Sexual Abuse and Murder of a Baby Cast Spotlight on Adoption Agency

A baby’s death in England after four months in the care of a same-sex adoptive couple has led to murder charges and renewed scrutiny of how children are placed with prospective parents and monitored by authorities.

A baby’s death in England has led to murder charges and renewed scrutiny of adoption and child protection systems. Photo: Francisco Goncalves/Getty Images/AI

A disturbing murder case involving a baby has shaken England and raised questions about the criteria by which children are placed with prospective adoptive parents. In the case of little Preston, the consequences were fatal. Adopted by a homosexual man and his partner, the boy survived only four months in the couple’s care before dying in the summer of 2023.

At the opening of the trial, both men are now before the court. The charges include not only murder but also physical and sexual abuse of the boy, who was just 13 months old when he died.

Prosecution Details Systematic Abuse

The first days of the trial have already brought disturbing details to light. The prosecution alleges that former teacher Jamie Varley sexually abused and killed 13-month-old Preston Davey. His partner, John McGowan-Fazakerley, is charged with causing the child’s death or failing to prevent it. Both deny the allegations.

The defendants claim the boy drowned in the bathroom after being left unattended in a baby seat in the water. However, when they brought him to the emergency department, the boy was neither wet nor was any water found in his lungs. Instead, he showed numerous other injuries that point to a prolonged ordeal.

According to the prosecution, the child was systematically abused during the nearly four months he lived with the couple. He was sexually abused and physically assaulted. In total, nearly 40 separate injuries were identified. The post-mortem examination found multiple non-accidental injuries, including bruising and internal damage. The cause of death was determined to be an acute obstruction of the upper airways, indicating suffocation.

Analysis of the couple’s digital devices also uncovered sexual images and videos allegedly produced by the defendants.

On the day of the boy’s death, 27 July 2023, Varley was alone at home with the child, according to the prosecution. He filmed the boy, who was already showing signs of respiratory arrest, without providing assistance. Less than two hours later, both defendants brought the unconscious child to a hospital in Blackpool, where he could not be revived.

The prosecution has prepared the jury for the possibility that further emotionally disturbing video material will be shown during the trial. This includes footage of the apparently unattended baby “sliding and slipping” in a bathtub for 14 minutes, while Varley did not intervene once and merely recorded the child’s attempts to stay above water without saying a word.

The case is also politically sensitive, raising the question of whether the boy’s death could have been prevented or whether there was a breach of duty of care by the responsible authorities and the adoption agencies involved.

Authorities Failed to Act on Warning Signs

The prosecution, represented by Peter Wright KC, cited testimony from a witness, a former colleague of Varley. After learning of the child’s death, the witness contacted the authorities and stated that about a month before the boy died, Varley had visited him with the child and admitted that he had “dark thoughts” about the boy, could not form a bond with him and had already considered suffocating or drowning him. He also said he had disclosed these thoughts during social services assessments, which involved his employer and the social workers responsible for Preston’s adoption.

The boy had initially been under the care of Oldham Council. The adoption was arranged through the British organization Adoption Now, which works with a number of local authorities in northwest England.

Preston was in the couple’s care for only four months before his apparent violent death, and although the defendant had expressed violent fantasies to others, no one appears to have acted.