The baby cannot be mentioned and neither can his previous offending because both are children of the offenders. There are now strict controls across the board meaning that information about the very existence of innocent, minor children in cases like this can’t be reported which means there are restrictions on reporting on that offending. This is because similar info allowed a rape victim to be identified via the Baby P case. The other woman can’t be identified either because of her privacy (I believe she is also a vulnerable person) so there is little more they can say on that.
Reading between the lines on the 2 households, it seems like although there may have been an element of maximising benefits, it may also have been because Cole wasn’t allowed to live there full-time until shortly before Logan’s death, because of his previous offending. Seems like when Mulligan needed a home and Cole wanted to take him, the judge wasn’t happy about just giving him to Cole, but he saw Williams as a stable, reliable and caring figure and was happy for Mulligan to be with Cole as long as Williams was also in the household so signed off on the whole family living together full-time 5 days before Logan’s death.
We’ll find out in the report into social services etc. I suspect there is going to be a lot of criticism that services were hyper-focused on Mulligan’s needs which meant
I don’t think he’d ever be allowed to live with a child again, even if he was deemed rehabilitated. IIRC John Venables re-offending finally started being dealt with when he got into a relationship with someone with a child.
It was for ‘24 hours in Police Custody’.