A former liaison officer told the Nicosia District Court on Friday that, in her professional opinion, there were sufficient warning signs for the Social Welfare Services to have applied for a court order removing 14-year-old Stylianos Constantinou from his family environment.
The witness, identified by the initials S.K., was giving evidence in the ongoing proceedings examining the circumstances surrounding the death of the teenager, who died by suicide in September 2019.
Enough information was there to remove Stylianos
During cross-examination by defence lawyer Victor Akamas, representing the third defendant, S.K. said she had revisited the official case files following her previous testimony to ensure, as she put it, that she would not "do an injustice to anyone" in her answers.
She stressed, however, that she did not know precisely what actions the specific Social Welfare Services officer, who is the third defendant, had or had not taken, adding that this was a matter for the court to determine on the basis of all the evidence presented.
Nevertheless, S.K. said that, based on her experience handling particularly complex family cases, the Social Welfare Services had applied for child removal orders even in cases where there were only indications of neglect or abuse.
"In my personal opinion, there was sufficient information which the services ought to have examined and which should have led to an application before the court for a removal order," she told the court.
She added that she had worked with welfare offices in other districts where similar procedures had been followed in comparable cases.
Rebutting allegations
When it was suggested by the defence that her opinion reflected her perspective as a mother, teacher and citizen rather than as a professional, S.K. rejected the assertion. She maintained that her views were based solely on her professional experience and the practices followed by the Social Welfare Services during the relevant period.
At the same time, she reiterated that she could not say whether the officials responsible for the case had fulfilled all of their duties, emphasising that her testimony concerned her professional experience rather than the specific handling of this case.
When the defence suggested that the Social Welfare Services, and particularly the third defendant, had acted appropriately, the witness disagreed, while again stressing that it was ultimately for the court to assess the evidence and determine responsibility.
Referring to multidisciplinary teams, S.K. said the objectives agreed during their meetings were collective decisions rather than the views of individual participants.
Domestic violence
Asked specifically about domestic violence, she said there had been no separate objective dealing with that issue, explaining that assessing domestic violence fell within the responsibilities of the Social Welfare Services.
She also testified that the welfare officer responsible for the case was kept informed of discussions during multidisciplinary meetings, mainly through telephone communication. Although she kept personal notes in her diaries and was confident the officer had been updated, she said she could not identify who had provided the information or exactly when.
Addressing the absence of official minutes from later multidisciplinary meetings, S.K. said there had been no requirement at the time to keep formal records. She explained that the Ministry's B1 form completed after the first meeting was an official recommendation form rather than minutes of the meeting, while her own notes were for personal use.
Court adjurned
Regarding references to domestic violence, the witness said she had not included such a finding in her report because it was not her role to determine whether domestic violence had occurred. Instead, she said she could only identify information and incidents that might indicate neglect or domestic violence, without having sufficient evidence to reach a definitive conclusion.
During cross-examination, the defence also questioned her contact with Stylianos. S.K. rejected the suggestion that she had never seen the children, saying she had visited them at school and observed them with colleagues in the school environment.
She acknowledged, however, that after so many years she could no longer identify Stylianos with certainty from a photograph, although she remembered some of his general physical characteristics.
The hearing has been adjourned until 7 September 2026, when proceedings before the Nicosia District Court will resume with the testimony of another prosecution witness.
The case concerns the investigation into the circumstances surrounding Stylianos Constantinou's death. The court is examining potential responsibility both within the family and on the part of state services, including allegations of abuse or neglect, whether the child's mother was aware of any such incidents without reporting them, and whether the Social Welfare Services adequately assessed and acted upon the information available to them.
Source: CNA
