Kingswood High School Appears to Care, but Fails to Protect

The Photograph and the Illusion of Wellbeing

The photograph was taken on R U OK? Day. It shows smiles, shared meals, drinks, and a public display of concern for student wellbeing. It presents a school that appears attentive, caring, and engaged.

At the time this image was taken, Celina Kaur Mehroke, aged 13, was already experiencing sustained bullying, peer betrayal, and psychological distress. The warning signs were present, yet the school’s response remained largely symbolic—focused on awareness activities and public-facing gestures rather than decisive safeguarding.

Loss of Safety and Breakdown of Trust

Celina did not feel safe at school, and her parents lost confidence in the school’s ability to protect her. As a result, she stopped attending school in 2025. In response to her deteriorating mental state, her parents restricted her access to mobile phones and social media platforms as a protective measure.

Despite this, Celina later gained access to a spare phone provided to her by S1, another student at Kingswood High School, thereby circumventing the safeguards put in place by Celina’s parents. The phone originated from S1’s household and belonged to S1’s parent. It was given to Celina by S1, not taken by Celina. While the device did not have mobile data, it was capable of connecting to Wi-Fi and was used without Celina’s parents’ knowledge or consent. The device also contained personal data associated with its original owner.

Known Peer Risk and Ignored Warnings

It is also relevant that S2 was part of the same peer group involved in past bullying incidents affecting Celina. This peer group included S3, S4, S2, S5, and S6.

Due to ongoing issues within this group, Celina formally requested to be moved away from them in an email dated 20 February 2025. This request clearly identified risk and placed the school on notice.

Despite this, earlier in 2025, complaints made by this same peer group formed the basis on which Celina was issued a Notice of Intention to Suspend by the Deputy Principal. This notice was issued without providing Celina any meaningful opportunity to be heard or to present her version of events.

This process did not merely deny Celina procedural fairness; it also represented a failure of the school’s duty to protect her. The decision relied on allegations from a group with a known history of conflict and prior bullying, notwithstanding Celina’s documented request to be separated from them. Rather than safeguarding a vulnerable student, the school’s actions elevated the complaints of those implicated in her distress, exposed her to further harm, and left her without adequate protection or support.

Evidence of Peer Harm Ignored

Chats later identified on the device between S1 and S2 showed rumours being actively circulated about Celina. Statements such as “I think she wants S5 back” and “Remember what she did to you” demonstrate how narratives were reinforced to isolate her.

This was not a matter of poor social skills. It was a hostile peer environment involving relational aggression.

Treating victimisation as a social deficit shifts responsibility away from the environment and onto the child who is already being harmed. This misattribution did not merely fail to stop the bullying; it legitimised it.

Psychological Deterioration and High-Risk Behaviour

Within this context, Celina’s wellbeing progressively deteriorated. She became increasingly withdrawn and distressed; her anxiety intensified; and her sense of safety, confidence, and self-worth eroded. As the harm accumulated, her distress manifested in high-risk coping behaviours. Celina began self-harming and posting related content online. She also engaged in body-checking posts on X, reflecting broader trends in which children present self-harm or extreme self-exposure as symbols of bravery.

When asked why she was doing this, Celina explained that she believed the bullying might stop if people saw that she was “brave” and willing to “go to extremes.” This belief did not arise spontaneously. It developed in an environment where appearances were prioritised over protection and where policy intent was not carried into practice. Celina later told her father that the school “won’t do anything,” despite repeated attempts by her family to raise concerns.

Performative Wellbeing and Preventable Harm

The family became aware of these developments through ongoing support, vigilance, and open communication with their child. Despite the school considering its processes complete, the psychological impact of both the incident and the manner in which it was handled continues to affect Celina.

This is why the photograph matters. When wellbeing is reduced to themed days, photographs, and refreshments—while children continue to deteriorate—the exercise becomes performative. A checkbox is ticked. The system declares itself compliant. The harm persists.

The photograph does not suggest that individual teachers depicted were personally responsible for wrongdoing toward Celina. However, they remain part of the institutional system whose response failed to protect her.

Schools have the capacity to intervene early, recognise relational aggression, and safeguard vulnerable students. In this case, that capacity was not exercised. The resulting harm was preventable. Awareness without action is not wellbeing—and children pay the price for that distinction.

This raises an unavoidable question: where is a victim meant to go for help when the very institution responsible for her safety fails to act fairly, denies her a meaningful voice, and relies on undisclosed or confidential material to justify decisions—treating a school-based child-safeguarding issue with a level of secrecy wholly disproportionate to the circumstances?