The question "Can 'childs' ever be the plural of 'child' in standard English ?" produced answers which agreed that it could not.
However, I notice today that, in Court, children, who had been named for the sake of anonymity as 'child two', 'child three' and 'child four', had been collectively referred to as 'childs two, three and four'.
Earlier in the inquest, the court heard Shukri had gone down to the river after school with Child One and three others — known as Childs Two, Three and Four.
This appears to me to be perfectly correct.
Are the Court, the newspaper report and myself all wrong in thinking that this is a 'standard English' way of properly referring to the children in question ?