SEARCH RESULTS

Matt, Jools, Ellen He should have been opening his A-level results, dreaming about university, travel, and adventures. Instead, I’m left with milestones of could have been. Jools ended his life at just 14. I still don’t know why because the law stops me from accessing his online data. That’s why I’m fighting for Jools’ Law to give bereaved parents the right to answers and the chance to protect other children. I’m back from London today after continuing my fight for Jools’ Law, and an important meeting was had. This fight is for Jools and for every family who deserves the truth. Today, while other families celebrate results, I’m reminded that grades are never more important than a child’s life. Please keep talking, keep noticing, and keep listening. #JoolsLaw   #ForJools   #CouldHaveBeen   #SuicidePrevention   #ALevelResultsDay

Jools' 6th Birthday (Ellen, Jools, Matt) Today should have been filled with laughter and celebration. Today, our son Jools should have turned 18. Instead, there is silence. No card to write. No present to wrap. Just an aching, endless space where my brilliant, funny, kind boy should be. Since that awful day when Jools died, I’ve lived with a pain no parent should ever know. I’m fighting to understand what happened to him, but along the way, that search for answers has grown into something much bigger. Meeting so many other parents who are in a similar awful position. Because Jools is not the only child. There are others, right now, being harmed, confused, and overwhelmed by what they’re exposed to online. Violent, explicit, and deeply inappropriate content, content no child should ever see, and it is just a scroll away. It’s hurting their minds, their self-worth, and in some cases, their lives. So I keep going, not just to find answers about what happened to Jools, but for every other child who is still here and still at risk. I have no other children of my own left to protect, but I can fight to protect yours. And I will. Jools should still be here. He should be celebrating with his friends, with me, with his dad, and with everyone who loved him so much. If you’re a parent, please take a moment to hug your child today. Look them in the eyes and remind them they are loved beyond measure. And if you work in government, tech, education, or law, ask yourself: What are we really doing to protect our children online? Because right now, it is not enough. I’ll never get to buy Jools a pint. I’ll never see him off to university. I’ll never know the man he could have become. But I can fight. And I will. I can’t say “Happy Birthday,” because there’s not one part of this that feels happy. So instead, I’ll just say: Thinking of you, my darling boy, on what should have been your 18th birthday. I pinky promise to love you forever, Jools. Love, Mum x

I would like to introduce you to two incredibly brave parents whom I’ve had the privilege of meeting on this difficult journey. Their beautiful daughter was just thirteen when she was groomed online and tragically lost her life. What they’ve written below is raw, honest, and utterly heartbreaking — but it’s also vital reading for anyone who cares about protecting children. They didn’t ask to become campaigners. They’re grieving parents, like so many of us, who have been forced to carry this weight because the systems that should have protected their daughter failed her. Please take the time to read their words. Share them. Talk about them. Their message deserves to be heard. We will not stop fighting until the truth is faced and real change is made. For their daughter. For Jools. For every child. 💙 #JoolsLaw #OnlineSafety  Our daughter died as a result of online grooming. She was just thirteen years old. Following her death, a joint agency enquiry was launched to determine what lessons can be learned. That is right and necessary. But in our experience, it has not gone far enough. As her parents, we have not been invited to share what we know, what we’ve learned, or what we’ve come to understand in the painful aftermath of losing our child. This may seem like a procedural oversight, but it points to a deeper systemic issue: When governments, regulators and official enquiries fail to see the full picture, it is bereaved parents grieving, traumatised and exhausted, who are left to fight for the truth. And the truth is this: our daughter’s death was preventable. But the action needed to protect her and countless others, was delayed, diluted, or denied by those in power. The danger of online grooming has been known since at least 2017, when it became a criminal offence for adults to send sexual messages to children. By then, cases of digital grooming were already rising sharply. In the years that followed, the number of recorded grooming offences increased by more than 80%. In 2019, the UK government published the Online Harms White Paper, proposing a duty of care on tech platforms. But what followed was four years of slow progress and political distraction under successive Conservative governments. During this time, the number of children being harmed online continued to grow. So did the evidence. And still, meaningful regulation was delayed. The Online Safety Act, passed in October 2023, came far too late for our daughter. Even then, enforcement only began in mid-2025, by which point the apps and loopholes that exposed her had already done irreversible damage. Platforms like LMK and WhatsApp, which allowed predators to reach her directly remain widely available to young people with little or no oversight. And organisations like Ofcom, despite being tasked with regulation, have repeatedly failed to act with the urgency and strength required to protect children. We now hear the current government speak of reform, transparency, and safety. These words are welcome. But as campaigners like Ellen Roome have rightly warned, we have heard them before. The promises of one government are often undone by the inaction of the next. Unless there is a serious break with this cycle of delay and denial, more children will die, and more parents will be left to carry what we now carry. This is not just about one app, or one agency, or one enquiry. It is about a culture of deferral where warnings are ignored, safeguards are postponed, and grieving families are told, after the fact, that “lessons will be learned.” We are sharing this not to point fingers, but to say what must be said: Our daughter died not only because a predator found her, but because systems failed to stop him. Those failures began years ago and were allowed to continue across successive governments. The burden of change now falls on people who loved her the most, and who lost her in the most unimaginable way. We do not want this burden. But if no one else will carry it, we will. Two grieving parents United Kingdom

Applying to the High Court for a new inquest for Jools to try to use the new Date Use and Access Bill for answers. Access to Jools' data via the High Court. I have to apply to the Attorney General (AG) for permission to apply to the High Court for a fresh inquest. If agreed upon, the AG will grant a FIAT, which gives me six weeks to apply to the High Court. Timeline of events to The High Court (last updated 19th Aug 2025) 19th August 2025 - I finally received the police report (it doesn't provide any further updates). Forwarded it to my lawyers. It continues to be a very painful journey. 9th Aug 2025 - On 7th July, Gloucestershire Constabulary Legal Services Department informed me that I would receive the police report on Jools' devices by 4th August. Later, I was advised it would arrive by the end of this week, which I understood to mean yesterday. Perhaps their definition of the week’s end differs and means tomorrow. Regardless, I am still awaiting the report and have just followed up again. 23rd July 2025 - Letter received from Minister Alex Davies-Jones (Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice) explains that while she and her colleagues deeply sympathise with my loss and my pursuit of the truth about Jools’ death, they cannot formally support my application for a fresh coroner’s investigation. This is because the Attorney General must act independently in deciding whether to grant permission (a “fiat”) for a new investigation, and it would be inappropriate for other ministers to influence that process; however, she acknowledges its importance and my ongoing efforts. 17th July 2025 - I have written back to Peter Kyle to raise my concerns about an app called LMK and WhatsApp, which isn’t covered under the children’s codes for harmful content in the Online Safety Act because it’s an encrypted private messaging service, not a platform for public content or user-generated media feeds. The children’s codes primarily apply to services where harmful content can be recommended or algorithmically pushed to users — such as video platforms or social media feeds — rather than private one-to-one or group messaging apps. However, services like WhatsApp are frequently used in grooming and abuse, especially when predators move children from public platforms into private chats. 16th July 2025 - Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation & Technology, responded to me, you can see his letter here . 7th July 2025 - The Police Legal team have said I will have a reply by Monday, 4 August 2025 2nd July 2025 - I have written to the Gloucestershire Constabulary's legal team to request details of precisely what data was reviewed, how, when, and which social media accounts the police discovered before the inquest. I hope this doesn't take nine months for them to respond, as it did when I asked for the police file they hold on Jools. A large part of this was also redacted, which I queried with the Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson DBE MP - Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention, and was told 'When responding to a data subject access request pursuant to the Data Protection Act 2018, the law allows law enforcement authorities, in this case the Gloucestershire Constabulary, to restrict the response (for example by redacting) if that is necessary and proportionate for a range of circumstances, including to avoid prejudicing the prevention, detection or investigation of criminal offences or to protect the rights and freedoms of others. For example, information relating to others (third parties) may be redacted, and information that could prejudice a policing/law enforcement purpose may be removed where its disclosure could impact on operational tactics or ongoing investigation. Each organisation must consider requests on a case-by-case basis and apply exemptions accordingly." 26th June 2025 - I have written to the following people to ask them to support an application to the Attorney General for a new inquest for Jools. Alex Davies-Jones - Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Ministry of Justice, Rt Hon Dame Diana Johnson DBE MP - Minister of State for Policing and Crime Prevention Rt Hon Peter Kyle MP, Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation &Technology Baroness Maggie Jones - Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Science, Innovation &Technology 6th June 2025 - The Coroner has returned documents. I now need to obtain statements from Jools' friends 27th May 2025 - I have written to the coroner. After Jools ' inquest, I only received the final inquest pack, and Lawyers have told me I should have received other documents. I have asked to obtain records from the coroner. Jools' inquest file has been archived, so I'm waiting for that to come back. Ideally, I would like the Coroner to support my application for a fresh inquest.

We are suing TikTok in the U.S. state of Delaware over the tragic wrongful deaths of our children, you can follow this journey here. Lawsuit against Tiktok We are the first UK parents suing TikTok in the U.S. state of Delaware over the tragic wrongful deaths of our children, who are believed to have succumbed to the so-called “blackout challenge” promoted through TikTok’s algorithms. Despite our repeated requests for access, TikTok has withheld our children’s online activity data. Data we believe is crucial to understanding what truly influenced their actions and whether the platform’s recommendations played a fatal role. You can read the complaint here . Watch more about our stories on BBC iPlayer: The Families Taking TikTok to Court , featuring Laura Kuenssberg in conversation with us as four British families pursuing justice. The link to watch this is here . You can follow this link to the Civil Docket Report page for case N25C-02-073 in Delaware’s CourtConnect system. It’s an unofficial docket report, providing a publicly accessible, real-time overview of filings and activity in the specified court case, including motions, orders, hearing dates, and other docket entries. Although useful, it is not an official court document, meaning it may lack some formatting or details found in certified records. You can track the latest developments in the case: filings like motions, responses, hearing settings, rulings, scheduling orders, and more will appear via timestamped docket entries. At the moment, the briefing is complete, and we are waiting for a "motion to dismiss" hearing to be set, which I plan to fly out for.

Joolslaw - Give parents the right to view their deceased children's social media data. Ellen Roome is fighting for transparency and safety in the digital space so no other family has to endure the pain she has suffered. Jools Law I’m Ellen Roome, Jools' Mum and now a campaigner. I am fighting for transparency and safety in the digital space so no other family has to endure the pain we have suffered. My life changed forever on April 13, 2022, when my 14-year-old son, Jools Sweeney, took his own life. His sudden death left me searching for answers. Nothing was found offline as to why he might have taken the actions he did. The Coroner said that he couldn't be certain Jools was in a suicidal mood, and so it's a narrative description on his death certificate of how he died. I was left with no answers as to why, and as Jools' social media data was not fully examined during his inquest, I approached them directly for answers—none of the social media companies would allow me access to his browsing data. Jools' social media accounts could have provided vital insights into his actions and whether an online challenge or other harmful interactions influenced him. However, I have faced significant hurdles, as current laws require a court order to access my son's digital data. As a parent, you have NO legal right to view what your children have seen online. My next steps for access to Jools' data is via the High Court. You can read below about my journey through Parliament pushing for changes to access to social media data for children who have died, but the new Data Bill will not help me as Jools' inquest was closed. I now have NO other option but to apply to the Attorney General to ask permission to apply to the High Court for a fresh inquest so that we can use the Data Bill and see if social media companies haven't deleted Jools' data and IF there are answers as to why my son ended his life. You can follow that journey here . My Parliament Campaign As a result of not being able to access my son's social media accounts - despite him being a minor when he died, and therefore under my parental responsibility - I felt compelled to launch a campaign for "Jools' Law," which seeks to grant parents the right to access their deceased children's social media accounts without needing a court order. 27th April 2024 - I set up a government petition #Joolslaw - Parents to have full access to their children's social media. I want parents/guardians to have the full right to see their children's social media accounts when either the child is alive or deceased. My son Jools was 14 when he took his life in 2022. At the time, the new Coroner's powers to request social media were not in force. However, I also think this is too late. Since my son's death, I have not been able to access information to see what my son was looking at that could have contributed to him taking his own life. Parents should have the right to full access to their child's social media accounts either whilst they are still alive (to protect them) or if they die as in my case. I was contacted by Grace Carter from Aphra (https://www.weareaphra.co.uk/) , whom I didn't know until she reached out and offered to help create a video to ask for signatures. The video is below. 21st May 2024 - Due to the Government election, the Government was set to close ALL petitions early on 30th May. I had 9 days to get to 100,000 signatures. It was my birthday, so I asked on social media for one birthday wish: “Everyone, please sign and share my petition" Grace told me we needed another video to push for signatures, I didn't want to fail, so she made this.. 28th May 2024 —We reached 100,000 signatures. I was on a train to London and felt like crying out of joy. Wow—thank you, everyone. 30th May 2024 - The petition closed with an impressive total of 126,033 signatures. 17th July 2024 – During the King's Speech, part of the State Opening of Parliament, it was announced that the Data (Use and Access) Bill would be reintroduced. This bill had previously been dropped mainly due to political disagreements, concerns over its scope, or the prioritisation of other legislative measures. 13th Jan 2025 - My petition was discussed in Parliament, where MPs concurred that parents should have the right to seek answers using social media data when a child has died. I was then offered a meeting with the ministers and awaited their response. You can watch the debate here… I attended numerous parliamentary meetings, some of which included representatives from social media companies. I pleaded with these companies to release Jools’ data as well as data for other bereaved parents who were there with me. They refused. I urged ministers to consider amending the Data Bill; I proposed a simple yet effective amendment to the Data (Use and Access) Bill in Parliament. Under the Data Bill, the coroner will now be able to demand that social media companies preserve and release data, but only if the police or the coroner requests it. Like many other parents I know, they never took the initiative to preserve and request our children's data. I wanted it to become compulsory, like a toxicology or post-mortem report is requested when a child dies. I wanted social media data automatically preserved and requested for the inquest. The parent could then access this data as a person of interest in the child’s death. Most importantly, it could assist the inquest in determining what happened to the child, whether it was bullying, grooming, sextortion, or an online challenge. It's crucial that this data is preserved and requested immediately. The Data Bill is in the final stages of passing through Parliament, and while it will not be compulsory to preserve and request data, there will be a law that, if enacted, will grant the coroner the right to request this data. 15th May 2025 – I met with Minister Jones (Department of Science and Technology), Minister Johnson (Home Office), and Minister Davies-Jones (Minister of Justice) to discuss further. I stressed the need for training for Police and Coroners to make sure the potential use of the Data Bill is cascaded down through the system to ensure that no other bereaved parent is left in my position of not having all data reviewed, which could help explain why a child has ended their life.