
Boy who killed foster carer was placed with family despite concern, inquest told
Marcia Grant, 60, had been working as a foster carer for seven years when she suffered catastrophic injuries as she tried to stop the boy taking her car outside her home in the Greenhill area of Sheffield on April 5 2023.
The boy, referred to as Child X, was sentenced to two years in custody in November 2023 after admitting causing Mrs Grant's death by dangerous driving, when a murder charge was dropped.
On Monday, a week-long inquest began at Sheffield Coroner's Court with her family saying: 'To say mum's life's calling was to help those in need is an understatement.'
The hearing will look at Rotherham Council's decision to place Child X with Mrs Grant and her husband Delroy, the support they were given and the events outside their home on the evening of April 5, coroner Marilyn Whittle said.
Ms Whittle heard how Mr and Mrs Grant were experienced foster carers who were highly regarded by the council's fostering team.
They were caring for another child, referred to as Child Y, when a call went out to all Rotherham's foster carers for an emergency placement for Child X on March 30 2023.
The inquest heard how Mr and Mrs Grant volunteered take him, despite them being categorised as only able to take in one child at a time, largely because of the complexities Child Y presented to them.
But Ms Whittle heard that the rules meant that they could take another child for up to six days in an emergency situation.
The coroner was told that the six days expired on April 5 – the day Mrs Grant died – and the boy was collected by social services but returned later that day.
Social worker David Wade, who supported the Grants in their fostering, told the inquest that he was consulted about the initial emergency placement of Child X and said he did not agree with the decision because of the potential impact on Child Y, who was clearly being helped by the family.
But Mr Wade said the decision was made by a more senior manager.
The social worker told the court that he did not know the details of Child X's self-reported history of gang-related activity and possession of knives.
He told the coroner that, if he did, he would have been more robust in his insistence that this was not a suitable placement.
Mr Wade said he had absolutely no concerns over Mr and Mrs Grant's ability to care for Child X and stressed that his prime concerns were about the impact on Child Y.
He said: 'They just wanted to help all the time. They were just incredibly open to helping children.'
Matthew Boud, who worked at the time as head of service for Rotherham Council's children in care service, signed off on the placement of Child X with the Grants.
He explained how council faced difficult, 'finely balanced' decisions over emergency placements and, if the Grants had not agreed to take the boy, he could have ended up in an unsuitable setting, possibly including a hotel or being transported miles from Rotherham.
He said: 'We were desperately trying to provide some stability for Child X in that context.'
Mr Boud said he thought it was an 'appropriate decision' in the circumstances.
Child X's social worker Tessa Goodacre told the court she was not aware of concerns in the few days he was with the Grants.
She was asked by the coroner whether she was 'aware that Mrs Grant was struggling and colleagues were saying she was looking shattered', but she said she was not aware.
Ms Goodacre said the boy was very chatty and acted like a normal teenager. She said he enjoyed football and told her he wanted to be a police officer when he grew up.
The social worker said she was aware Child X had a youth caution for possession of a knife and had talked about gang-related activities, which were not substantiated.
The inquest opened on Monday with a pen-portrait of Mrs Grant, read by her daughter, Gemma.
The family said she was a 'soul like no other' with an 'unshakeable ethical compass'.
They said she was a 'proud and loving mother' with an 'infectious laugh'.
The statement said: 'To say mum's life's calling was to help those in need is an understatement'.
Ms Grant outlined her mother's long career working for charities and in social care, saying she always supported people who were 'overlooked, dismissed or mistreated'.
She said she provided a 'safe haven for children in need' and added: 'She wore the achievements of those she loved as if they were her own.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Nudifying apps are not 'a bit of fun' - they are seriously harmful and their existence is a scandal writes Children's Commissioner RACHEL DE SOUZA
I am horrified that children are growing up in a world where anyone can take a photo of them and digitally remove their clothes. They are growing up in a world where anyone can download the building blocks to develop an AI tool, which can create naked photos of real people. It will soon be illegal to use these building blocks in this way, but they will remain for sale by some of the biggest technology companies meaning they are still open to be misused. Earlier this year I published research looking at the existence of these apps that use Generative Artificial Intelligence (GenAI) to create fake sexually explicit images through prompts from users. The report exposed the shocking underworld of deepfakes: it highlighted that nearly all deepfakes in circulation are pornographic in nature, and 99% of them feature girls or women – often because the apps are specifically trained to work on female bodies. In the past four years as Children's Commissioner, I have heard from a million children about their lives, their aspirations and their worries. Of all the worrying trends in online activity children have spoken to me about – from seeing hardcore porn on X to cosmetics and vapes being advertised to them through TikTok – the evolution of 'nudifying' apps to become tools that aid in the abuse and exploitation of children is perhaps the most mind-boggling. As one 16-year-old girl asked me: 'Do you know what the purpose of deepfake is? Because I don't see any positives.' Children, especially girls, are growing up fearing that a smartphone might at any point be used as a way of manipulating them. Girls tell me they're taking steps to keep themselves safe online in the same way we have come to expect in real life, like not walking home alone at night. For boys, the risks are different but equally harmful: studies have identified online communities of teenage boys sharing dangerous material are an emerging threat to radicalisation and extremism. The government is rightly taking some welcome steps to limit the dangers of AI. Through its Crime and Policing Bill, it will become illegal to possess, create or distribute AI tools designed to create child sexual abuse material. And the introduction of the Online Safety Act – and new regulations by Ofcom to protect children – marks a moment for optimism that real change is possible. But what children have told me, from their own experiences, is that we must go much further and faster. The way AI apps are developed is shrouded in secrecy. There is no oversight, no testing of whether they can be used for illegal purposes, no consideration of the inadvertent risks to younger users. That must change. Nudifying apps should simply not be allowed to exist. It should not be possible for an app to generate a sexual image of a child, whether or not that was its designed intent. The technology used by these tools to create sexually explicit images is complex. It is designed to distort reality, to fixate and fascinate the user – and it confronts children with concepts they cannot yet understand. I should not have to tell the government to bring in protections for children to stop these building blocks from being arranged in this way. Posts on LinkedIn have even appeared promoting the 'best' nudifying AI tools available I welcome the move to criminalise individuals for creating child sexual abuse image generators but urge the government to move the tools that would allow predators to create sexually explicit deepfake images out of reach altogether. To do this, I have asked the government to require technology companies who provide opensource AI models – the building blocks of AI tools – to test their products for their capacity to be used for illegal and harmful activity. These are all things children have told me they want. They will help stop sexual imagery involving children becoming normalised. And they will make a significant effort in meeting the government's admirable mission to halve violence against women and girls, who are almost exclusively the subjects of these sexual deepfakes. Harms to children online are not inevitable. We cannot shrug our shoulders in defeat and claim it's impossible to remove the risks from evolving technology. We cannot dismiss it this growing online threat as a 'classroom problem' – because evidence from my survey of school and college leaders shows that the vast majority already restrict phone use: 90% of secondary schools and 99.8% of primary schools. Yet, despite those restrictions, in the same survey of around 19,000 school leaders, they told me online safety is among the most pressing issue facing children in their communities. For them, it is children's access to screens in the hours outside of school that worries them the most. Education is only part of the solution. The challenge begins at home. We must not outsource parenting to our schools and teachers. As parents it can feel overwhelming to try and navigate the same technology as our children. How do we enforce boundaries on things that move too quickly for us to follow? But that's exactly what children have told me they want from their parents: limitations, rules and protection from falling down a rabbit hole of scrolling. Two years ago, I brought together teenagers and young adults to ask, if they could turn back the clock, what advice they wished they had been given before owning a phone. Invariably those 16-21-year-olds agreed they had all been given a phone too young. They also told me they wished their parents had talked to them about the things they saw online – not just as a one off, but regularly, openly, and without stigma. Later this year I'll be repeating that piece of work to produce new guidance for parents – because they deserve to feel confident setting boundaries on phone use, even when it's far outside their comfort zone. I want them to feel empowered to make decisions for their own families, whether that's not allowing their child to have an internet-enabled phone too young, enforcing screen-time limits while at home, or insisting on keeping phones downstairs and out of bedrooms overnight. Parents also deserve to be confident that the companies behind the technology on our children's screens are playing their part. Just last month, new regulations by Ofcom came into force, through the Online Safety Act, that will mean tech companies must now to identify and tackle the risks to children on their platforms – or face consequences. This is long overdue, because for too long tech developers have been allowed to turn a blind eye to the risks to young users on their platforms – even as children tell them what they are seeing. If these regulations are to remain effective and fit for the future, they have to keep pace with emerging technology – nothing can be too hard to tackle. The government has the opportunity to bring in AI product testing against illegal and harmful activity in the AI Bill, which I urge the government to introduce in the coming parliamentary session. It will rightly make technology companies responsible for their tools being used for illegal purposes. We owe it to our children, and the generations of children to come, to stop these harms in their tracks. Nudifying apps must never be accepted as just another restriction placed on our children's freedom, or one more risk to their mental wellbeing. They have no value in a society where we value the safety and sanctity of childhood or family life.


The Sun
2 minutes ago
- The Sun
Ambulance chiefs spend £675k on body armour for paramedics after surge in violent attacks on crews
AMBULANCE chiefs are spending £675,000 on stab-proof body armour for paramedics after a rise in violent attacks. It is part of a £3.3million package to protect London Ambulance Service crews. They have seen an 11.9 increase in acts of violence or aggression, from 2,087 incidents in 2023 to 2,337 last year — an average of seven a day. That includes 11 attacks with 'edged weapons' such as knives. LAS bosses have signed a three-year contract for anti-knife gear from Cooneen Defence, which specialises in military combat and protection clothing. The ambulance service's chief executive Jason Killens said: 'Violence towards our crews is utterly appalling and unacceptable. "The impact can be devastating, especially if staff need time off the road to recover. 'Thankfully stabbings and knife injuries are rare for our frontline crews, but we provide all our staff with body armour so we can keep them safe if they feel threatened.' Last year medic Dean Hawkins risked his life to restrain a Tube passenger wielding a knife in Harrow, North West London. In 2022 a paramedic had a knife pushed to his back outside his vehicle at University College Hospital, central London. Last month two LAS members told how a patient they were treating kicked through their windscreen and threw bricks as they tried to help him in Rotherhithe, South East London. The LAS is also spending money on body-worn cameras and improved CCTV. Man in his 20s dies as car ploughs into London pub in horror early hours crash 1


Daily Mail
2 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Prince George a step closer to Eton after being allocated a house - despite Prince and Princess of Wales being 'plagued by indecision' over their choice of school for the young Royal
Prince George has been allocated a house at Eton College –despite the Prince and Princess of Wales being 'plagued by indecision' about their choice of school, The Mail on Sunday can reveal. Although the £63,000-a-year public school is still the 'clear front-runner', leadership changes – including a six-month leave of absence for headmaster Simon Henderson – has left the royal couple uncertain if Eton is right for their eldest child. Mr Henderson, 49 – who earned the nickname 'Trendy Hendy' after being accused of launching an 'aggressively woke ' bid to overhaul the 585-year-old institution – was absent from his post for unspecified reasons between last August and January. It was during this period that Kate was seen visiting several other possible schools, including two in North London. It has long been assumed that Eton – where Prince William was educated – would be the first choice for 12-year-old George when he leaves Lambrook, his preparatory school in Berkshire, next summer. But sources have told the MoS that Mr Henderson's absence left William and Kate feeling 'unsure' about the direction the school would take upon his return – or if he would return at all. Just before the headmaster's leave began, the Provost of Eton, former Tory minister Lord (William) Waldegrave – Mr Henderson's close friend and mentor – also unexpectedly stepped down after 15 years in the role. And while the Waleses were thought to have been 'reassured' when Sir Nicholas Coleridge, chair of Historic Royal Palaces, was appointed Provost last year, they are said to have wanted to wait until Mr Henderson returned before making a final decision. While an announcement by Kensington Palace is expected soon, it is understood the Waleses settled on a house for George with the help of Sir Nicholas. A source said: 'Eton has been going through much transition lately so that's perhaps why it wasn't an easy decision. 'There has been a lot going on that isn't public knowledge but which Catherine would, of course, have been informed of. 'She has been wise to wait and observe for a few more months for things to settle down, which it has thanks to Nicholas Coleridge's hand on the tiller and Simon Henderson's return – though that has its own dilemmas because he's not everyone's ideal Eton headmaster.' Last month, a source close to the school told the MoS that 'all roads lead to Eton' for George. Eton has 25 houses, including the main college where the prestigious King's Scholars – the brightest academic pupils – are housed. The others – which include Angelo's, The Hopgarden, Cotton Hall House and Hawtrey House – are dotted in and around the college campus and the village, which the college technically owns. Each accommodates around 50 boys, with ten from each year, which encourages pupils to mix with other age groups. Princes William and Harry both lived in Manor House, which was founded in the early 18th Century. One of its earlier members was the Duke of Wellington. Unlike many public schools, each pupil has an individual study bedroom from the age of 13 to encourage them 'to organise themselves and to develop self-discipline in meeting tasks and deadlines'. They are catered for in their house and can make themselves snacks within in-house kitchens. Houses dip in and out of popularity, insiders say, often according to how well liked a particular housemaster is. An announcement about George's schooling is now eagerly awaited – mainly by parents who have children the same age as him. One parent at Marlborough College said: 'We are all hoping an announcement will be made soon because there's a huge waiting list at Marlborough. 'Once everyone finds out that George is going to another school that backlog will disappear.'