Barnet (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Barnet has rejected demands to withdraw a report after revelations that three recent deaths involving vulnerable children were not disclosed to councillors.
Nonita Grabovskyte, who passed away in December 2023, and two other young people who had previously been looked after children under the Barnet council’s care in its capacity as a “corporate parent” are not mentioned in the Corporate Parenting Annual Report, which is presented for discussion at tomorrow’s cabinet meeting, according to both the Conservatives and Reform UK.
The coroner identified several council shortcomings as contributing factors to Nonita’s death during the inquest in May of this year.
Only last week, when Nonita’s tale was featured in the Sky News documentary Unseen: A Girl Called Nonita, did council members learn about the three incidents. On Tuesday, November 11, just before the documentary went live, they were told about Nonita’s passing and the council’s involvement.
In an email sent to councillors and senior officers yesterday, Conservative leader Peter Zinkin listed the coroner’s findings related to the council. He then said:
“I do not believe that this sits at all comfortably with the tone of the Corporate Parenting Annual Report which in the circumstances of the three recent deaths seems to have completely ignored them. “
Cllr Zinkin added:
“This report is due to be considered by cabinet on Tuesday. I have suggested that this report should be withdrawn and reconsidered in the context of actual events. This request has been refused. In my view this is another really bad example of the disregard for scrutiny culture that now exists.”
I would ask again that this report is withdrawn and not reissued until the scrutiny committee has had a chance to see the lessons learnt report, scrutinized it and looked at the Corporate Parenting report in that context.”
The other opposition group currently represented on the council, Reform UK, also drew attention to the council’s failures before calling for the report to be withdrawn.
In a statement provided by the party’s Barnet chair, Cllr Mark Shooter, it said:
“The findings of the coroner’s inquest reveal a devastating sequence of failures: a lack of co-ordination between children’s services, mental health support, and education precisely at the moment this vulnerable young person most needed help. The fact that these failures may have contributed to her death should shake everyone in Barnet Council to the core.”
However the council this afternoon rejected the request to withdraw the report. A council spokesperson told Barnet Post:
“We think it is important to discuss the Corporate Parenting Annual Report in the light of the Coroner’s final determination, which was issued on 31 October 2025, and the imminent publication of the Barnet Children’s Safeguarding Partnership learning review at the Cabinet meeting tomorrow (18 November).
The cabinet meeting tomorrow will provide the foundation for a further discussion in December when officers will provide a further report on the recent developments.”
The council granted a prior request for an unusual council meeting to address the deaths of the three young people, although rejecting opposition pleas to withdraw the Corporate Parenting Annual Report.
The request has now been approved by the council, and on Tuesday, December 2, the special meeting of the entire council will take place.
After confirming to Barnet Post that the meeting was going ahead, a council spokesperson said
“We welcome this. It is important that time is given for all councillors to discuss the learning from this case.”
They added:
“According to the council’s constitution, the Mayor of Barnet can ask that the monitoring officer call an extraordinary council meeting (ECM). Members of Barnet Conservative group requested of the mayor to call an ECM.”
What reasons did Barnet Council give for not disclosing the cases?
Barnet Council gave reasons related primarily to legal and confidentiality considerations for not telling the cases of the three vulnerable children deaths to councillors. The council noted that telling certain information could compromise ongoing examinations or legal proceedings, and they balanced public interest in translucency against the implicit detriment or inhibition nondisclosure protects against.
In substance, Barnet Council maintained that the decision not to expose was grounded on securing the process of examinations and compliance with immunity under information rights and legal fabrics, especially around the sensitive nature of similar cases involving vulnerable children.
This confidentiality station is common in cases involving child protection or sensitive legal matters to insure due process isn’t impeded and sequestration considerations are admired.
