The release of the final judgement on the case of a girl fostered by a Muslim family has shown more problems with how the initial story was reported in sections of the press, Tower Hamlets Council claim.

The release last Friday of the final judgement on the case of a girl fostered by a Muslim family has shown more problems with how the initial story was reported in sections of the press according to Tower Hamlets council.

There had been much criticism levelled at the council in August last year after the Times reported that a “white Christian child” had been left distressed after being placed with two Muslim households over a period of six months.

However the judge at the time took the rare step of publishing a court order that contained details contradicting the original reporting of the case.

The order gave facts that the local authority was restricted from providing, including that the child’s grandmother was of Muslim faith and living abroad; that the court-appointed guardian had found the foster carers to be providing a good level of care; and that the council had applied for the child to be moved to the grandmother, but had to make checks on her suitability which included hiring a translator.

According to the chief executive of Tower Hamlets Council, a town hall investigation into the allegations - ordered to be published by the family court - found all of the allegations to be unsubstantiated.

The latest summary of the report made public last week outlined that it formed no part of the mother’s case that the child would not be loved and well cared for by the maternal grandmother, nor that the child’s needs would not be met by the maternal grandmother.

The report concluded that a Muslim foster home was probably the most familiar environment that could have been found for a child who had spent much of her short life with Muslim grandparents in a Muslim country.

A spokesman for Tower Hamlets Council said: “There are no winners here.

“Our community of foster carers were very upset by The Times’ stories and we felt it was important to defend them through actions including complaining to Independent Press Standards Organisation.

“Councils are bound by family court privacy laws which mean we cannot give details of cases.

“The sad reality is that had the family court not taken the unusual decision to publish its court order to reveal details of the case after the first stories were published, the truth would not have come to light and we would not have been able to make a complaint, let alone have it upheld.

“Last week’s release of the family court decision, ordered by the judge, has shown even more problems with the story.”