A timeline of how Megan Khung’s fatal abuse case unfolded – and how agencies could have done more

Nevertheless, the grandmother said she had been in video calls with Megan around Sep 10 to  Sep 20, and that Megan “appeared to be fine”, the review panel noted. 

Sep 18 to 27, 2019: Beyond Social Services queries other agencies about Megan 

While attempting to contact Foo, Beyond Social Services also contacted several agencies and shared information about Megan’s situation.

They did so as concerns for Megan’s safety grew and her whereabouts became unknown when her mother stopped responding. 

Between Sep 20 and 25, two calls were made to MSF’s child protective service. However, MSF could only find one of the two calls in its case management system. 

Despite a “further comprehensive search” across its hotline records, MSF told CNA it was unable to locate the recording of the other call. 

“It is possible that due to technical problems, some audio recordings from the period were not successfully archived. It remains unclear if the same officer was involved in both calls at present,” MSF said. 

The ministry added that Beyond Social Services has not been able to obtain more details of the other call. 

The panel reviewed the transcript of the call that was retrieved from the records and determined that Beyond Social Services could have communicated Megan’s situation more clearly to child protective service, such as a fuller description of the injuries and that a temporary care plan had been established but later breached when the grandmother left Megan with her mother on Sep 10, 2019. 

In this call, Beyond Social Services’ community worker had summarised her concerns, including Megan’s bruises, the suspected drug use by her mother and Wong, and the fact that Megan’s whereabouts were unknown.

But her statement that the grandmother “feels the child is fine (as of the moment)” downplayed the incident, the report found.  

In addition, the panel noted that MSF’s child protective service failed to notice the discrepancy between what ought to be Beyond Social Services’ professional assessment of Megan’s safety and the grandmother’s opinion.

Instead, the child protective service accepted the grandmother’s assessment of the risk and stated that it would be difficult to act if the child was not located. 

The call thus ended with child protective service advising that if Megan’s grandmother is worried, she can also make a police report where the child in this case is missing and she has concerns over child’s safety.

The panel also pointed out that the child protective service officer did not register the call despite the established processes at that time. 

“Had the call been discussed with the supervisor, the supervisor might have requested a call-back and suggested further probing into the case,” the review panel said in its findings.