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

So these c.600 gay couples, are they all men or does it include lesbian couples? It is only gay male couples and single straight men who I believe pose a higher risk to children and shouldn't be allowed to adopt unless in very specific circumstances eg. they already know the child well and offer to adopt them.

That is precisely my view.

It’s been reported that paedophile Jamie Varley is on suicide watch, meaning he’s being checked on every 15 minutes. This includes during the night, when prison guards have to shine a torch into the cell he’s being kept in. I wonder if they shout “Boo!” when they do so…

Karma bites already 🤣

I feel like I should channel my inner Shami Chakrabarti at this point and tut and admonish you all and say "venal child murdering sexual torturers of babies have rights TOO you know, and if you are pleased at this Victim Of Whatever being scared it's Every Bit As Bad as what he's done", which is surely what a high minded person such as the Baroness would say.

I could. But it's too hot.

Hi all, I’m sure someone has already shared but there is a petition (Preston’s Law) calling for adoption reform to better protect children.

I hope everyone here signs it. Thank you

www.change.org/p/introduce-preston-s-law-mandatory-safeguarding-for-every-adopted-child

So, no support for adopters and adopted children, just more and more oversight. Many adopted children are terrified of social workers because they were the ones who took them away, first from birth family then from foster placement(s). And they would be right to be worried as these visits WOULD suggest they could be removed all over again. How are these children / adopters supposed to operate under the constant threat of removal?

That is gay male couples.

I don't know the stats for single men. From memory I think the stats for lesbian couples is slightly lower than the 600 gay male couples but not hugely lower.

And it is also therefore your view that those 600+ kids a year should spend their childhood in foster care rather than be adopted.

https://www.google.com/search?ie=UTF-8&client=ms-android-samsung-rvo1&source=android-browser&q=how+many+lesbians+adoptbin+uk#lfId=ChxjMe

That twitter thread doesn't prove anything about a disproportionate focus on LGBT+ adopters. It references getting numbers back up after a fall, along with those of other minority groups.

If the claim is that there aren't enough adopters because the proportion goes disproportionately to promoting adoption to gay couples, then that is not at all evidenced by what you're posted.

So we are back where this started: there is a shortage of adopters, so those wanting to increase that shortage by 600+ each year should explain why they think that a lifetime in foster care is preferable to adoption by gay couples.

Apologies, I misremembered the stats. It is 410 gay couples.

But the point stands - that is 410 kids who would be in foster care instead if some people have their way.

Why are one quarter of its clients LGBT+ when the % in the UK is only 3.3%, and they highlight this group in their annual report as being a top priority? I can only read this as a disproportionate focus.

I am not against LGBT+ adoption, as I have said in other posts. My main issue is with the Gov strategy and strapping "anyone can adopt" and the imo cynical targetting of what they see as a more or less captive market (albeit surrogacy is not competition). I don't think it's enough to drum up interest among a group with limited other options and morevor less lure them in with a marketing campaign featuring happy families on days out - the reality can be very, very dark, and it's just not being talked about.

Other groups don't seem to be targetted in the same way. I believe that part of the problem is also the LGBT+ community asking to be included and being forthright in welcoming these agencies when they choose to target them - which is fine to a point, but has the drive gone too far? Is the LGBT+ community actually just being exploited?

You're correct. I would prefer that. Lesser of two not so good things.

We've done this already on the other thread.
Men as a class of people are much more violent and downright dangerous than women.

You cannot deny that, surely?

So 2 men adopt who are now the children's primary carers who are of the class of people i.e. men who are far more likely to be violent and abusive.

(I believe that if one of them is the bio father that makes things less risky.
Yes that makes sense.
So while I have problems with surrogacy, I will concede it's better for a child to be with its bio dad and his male partner.)

On top of that, however, is that there are 2 unrelated males in sole care of a child. An even riskier situation.

It is also the case that only half of gay men are monogamous.
Now I attribute this to them being male rather than gay.
Maybe some lesbians are non-monogamous but is that such a concern when the class of people they're with (women) are not of the class that are much more likely to be violent and abusive? I don't think that it's a concern.

So people will accept that stepfathers are a danger, but not 2 unrelated males who only have a 1/2 chance of being monogamous.
(It's not unreasonable to suggest that more men will be brought into the child's home who are similarly unrelated.)
I am genuinely puzzled by this.

I'm sure that some are amazing, but given the fact that Varley and his husband (partner? I don't think their marital status is relevant, they were cohabiting) managed to convince professionals they were safe, I don't think it's wise to take the chance.

I will reiterate that my view on this is nothing to do with sexuality and everything to do with gender.

I don't wish to be rude but we've done all this already on the other thread.
There's no point us to and fro-ing again. Really there's not.

How on earth is staying in care the "lesser of two not so good things"? This is an abhorrent case but rare compared to the harm's we know children experience in care combined with the life outcomes of those who remain in care / are care leavers such as being more likely to be imprisoned, have their own children taken away, substance abuse etc and that's not even talking about the rates of abuse of children in foster homes.

If you google outcomes for children in foster care versus adoption, there isn't actually that much research. I found an Australian study which found a high level of benefit and an American one which showed no benefit and UK one somewhere in the middle.

As with other discussions like this, it can end up with people being very critical of foster care, which isn't fair. I adopted two children but their older half siblings went into long term foster care where they had a wonderful family life.

Not saying foster care is preferable to adoption, but it's not necessarily the hell hole that people often make out.

“Findings indicate that FC is most consistently associated with instability and cumulative disadvantage, including high rates of mental health problems, disrupted education, unmet health needs, and relational difficulties. Adoption generally provides greater permanence and more favourable outcomes, particularly when it occurs early, though adoption at later ages or following institutional care is often linked to enduring emotional, behavioural, and neurodevelopmental difficulties. Children who remain with their families under CWS support show highly variable trajectories, with positive outcomes when interventions are timely and sustained, but persistent difficulties when family adversity continues and systemic support is lacking. Across pathways, placement stability—conceptualised as both an outcome domain and a protective process—consistently emerges, alongside secure relationships, trauma-informed approaches, and coordinated support, as a critical factor safeguarding children’s developmental outcomes.”

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12894384/

While there isn’t a huge body of research, what there is largely indicates that across most metrics adoptees have better outcomes than those who were in foster care long term. That was in terms of educational attainment, employment, social and mental wellbeing and behaviours.

None of this is a slight on foster carers by the way. But it is by its nature almost always temporary and unstable. Anyone advocating it as a better option than permanence and stability with gay couples cannot possibly claim to care about child welfare.

Firstly - their applicant base reflects national statistics (or fairly close) which is hardly surprising given that gay and lesbian couples are very obviously going to disproportionately adopt as a means of starting a family.

Your question is a bit like wondering why wheelchair users make up 1% of the population but 90% of ramp usage.

Second we’re talking about a national shortage - so picking a single agency is not indicative of anything.

Third, promoting to one group does not imply that it comes at the expense of other groups.

It does acknowledge that the evidence base is limited. The thing about fc of course is that the children usually stay local, so don't lose their cultural and wider family connections. I adopted children from a part of the country with a strong local culture and they have no connection to it - it's one of those losses which isn't reflected in statistics. (We tried to honor this heritage btw but girls were not interested).

Lgbt+ is an easy to reach community - imagine trying to target eg single women instead. I believe it's led to some agencies taking this easy route rather than marketing more widely.

I’ve just looked at Adoption Now’s website. Anyone who thinks they are disproportionately targeting LGBT adopters clearly hasn’t looked.

There is very little specific targeting of LGBT adopters. They have ‘adopters stories’ - 20% of those are gay and lesbian couples which is roughly in line with national stats. They have FAQs - which include one question on adopting if LGBT+ - just like they have questions about being an older adopter or a renter or a disabled adopter. They seem to support a network of LGBT adopters called Proud2BParents.

There is zero evidence that Adoption Now is prioritising recruitment of LGBT+ people at the expense of any other group, much less that that is happening on a national level.

Limited evidence but still 22 high quality studies analysed from which clear conclusions can be drawn.

Do you know what their targets were in 2023 when Preston was matched? Or how did the website looked then?

What targets? The only targets I’m aware of from
adoption now is an overall target of approving 100 adopters a year.

There aren’t any specific targets for LGBT adopters that I’ve seen.

And the website in 2023 looked very similar to now when you look at archived versions of it.

I wonder if those who are OK with 2 men adopting a child are also OK with single women adopting.
The single woman may have unrelated males in the household, but there'll definitely be two if 2 men adopt.

Also relationships consisting of 2 males are only likely to be monogamous half the time. More unrelated males around (possibly).

Personal opinion:
Common sense has gone out the window, hasn't it?
Two people from the class of person, namely men, who are much, much more likely to be violent and sexually abusive than the other class, namely women, and are much less likely to be blessed with the nurturing skills that children need in early childhood wish to adopt and nobody bats an eyelid.
Batshit.

Yes, this is a personal opinion.
This thread is in feminism, disagree but of all places on this site, I should be able to say this here.

Yet again accuse me of misandry if you like but not homophobia as I'd feel exactly the same if two heterosexual men, or one straight male, wished to adopt.

To add: while there are problems with surrogacy, but that's a different topic, the men who can afford it may be able to afford female nannies, too.