by one (i live in a tiny LA). It can't just be a postcode lottery. But of course cynics will say they have a vested interests in approving adopters and getting them matched.

From that article:

"Legal systems and processes which are evidence based, and robust, operate in the adoption sector and courts to ensure as far as possible that children are being placed for adoption with people who are not only well prepared and thoroughly assessed, but also safe."

Um, how was there any evidence whatsoever that JV and JMF were "well prepared?" It's obvious from what JV was saying within days that they really weren't prepared at all. Sandra Cooper commented on it, and she had been through about forty other adoptions with other children and sets of parents.

And that's before you get to the "safe" part.

I think this summarises the Telegraph article which someone posted earlier but behind a paywall. A lof of intersting infobon the adoption agency. https://x.com/LPerrins/status/2069009712893276572?s=20i

That is interesting about it being an adoption agency dedicated to increasing the numbers of adoptions for gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgender, and queer + couples.

Surely it's common sense to reach applicants from the sectors of society who are likely to want to adopt?

It isn't that straightforward. As Prof Selwyn points out, the Gov "anyone can adopt" message, which was designed to reach communities like LGBT+, is profoundly wrong because no, not everyone can/should adopt.

The Gov is currently looking at the adoption agency and its practices. Some might say they took a vulnerable group and launched an unrealistically jolly marketing campaign at it.