V, W, X, Y & Z, Re (Children: Fact-finding sexual abuse) [2024] EWFC 457 (B)

[2024] EWFC 457 (B)

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BARNET

Barnet Civil and Family Courts Centre St Mary’s Court Regents Park Road Finchley Central London

N3 1BQ

Before

HIS HONOUR JUDGE OLIVER JONES

Between

A LOCAL AUTHORITYAPPLICANT

Legal Representation

Mr William Dean (Counsel) for Applicant Local Authority

Ms Andlib Mohsin (Counsel) for First Respondent Mother

Mr Herbert Anyiam (Counsel) for Second Respondent Father

Q (Third Respondent Father) not in attendance nor represented

Ms Jane Hayford (Counsel) for Fourth Respondent Father

Ms Janet Mitchell (Counsel) for Fifth Respondent Children (via their Children’s Guardian)

Other Parties Present and their status

None known

Judgment

Judgment date: 16 October 2024

(start and end times cannot be noted due to audio format)

Reporting Restrictions Applied: Yes

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

This Transcript is Crown Copyright. It may not be reproduced in whole or in part other than in accordance with relevant licence or with the express consent of the Authority. All rights are reserved.

Number of folios in transcript 169 Number of words in transcript 12,099

His Honour Judge Oliver Jones:

Date 2024-10-16

[1]These are care proceedings brought by a local authority represented by Mr Dean. The mother is M, she is the mother of the five children, and she is represented by Ms Mohsin. The father of the three younger children, X, Y, and Z is P. He has been represented throughout by Mr Anyiam. The father of V is Q. He is not present and not represented. He has chosen to not engage with these proceedings.

[2]The father of W is R. He is present at this hearing. He has been present with the Court’s permission for part of the Fact Finding Hearing, and he is represented by his Counsel Ms Hayford, save for on Monday of this week when he was represented by Ms Croxford.

[3]The five children are by order of age, V who is secondary-school age, W and X who are primary-school aged, Y and Z who are below school age. The five children are represented through their Children’s Guardian Ms Dionne Roberts and by Counsel Ms Mitchell.

[4]The matter has been listed for a Fact Finding Hearing. There are a series of different allegations of different types that are put before the Court, but in broad brush they are, the Court has been invited to determine whether V’s allegations of sexual abuse and rape by her stepfather P are true. Secondly, whether her allegations of sexual abuse and rape by her father Q are true. Thirdly, allegations against her mother of failure to protect in relation to those sexual abuse allegations.

[5]Fourthly, allegations of inappropriate physical chastisement of the children, particularly W and V by the mother and P, and lastly some allegations in terms of inappropriate care by way of using bleach inappropriately for washing hands or clothing.

[6]I am mindful of the difficulties in particular that the mother has. I have seen her cognitive assessment. I am going to, at the outset, outline what my findings will be in terms of those key issues now, so that the parents and in particular the mother are not left waiting during this judgment which is going to take a little time to deliver. I will explain more fully in this judgment how I have reached the conclusions that I have.

[7]The findings that I am going to make are firstly in relation to P that he has sexually abused and raped V. In relation to Q, I am also going to make findings that he has sexually abused and raped V. I am going to make findings of a failure to protect by the mother in relation to those allegations. I am also going to make findings in relation to over chastisement by use of a belt against the mother and P, and the findings relating to handwashing with bleach and misuse of bleach, I am going to make that finding, although the other findings in relation to clothing is more nuanced and I will deal with that later in the judgment.

The evidence

[8]I have read a bundle of 1,060 pages. I have received nine videos including two ABE videos of V. Six of the recordings were videos: arrest videos, body worn camera footage of school staff telling police officers what has happened, and other body worn camera footage of discussions at the family home. There was also an audio recording, albeit it presented as a video, of P’s police interview.

[9]At the advocates’ request I have watched all of those videos as I was told that they were necessary. The two ABEs videos are of crucial importance. I was not referred to any of the other videos by any of the advocates and I am not sure why it was thought appropriate for the Court’s time to be used in that way. In addition I have received late evidence, in particular a set of photographs provided by P from a weekend when he and the family attended a funfair on the Saturday and then he and only V attended the funfair on the Sunday.

[10]I also received an email from SW1 who had been previously the allocated social worker apologising for mistakes that she had made on this case and indicating that she has reviewed and made improvements to her practice. The witnesses

[11]I want to make an overall comment in relation to the witnesses, or at least the professional witnesses in this case. There is a pattern repeated by almost all of them of referring to V’s accounts of abuse as “disclosures” rather than as “allegations”. It was patently clear not only from those references but also from subsequent answers given that the witnesses were not aware of the recommendations of the Cleveland Enquiry and were not aware of why lawyers and judges take issue with using such a term that implies the truth of what is being said.

[12]I heard on a series of occasions throughout this case that the professionals had in fact received training that they were to use the term “disclosure”, and one witness suggested that it was the appropriate term for information that has been shared which potentially could amount to abuse of a child. I am not sure how we have reached the point where those who provide training to safeguarding professionals are unaware and indeed teaching entirely contrary to the recommendations of a seminal document like the Cleveland Report.

[13]However, I have to consider not only that error of practice, but also what it means in the context of the reliability of those accounts. In this case however, whilst seemingly ignorant of those issues, when any of the witnesses were asked whether they were prejudging the accounts given by V, they were generally careful to say they had not done so.

[14]I heard first from T1. She is the assistant headteacher with responsibility for inclusion the primary school that V has now left, and the school which W still attends. Her evidence related to W’s allegations from 2019 of having been hit with a belt, and of having spoken with V who at that point was a student in the school as well, who confirmed the allegation. A referral to social services was appropriately made in the light of that information.

[15]T1 had also spoken with a previous school that the children had attended and they provided information to her about previous concerns and allegations relating to a mark to the face that V had received but a s.47 investigation had resulted in no further action. T1 told me also that in 2019, the day after the allegations were made, the mother had attended the nursery and removed all of W’s things, and at the same time V was reporting that she and W had been banned from watching TV as a punishment for speaking to school staff.

[16]I found T1 to be a sensible and considered witness. She was the first of many who was not aware of the linguistic issues about the word “disclosure”. I found her to be a fair witness and I accepted her evidence.

[17]I heard next from T2. She was an early years practitioner. She had previously worked at the same primary school, but had now moved on to a different primary school. She gave simple and straightforward evidence about W saying that she had been smacked with a belt the night before. A very short one page statement was provided. I found her to be clear and reliable, and I accepted her evidence.

[18]I heard from T3. She is a teacher. She is the head of year for V. T3 was the first professional to whom V made clear allegations about P. Her evidence overlapped with T4 who was also present in the later stages of talking to V about this. It was to T3 that V said that the mother had put her and P in the same room and asked them both if the sexual abuse had happened, and then had believed P. I found T3 to be a sensible and reliable witness and I accepted her evidence.

[19]I heard next from T4, she is the vice principal and the safeguarding lead at V’s school. She was called in by T3 as a more experienced teacher with greater safeguarding experience when she had realised the V’s allegations were serious. I found T4 to be reliable and she was unshaken in cross-examination. I accepted her evidence. However, I do comment as to the extent of the questioning that she and T3 conducted with V.

[20]One of the recommendations of the Cleveland Report was that any initial questioning by adults speaking to a child who is alleging sexual abuse should be intended to elicit a brief account of what is alleged, where and when the alleged incident took place, and what was involved or otherwise present. A more detailed account should not be pursued and should be left to the ABE interview. T4 pointed out that there is other guidance also in the Cleveland Report as it so happens, although she does not cite it, that adults speaking to a child who is alleging sexual abuse should not stop free recall of events.

[21]However, on balance the extent of the questioning that was undertaken by T4 and T3 was in my judgment greater than was needed to elicit a brief account of what was alleged. It seemed to me that they took a more detailed and thorough account than perhaps was wise in the circumstances.

[22]I heard next from U. She is V’s adult relative. She has learning needs. Care was taken in the light of those difficulties with the way she gave her evidence. The advocates prepared questions in advance which I reviewed to ensure that they complied with the Advocate’s Gateway. A short number of questions eventually were in fact put to her, all put by the same advocate. There was no serious challenge made to the account that she gave which is of V having spoken to her in relation to her allegations against P. I accepted her evidence.

[23]I heard next from the officer in the case. He was a late addition to the witness template. I had understood that he was needed to explore the period of time when he had attended at the school and a further account was heard from V about her allegations in relation to P. However, no questions were put to him about that period of time. Instead, he gave evidence about the intermediary process during the ABEs. He explained details about the recordings, in particular that the working copy of Q’s interview has corrupted. I found him to be reliable and I accepted his evidence.

[24]I heard next from SW1. She has previously been the allocated social worker in this case. A key feature of her evidence was that she told me that in August 2023 the mother had forwarded to her a WhatsApp exchange of messages between the mother and V. I have seen those messages in the bundle. SW1’s belief was that in relation to allegations against Q, they related to historical allegations which she understood had not been substantiated. SW1 explained that the decision to place V with Q and his partner had been taken by the previous social worker, the team before her, and she had relied on their work and assessment.

[25]She was a straightforward witness. She was not trying to hide or cover up her misapprehension as to what those WhatsApp message contained. I deal with it later in this judgment, but unfortunately her misunderstanding of what those messages contained was a serious error of judgment. They contained important evidence not only of then live or recent allegations about Q, but also in relation to the allegations against P. Those messages needed to be properly downloaded. They should have been discussed with SW1’s team manager, and as a result of SW1 failure to appreciate what that evidence contained, necessary safeguarding steps to protect V were significantly delayed.

[26]I heard from TM. She was the team manager. She was responsible for managing both SW1 and later social workers. She was not aware of the exchange of WhatsApp messages until April 2024. That is a very, very substantial delay in those being shared with her. She told me that the Local Authority would have taken different steps in relation to V remaining with Q if she had been aware of those messages at the time. I accepted her evidence.

[27]I heard from SW2. He was the allocated social worker after SW1. He has now passed on the role of allocated social worker to another social worker. In cross-examination it was pointed out that he had misquoted V when in his statement he recorded a note written by her and he wrote in quotes that she had written:

“ I want to kill myself because my stepfather keeps touching me.”

I have seen the notes that V wrote. They simply do not say that.

[28]There is the first note that says repeatedly:

“I want to die. I hate my life.”

There is a separate note prepared at a different point in time in which V albeit in limited English wrote the words:

“Me step dad touch me and it be happening for a long time now.”

[29]SW2 seemed to believe that because it would convey the sense of the two notes it was reasonable to amalgamate them in the way that he did. He is mistaken in that view. It is in my judgment poor practice. It opens up the potential for serious confusion and injustice. It is essential that professionals investigating serious issues such as sexual abuse allegations should be as accurate as possible. To summarise and conflate two separate notes and then present it as a direct quote is unsafe and misleading. As a result of this serious shortcoming, I treat SW2’s evidence with great caution.

[30]I heard from SW4. She was previously a family support worker who worked with the family. She is now a Family Court Advisor working for Cafcass. She had some work and engagement with the family over a relatively short space of time. I accepted her evidence.

[31]I heard from SW3, she is the current allocated social worker. I found her to be reliable and accepted her evidence, although I note that there was little that she could add from her direct knowledge about the findings of fact that are at issue in this case.

[32]I heard from the mother. The mother’s evidence has to be treated with care and consideration. She has undergone a cognitive assessment carried out by Dr Joseph which assessed her as having a global IQ of 56. That assessment identified her weakest areas were in verbal comprehension and processing speed. I have also read the intermediary report prepared for the mother by Communicourt.

[33]Notwithstanding its recommendations, the mother was resistant to having an intermediary assist her at the hearing, and so although previously directed, I was persuaded that an intermediary should be discharged. Instead, reliance was placed on the Advocate’s Gateway. Suitable questions were worked out in advance. They were seen by the Court in advance and some improvements proposed. The questions were put by one advocate, they were open, no tag questions were used, there was an attempt to use simply language and to avoid adding multiple clauses. Regular breaks were taken during the mother’s evidence.

[34]The impression I formed is that she was able to understand the questions being put to her and the answers that she gave were meaningful responses to the questions. The mother denied the allegations in relation to over chastisement and in relation to clothing. In relation to the sexual abuse allegations she was clear that she believed V’s allegations against Q. She claimed to be keeping an open mind about the allegations against P, but I formed the impression that the mother was keen to find a means or an explanation by which P would be excused.

[35]At times in her evidence some of what the mother said was difficult to believe. For example, she claimed that she would always wake up whenever P got up to go to the toilet at night and that she would sit up on the side of the bed waiting for him to return. She was also keen to emphasise that a [specific date] was not a school day. What that implied was that the account that was given that V had been to a school assembly that morning about inappropriate touching simply could not be true.

[36]There were two pieces of evidence that the school provided to support their account that there had been a school assembly on that day relating to inappropriate touching. Firstly, there was the attendance document for V which shows that she was present for the morning and afternoon sessions on that [specific date] and secondly there is the school’s calendar which was produced later which also shows that there was school that day. Despite that evidence to the contrary, the mother persisted with her belief that there had been no school on that [specific date], and that seemed to me to be an example of the mother trying to find ways in which P could be excused.

[37]She told me that she does not believe that P sexually abused V, and she believes that those allegations are being used to cover up for Q. The mother accepted sending V various messages via WhatsApp, although she did not accept that she was putting pressure on her. However, her explanations for why she sent messages were unconvincing; for example she had messaged that P pays the rent for the children and the family but the mother could only say that V had needed to know.

[38]Overall the mother was doing her best to assist the Court. I do not doubt that she loves her children and wants the best for them, but when it comes to the issues relating to V and P, in my judgment she has been blinded to V’s account. I am not sure whether it is because of her love for P or whether it is because of the significance he has within the mother and indeed the family’s life. He is the father of three of the younger children. He is the breadwinner for the family, and he is also the mother’s main support in terms of meeting the children’s care needs. It may be it is a combination of all of these factors.

[39]I heard last from P. I found him to be an unsatisfactory witness. There were times when elements of what he told me were in my judgment straightforward lies. For example when he described not even having the time to look at V when he was challenged by the mother about whether he had sexually assaulted her. It made no sense and it appeared to be a lie told in the hope of exculpating himself from what at the time was an allegation that he had effectively been able to silence V during that exchange.

[40]There were other self serving lies, for example he claimed that V’s door was always locked at night, but he also claimed to have never tried to open her door at night. Given that the bolt was on the inside of the door, that one could not see it from the outside, there is no possible way to know whether that door was locked or not unless trying to open it. It seemed to me that he was trying to create a means by which he could prove that he had not had access to V at night time, but then struggled with the next line of questioning as to how he would know if he had not tried the door.

[41]At times during P’s evidence he laughed and grinned inappropriately, even at times when serious allegations were being put to him. I appreciate that he must have had some nervousness giving evidence, but I formed the impression that these were attempts by him to convey the idea that the allegations were laughable or absurd. I note the irony that while he behaved in that way during his own evidence, during his evidence and the mother’s about the time when V and P were challenged at the same time about the rape allegations, great significance was placed by the mother and by P on the fact that V had laughed or giggled when asked those difficult questions, and as a result they asserted that V had told lies.

[42]P’s statement of evidence before the Court was remarkably short. He has provided one statement in these proceedings. It is only 1½ pages long. I acknowledge that P has literacy difficulties, however he told the Court that he had carefully checked his statement which was recently written, being dated 2 September 2024. However, in his oral evidence he then disowned parts of it.

[43]He was asked about his written claim that:

“As far as I am aware I have never entered V’s bedroom for sexual reasons on the night mentioned or at all.”

Asked what he was trying to convey by the phrase “as far as I am aware”, P said that that was put in by his solicitor and he had not noticed it. He also claimed in his statement:

“That I have never touched or attempted to touch V in the way that she has described or at all since I knew her.”

The claim to have never touched V at all was also disowned by P in his oral evidence. He claimed that he had meant that he had never touched her inappropriately, but that explanation makes little sense given that his statement makes a clear distinction between inappropriate touching and other touching. Overall, I found him to be an unsatisfactory witness and I treated his evidence with considerable caution. The law

[44]The burden of proving an allegation falls on the party that makes the allegation. In this case, the Local Authority must prove the allegations against the parents. It must do so to the civil standard of proof, the balance of probabilities. The Court must be satisfied that the occurrence of the fact in question is more likely than not. It is not for the parents to prove they did not do something that is alleged. The Court must reach its conclusions based on facts not on suspicion or mere doubts.

[45]I give myself a Lucas direction. There may be a number of reasons why a person may tell a lie. A person may lie deliberately because they are guilty of what is alleged, but they may lie for other reasons, for example to bolster a weak case, to protect someone out of panic or to cover up disgraceful or embarrassing behaviour. If a person lies about one matter it does not mean they are not telling the truth about something else.

[46]I have been referred to the case of Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing)

[2019] EWFC 27

. I have read that case with care. MacDonald J painstakingly sets out a compendium of relevant authorities and guidance in relation to consideration of sexual abuse cases. However, for the purposes of this judgment and with consideration in particular to the mother’s cognitive issues, I am not going to now repeat the many important points that the learned judge sets out, but I do want to record that I have read it with care and noted all of the points set out therein.

[47]Section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989 sets out that:

“A Court may only make a Care Order or a Supervision Order if it is satisfied that the child concerned is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given to her if an order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to her.”

My findings and analysis

[48]Dealing first with the allegation of sexual abuse of V by P. The evidence in support of the allegation is as follows. V has given a series of consistent accounts of the abuse. V told T3 in 2023 that she had told her mother about the abuse in 2022. Both the mother and P accepted and confirmed that this was raised by V at that point. The mother told me that when V made the allegations she did not know what to think, so she attempted to work out the truth by herself.

[49]The mother told me that the way that she tried to do this was that she confronted P in V’s presence. In the course of his evidence about this P claimed that it was at that moment that he did not have the time to look at V. According to the mother’s account, when she asked P if he had raped V, V who was present at the time was laughing and giggling. The mother told me that generally V does laugh or giggle when asked questions. However as a result of V’s response in that moment, both the mother and P took V’s giggling to mean that she was being untruthful.

[50]I have watched V’s two ABE interviews. She does at times giggle or struggle to speak when matters are raised that are embarrassing for her. I have also factored in the extremely difficult power dynamics that were in that kitchen during the moment that P was being confronted for V. She was confronted by her mother and indeed by the stepfather who she has known since she was very young. V was then was a primary school aged child with cognitive issues, who is known to function as a child much younger than her chronological age.

[51]P did not know what was going to be the topic of discussion when he went into the kitchen, but in my judgment it provided him with an excellent opportunity because he was able to challenge V at that point, so that she felt unable to maintain or pursue her allegation with her mother, and that the mother from then on simply disbelieved V’s allegation. As a result of that exchange, no steps were taken to protect V. The police were not called, social services were not called, no changes were made within the family. P carried on living there, and carried on having access to V.

[52]It also meant that would be harder for V to raise any further allegations. There was then a barrier to her telling her mother, and also her credibility about any future allegations at least in relation to P was undermined in her mother’s eyes. The mother told me the reason she brought V and P together was so that she could work out who was telling the truth. In my judgment, confronting V and P at the same time was, for V, abusive and significantly harmful.

[53]I also note in relation to that exchange a key detail that appears only in P’s statement of 2 September 2024. When making a very brief reference to those allegations he wrote:

“I do however recall once when my wife approached me following V reporting to her that I touched her and her bed got wet.”

That detail about the bed getting or becoming wet is one that subsequently has arisen on a number of occasions since in V’s allegations of being sexually abused by P.

[54]The second account that V gave was to U in 2023. The timeline is, and I am satisfied, that V attended a school assembly that morning. The topic of the assembly was on inappropriate touching, although I note in the school’s documents it is referred to as being an assembly about sexual abuse. It is plainly an important, albeit sensitive topic for teachers to deal with children, and it is an important piece of protective work.

[55]For a child like V with her issues, I can see how such an assembly could be an empowering experience or give her cause to think about her experiences and realise that they were not normal. V herself has explained that that same day, she talked to U who was an adult about the abuse. Given that her allegations were previously rejected by her mother, U appears to have been an obvious person for V to have talked to.

[56]U’s account, set out in her police statement of 30 April 2024, of what V told her, is entirely consistent with V’s previous and indeed subsequent accounts to school staff and the police. U also states in her statement that V did not appear to understand the sexual aspect of what she was describing when she said that P had made her lie down and [vaginally raped her].

[57]That observation by U is similar to other observations that I made of V during the ABE interview when she gave detailed descriptions of explicit interactions, but in a way that suggests that, with her limited understanding of the world, she did not have a full or complete understanding of the sexual acts involved.

[58]One issue that was raised about the account given to U is that subsequently during her police interview, V gave a list of names of people she had told about the abuse. She listed four friends and a different relative, but she did not name U during that police interview. I am not troubled by that omission. V plainly told the school teachers when she first told them that she had recently spoken with U. U’s account was not seriously challenged, and in my judgment it is likely she simply forgot to mention during her police interview when she had already listed five other names that she had also spoken to U, which seems to me quite understandable.

[59]The third account that V gave is the one that she told to the school teachers the following day, and this started by her writing an alarming note. I have already referred to it. It stated:

“I want to die. I hate my life.”

For understandable reasons the teacher who observed that note was concerned and showed considerable understanding and sensitivity by not only dealing with it, but taking V to T3, who was not only her head of year but was also the member of staff with whom V had formed her most trusting relationship within the school.

[60]I accept T3’s account that V was reluctant to tell her what the note was about. I accept that V asked if a friend could explain on her behalf, but T3 persuaded her to write down her thoughts instead. What was written down was the second note without impeccable spelling, which I take to mean:

“My step dad has been touching me and it has been happening for a long time now, since I was in year 4.”

[61]I pause to comment on the presence of the friend outside the room. The school teachers were unconcerned about there being a friend there waiting for V. That was normal, as she has some close friendships. There is a suggestion put primarily on behalf of P that this friend may have in some way have been influencing or seeking to influence V and her account.

[62]In the context of all of the other evidence, I am not unduly troubled by that hypothesis. There is no evidence that that friend was doing anything other than assisting V, waiting for her friend while she was talking to the teachers. It was after giving that brief written account that V gave a more detailed oral account to T3 and then to T3 and T4. She provided a great deal of detail in those conversations that was noted near-contemporaneously by the teachers, and they provided more information in their written statements and indeed their oral evidence.

[63]There were two very specific recent dates that V spoke about when she alleged P had raped her,(i) a Friday when the school had broken up, and

(ii) the following Friday. She gave details such as that the bed was wet afterwards. She recalled which bedsheets had been on her bed and where those bedsheets were to be found. After the earlier rape, the blue bedsheets were to be located, unwashed in a pile in her room along with the pyjamas she had worn at the time. Relating to the more recent incident, the sheets were still on the bed.

[64]She indicated to the teachers on a body map where she had been touched, described vaginal rape and described that the bed was wet afterwards.

[65]V explained to T4 and T3 that she had realised that she needed to tell someone after the school assembly, and that she had told U and had said that she would then tell a teacher. She said that she was reluctant to tell her mother because she had done so before and not been believed. It is recorded in the teachers’ statements that after the police were called to the school, V repeated the same account to the police while T4 and T3 were also present.

[66]The next account was when V was ABE interviewed. This was an 11-day gap after she first told professionals. That delay was a probably explained by needing to arrange for an intermediary to be present, and V was assisted by an intermediary throughout. I have watched the video with care. V’s presentation is appropriate. She is at times shy and embarrassed, particularly when talking about difficult issues for a child of her age, such as private parts. She understands the difference between truth and lies. She does at times smile, but not inappropriately in my judgment.

[67]Her account was spontaneous and detailed. There were occasions when inappropriate or leading questions were asked, for example when the police officer asked V to describe what it felt like when P’s penis was put inside her. She appeared to be struggling to provide an answer, and he then asked the leading question: “Was it painful?” V agreed, saying: “Painful.” However, she then added a level of detail which in my judgment persuades me that she was nonetheless giving her own account, as she went on to explain: “Because when I was going to school I like, I couldn’t walk properly.”

[68]Other aspects of detail that V gave were highly compelling. For example, she said that if P hears her mother he leaves quickly. She talked in a naïve way about the wetness that she saw in the bed afterwards, saying to P:

“Why did you wet the bed?”

[69]Another occasion when she gave explicit detail in what in my judgment was a naïve and childlike way was when she described sometimes seeing see-through liquid dripping down from P’s penis. There is an inconsistency when V says that she did not see P’s penis because the lights were always off, but then she also describes seeing the see-through liquid.

[70]In my judgment that inconsistency is not so significant as to throw into doubt the reliability of V’s account, and it seems to me likely that there were some occasions when the lights were off and others when it was possible to see. Overall I found V’s ABE interview to be credible, consistent, and believable, and the questioning was mostly conducted to a good standard.

[71]The next account is contained in the WhatsApp messages between the mother and V, and the dates when those messages were sent between the mother and V are unclear because what I have seen is what was forwarded on to the social worker. Within those messages in my judgment the mother put V under considerable pressure about her allegations against P. She pointed out that P pays rent for the house and is not being allowed to watch his children growing up.

[72]She asserted to V that:

“P did not rape you.”

She asserted that V and her friend had:

“Planned this together because they did not want you to stay with parents who shout at you.”

[73]She asserted that rape had not been possible because the mother was always awake and had never seen P in V’s room. She asserted that V was never left at home with P. She said:

“V you make your choice what you can say. Your life of guilt. Because you don’t have a mind of your own. You choose to listen rubbish and look where it landed you.”

She said:

“You are not telling truth. You are just saying what people want you to say to cover themselves. That’s why they telling you that if say anything you’re going into a home to make you don’t say anything to these people about what they’re doing to you.”

That is a reference I believe to the mother’s belief that Q and/or his partner were influencing V to make false allegations against P.

[74]Despite that extreme pressure, V remained insistent throughout that exchange that P had raped her. She asserted that on a series of occasions, and indeed pleaded with her mother to believe her.

[75]The next piece of evidence is the forensic testing of the bedsheets. There are photographs taken from V’s bedroom by a police office. I have seen photographs of a purple/pink sheet on V’s bed with a close up photograph showing multiple white stains on that sheet. There is also a photograph of a pile of dirty washing which includes a blue bedsheet with a close up of a white stain on a blue bedsheet.

[76]There was a suggestion put on behalf of P and the mother that the blue sheets in the last two photographs are in fact different. I acknowledge that there is a significant difference in the shade of blue seen in the photographs. However I note the same effect is seen in the previous two photographs where the purple/pink bedsheet is significantly lighter in the close up when compared with the shot from distance. It is also clear from those photographs that it is exactly the same view, because the items on the bed can be seen in both photographs.

[77]In my judgment this difference in shade is explained by the closeness of the camera when the photograph was being taken. The implication of P and the mother’s case about this is that there has been some sort of confusion or perhaps planting of evidence which has led to a different sheet being tested to the one seen in the pile of clothing. The police officer who took the photographs was not called. She was never challenged in the evidence, and she is clear in her statement that the second and fourth photographs are close ups.

[78]There have been two sets of forensic testing of the bedsheets. The first test was reported on 29 December 2023. It related to the white stain on the blue bedsheet. It is clear that the DNA in that white stain which was described in the report as being a semen stain was a forensic match to P’s DNA sample. It explains that the chance of that is a billion times more likely that that sample has come from P than from another unrelated individual. The police did not initially intend to test the purple or pink sheet, but later when they did so they set out the report findings in a report dated 15 April 2024.

[79]Two samples were taken from the white stains seen on the purple/pink sheets. One of those samples provided an unequivocal match with P’s DNA, again, in the same terms as the blue bedsheets, a billion times more likely to be from him than from another unrelated individual. The second sample test contains a mixture of DNA from V and from P, and so it explains in the report that it would require a more complicated form of analysis to determine with certainty a link to P but because of the results of first sample on the same bedsheet, it was unnecessary to conduct that further test.

[80]The mother’s evidence was that the bedsheets from her and P’s room would go straight down to the laundry room. Neither she nor P suggested that their dirty bed linen would ever be put into V’s room, indeed V was criticised for being untidy in her bedroom. I accept that the bedsheets seen in the photographs were in V’s room. They were exactly where she told the school teachers they would be found. The forensic evidence on both sheets including the one that was found on V’s bed provide extremely powerful support to V’s allegation that she had been raped by P.

[81]I note the further piece of forensic evidence which is that vaginal swabs were collected from V’s body on 7 June 2023. However, given that that was five days after the last alleged rape it my judgment it is not surprising that those findings were unremarkable.

[82]P was unable to provide any explanation for how or why his semen came to be present on V’s bedsheets in her bedroom. He denied having conducted any sexual activity in that bedroom. He denied to the police that he had masturbated in that location. In his evidence P made a vague suggestion of there being possible cross-contamination but gave no real explanation for how that might have occurred. It appeared to me that he was trying to suggest that possibly semen could have transferred across in the wash, but I completely reject that hypothesis given the white marks that are clearly seen on the sheets in situ in the photographs.

[83]P produced at an extremely late stage photographs of himself and V at a funfair. That was two days before V made her allegations. The suggestion was that this showed a good and positive relationship because V was smiling. When I compare it to the video she appears to be only half smiling in the photograph. The photographs do not assist the Court in terms of helping understand the nature of the relationship. Usually when a child is photographed they get told to smile. Funfairs are normally enjoyable, particularly for children.

[84]However, the evidence of how it came to be that it was V present with P at that funfair on that day was in my judgment concerning. The family had been to the funfair on the day before. There were tokens obtained for the rides and they had not used all of the tokens on the Saturday. P wanted to use them all up and so wanted to return on the Sunday. He told me that W was desperate to go again but he proposed, indeed he seems to have insisted on taking V instead. He told me that it was because he felt W would to make additional demands to go on more rides which he could not afford to pay for.

[85]When I consider the account of P’s insistence that V should be taken by him to the funfair alongside her account to the police that he would call her, “his special girl” and that he had told her “not to tell anyone” because she would “end up in big trouble”; in my judgment I am satisfied that he wanted the opportunity to spend time alone with V, and that doing so formed part of the pattern of his grooming behaviour towards her. Alternative explanations put forward by P and the mother

[86]Firstly, the issue as to whether Q had influenced V to make false allegations as a mechanism to cover up his own abuse of V. There is no evidence of this having happened. V has never mentioned it or suggested it. There are no texts or other messages that might suggest it. Nonetheless, it is a factor that I take into consideration.

[87]The second potential source relates to an entry in the core group meetings minutes. It states that the mother had seen a message from a girl whose name is redacted to V stating:

“Sorry we have to do it this way. It would be best to come and be with us. You should not be around parents who shout at you.”

What I do not know is what the date of that message was. I do not actually know whether it relates to V being in the care of the mother and P or whether it relates to her being in the care of Q and his partner, because unfortunately there are allegations that they shouted at V as well.

[88]The note from the core group meeting goes on to say that the child who sent the message is around the same age as V, that she is a member of the same learning support group as V, and it also sets out T4’s opinion that it was unlikely V was being influenced because that child is not that smart and is currently not aware of what has happened. I note that there is nothing in that message which suggests that V is being pressured or influenced to make false sexual abuse allegations.

[89]The concern that is cited in that message relates to V being shouted at. It is not about sexual abuse. There was a suggestion that the message should have been explored further by school staff, but I am not clear that that ever happened. I note that that meeting was a week or so before the break up of school at the end of the academic year, but the idea that another child from V’s learning support group could be manipulating or influencing V to make false allegations is in my judgment not sustainable. There is no reason for another child to do this. The message makes no mention of sexual abuse allegations, and it simply does not add up.

[90]P’s Counsel pointed out that V has struggled with bullying in school. I have no doubt that has been the case. I heard evidence that one child was suspended as a result of her behaviour towards V. That must be a very difficult and distressing experience for V to deal with, however I am invited to determine that as a result, V’s account should not be trusted, that in effect she was so upset that she might just say anything. I reject that logic.

[91]V has suffered considerably as a result of making these allegations against P. She was separated from her home, from her mother, and from her siblings, and she struggled with that. Nonetheless, she has maintained her allegations ever since.

[92]There was also exploration of a previous incident relating to V at primary school having kissed another girl. It is not clear which of the two children initiated that. Also there is a record relating to V having watched inappropriate lesbian pornographic material whilst at a party. The suggestion is that this behaviour potentially indicates a mechanism or a means which might inspire V to make false allegations. It was T4 who pointed out that sexualised behaviour is not uncommon as a presentation in children that had suffered sexual abuse. I am not in a position to determine whether this was sexualised behaviour as a result of being abused or whether it was sexual exploration by V. However, either way, I am not persuaded that would be sufficient to lead or cause V to make false allegations against her stepfather.

[93]The other explanation put forward is that on the morning when V made allegations at school there had been a disagreement between her and P. V was on the telephone to her father and waved away P when he tried to speak to her. Later when she asked for money or pocket money, P refused to give it to her and she left the house, slamming the door as a result. It is posited that V’s upset with P might have encouraged her to make a false allegation against him.

[94]On the other hand, if at that time V was already thinking about the contents of the school assembly, had already spoken to U about what P had done and was angry and about inappropriate touching and was upset as a result, it might explain her difficult interaction with her step-father and the door slamming that occurred that morning, without necessarily drawing to a conclusion that she therefore must have set about making a false allegation.

[95]When I balance and consider all of the evidence in this case I find on the balance of probabilities with a high degree of confidence that P has sexually abused and raped V. V’s accounts have been extremely consistent and are strongly corroborated by powerful forensic evidence. I reject the alternative explanations put forward by the mother and P as I consider that they are weak, lack evidence, and at times defy logic.

[96]I find: 1) That P has sexually abused V on multiple occasions since she was nine or ten years old. 2) I find that the number of occasions when P sexually abused V was more than five times and less than ten. 3) I find that P did this at night or when the mother was out. 4) I find that on an occasion P went into V’s bedroom at night and touched her sexually. I find she told him to stop but he did not. I find he vaginally raped her with his penis. I find that his semen was later found to be present on the blue bedsheet found in her room as a result of this rape. 5) I find that on a later occasion P went into V’s bedroom, climbed on top of her, and vaginally raped her with his penis. I find that his semen was present on the purple/pink bedsheet which was found situated on her bed as a result of this rape. I also find that he sexually touched her. I find that she tried to push him off but he was too heavy. 6) I find that sexual abuse by P caused V significant harm and she felt angry and scared, and that she expressed her wish to kill herself, that she wished to die and hates her life as a result of that abuse. Allegations against Q

[97]Q is aware of these allegations. He has been interviewed by the police about them. He has been put on notice by the Local Authority of its intention to pursue the allegations within these proceedings, and he has notice of the proceedings. Q has chosen to absent himself from these proceedings.

[98]There are two occasions when V told her mother about sexual abuse by Q. The first was when she of primary school age. V told her mother that Q was inappropriately touching her. According to SW1 the social worker, the mother had explained that V’s contact with Q had stopped after she had made allegations of inappropriate touching, but V had later withdrawn those and they were later explained away as relating to attempts to get her to shower properly.

[99]In her oral evidence the mother gave a different account. She said that she believed V had been sexually abused by Q. I do not know whether the mother believed this allegation to be true at the point that she had explained away to SW1 that the earlier allegations had been withdrawn. In my judgment it is more likely that this belief has been cemented as it helps the mother to explain away the allegations V has made against P.

[100]If that had been her genuine belief at the time, it is mystifying that the mother had provided V with Q’s contact details when V asked to get in touch with him, and then allowed him to have unsupervised contact. It is further mystifying that she did not raise any objection when the Local Authority’s plan on removing V from her care was to place her with Q.

[101]The second time V raised allegations relating to Q was via the WhatsApp messages she sent to her mother after the allegations were made against P. It is clear from those messages that V was saying that Q had raped her, but she was worried that if she told professionals she would be put in a home. The mother shared those WhatsApp messages with SW1. In her evidence, SW1 appears to have discounted them as being a reference to the earlier inappropriate touching allegations. She did not properly store the messages on social services system, she did not discuss them with her team manager.

[102]They were eventually retrieved by SW1 and recorded in the system in April 2024. The failure by SW1 to recognise that the messages contained an allegation by V that she had been raped by her father is inexplicable. It is particularly concerning that during that exchange with the mother, V is asked why she had not told the police about her dad. She replied:

“When I go to school I’m going to tell T3.”

That message was during a school holiday period. V did not have the chance to tell anyone at school anything until school resumed some weeks later. It was a significant failure of social work by SW1.

[103]I accept TM’s evidence that had she have known about those messages then V would have been removed much earlier from Q’s home. Eventually, V told T3 on and was then removed from that household. She repeated the account at hospital, and later she gave an ABE interview with the same intermediary present.

[104]I have watched the video recording. V gives a coherent, appropriate, spontaneous account. She demonstrates that she understands the difference between truth and lies. She gives an account of being vaginally raped by Q. She gives details such as the colour of his shorts. She talks of how she felt and of Q having used a condom, but again another element of her naivety is that she did not really understand or know about condoms, but explained that it was Q who told her that it was to prevent her getting pregnant, and she described him throwing the used condom outside into the garden.

[105]She also described having told Q’s partner about what had happened, but that she was disbelieved and that she was shouted at by the partner and by Q, and that she had cried as a result. I found her account to be compelling and believable. I have considered other possibilities, for example whether V, not liking being away from her mother and siblings, could have repeated similar allegations against her father in order to engineer a move home. However, that does not stand up to scrutiny when considered alongside her WhatsApp messages with her mother which indicate that V was scared of being put into a home.

[106]I take into account Q’s absence. He may simply be wishing to dissociate himself from the proceedings because the allegations are not true, however in my judgment it will be more likely that he would want to defend himself if he was falsely accused, and I draw an adverse inference from his decision to not engage with these proceedings, and in particular to not defend these allegations.

[107]When I consider the evidence of V in the ABE interview alongside the WhatsApp messages, I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the allegations she made against her father are true. I find that Q sexually abused V on a date in the school holidays. I find that he vaginally raped her, that he ejaculated into a condom which he later threw outside. I find that Q tried to silence V by telling her:

“Nothing will happen if you don’t tell anyone.”

I find that V felt sad, scared, and angry as a result of this abuse. I find that V has suffered significant physical and emotional harm as a result.

[108]I pause to express my horror at V’s experience, but words cannot express how awful it is that a vulnerable child like V was removed from her home with the intention of preventing her from being abused and raped by her stepfather, after she had not been believed by her mother, only to end up being raped and abused by her father and not being believed by her stepmother.

[109]I turn to paragraph 2 of the threshold which is accepted by the mother, but the drafting is clumsy. In short it is an acceptance that by reason of the sexual abuse that V suffered in the home, that W, X, Y and Z were likely to suffer significant physical and/or emotional harm. I find that there was a likelihood of significant harm to all four children as there was a risk that they could be sexually abused by P.

[110]I find that there was a significant emotional harm and a likelihood of significant emotional harm as a result of their exposure to the sexual abuse that V suffered. Firstly, V was separated from her siblings which would have had an impact on them that was emotionally harmful to them as well as to her. There was also in my judgment a likelihood of emotional harm arising from the discussion of what P had done to V within the family home. For example, V was warned by her sibling of the consequences of making false allegations, and she was accused by W of being a liar, having overheard conversation about the discussion relating to P.

[111]Paragraph 3 is that the mother failed to prevent and/or protect the children from sexual abuse and/or the likelihood of harm arising from it. The mother accepts this allegation. I find that that mother has failed to protect V on repeated occasions. Firstly, although she initially did protect V when she was much younger by ceasing contact with Q after allegations were made of inappropriate touching, the mother failed to inform police of the allegations or any professionals, and she later failed to protect V when she provided V with Q’s contact details and allowed unsupervised contact to take place, despite her belief that he was a sexual risk to her.

[112]Secondly, when the mother challenged P with V present and disbelieved V, the mother not only failed to protect her by taking no proper steps such as alerting authorities, but she also caused significant emotional harm to V by putting her into an impossible situation where she was intimidated and silenced by her abuser and subsequently caused further emotional harm by disbelieving her.

[113]Thirdly, the mother failed to protect or caused emotional harm to V by exerting pressure on her about her allegations in the way that she did during the WhatsApp exchange. The mother’s approach to V’s allegations has in my judgment caused V significant emotional harm. Notwithstanding the mother’s claim to have kept an open mind about V’s allegations and that she is awaiting the Court’s decision, it is clear to me that throughout the proceedings including at the final hearing, the mother has taken a blinkered approach towards V’s allegations about P.

[114]She has strained to come up with tenuous possibilities that might excuse P, and she has failed to appreciate utterly damning evidence like that DNA evidence of his semen on V’s sheets, and instead tried to come up with stories to explain it away.

[115]There is a dispute as to whether the mother refused to allow V home when she was being removed from Q’s home. I prefer SW2’s evidence about this, notwithstanding my caution about his evidence, but in this case it is supported by the mother’s comments in the August WhatsApp exchange where amongst other things she says:

“V you are not going to be the first or the last person to go into a home, so if that’s what your father and stepmother are telling you then you’re not going to be any worse than anyone else that’s been in one and grown up in one.”

[116]To that comment V replied:

“So you want me in a home? So you don’t want me?”

The mother responded:

“And it’s not because I don’t want you V. You make your choice. What you can say your life of guilt because you don’t have a mind of your own. You choose to listen to rubbish and look where it landed you.”

[117]I find that at the relevant date Mother had no or no adequate understanding into the concerns relating to sexual abuse. The mother accepted in her response that she should have contacted the police as soon as V told her of the abuse.

[118]I am not going to go through all the other examples in this section of the threshold. It is overlong, unfocussed at times, and in light of my other findings, not necessary to do so. Allegations of physical abuse

[119]The allegation is that on or before November 2019 the mother hit W on the leg with a belt because she would not go to sleep or listen or tidy up. The mother denies the allegation. A referral had been made by the primary school by T1, that W then aged four years old had told her that:

“Mummy hurt me. Whacked me with a belt. It was bad. Not good. She didn’t say sorry.”

This account was confirmed to T1 by V who was then aged eight who said that W was not listening or was not going to sleep or tidying up, and that she was hit with a belt as she went down the stairs. V also alleged that P hits her and W with a belt.

[120]W had been seen when getting changed at school to have a faint line, a mark on her thigh, and the remains of a scab on the back of her leg, and the note records that when asked she said:

“Bad. Mummy hit her with a belt.”

After these allegations were made known to the mother the following day, on 22 November 2019, she came to the nursery with a box and took away all of W’s things.

[121]In her oral evidence T1 told me that when the mother and P were spoken to they were complaining that they were not allowed to physically punish the children. I accept T1’s evidence about these events. I prefer her evidence to that of the mother and P.

[122]I find that on or before 22 November 2019 the mother hit W with a belt on her bottom. I find that V witnessed this or was aware of it. I find that both the mother and P would hit V and W with a belt as part of disciplining them, and I find that this was inappropriate physical chastisement and caused significant physical and emotional harm to them and was likely to cause significant emotional harm to their younger siblings.

[123]The threshold also pleads concerns relating to inadequate or inappropriate washing and clothing. This relates to an allegation that W’s primary school made that she had attended school with her hands smelling of bleach. The mother in her response says she partially accepts this, but does not know how W’s hands came to smell of bleach. In her oral evidence she denied it had happened.

[124]I heard conflicting evidence from the mother and P about the cupboard where the bleach was kept. The mother said there was a high bolt on it, but P said that they had fitted that bolt because the children could get into the cupboard. I accept the evidence of T1 of what the school had observed. I have seen the relevant CPOMS recording for 8 June 2023 in which W is recorded as saying:

“I washed a cup this morning with bleach and now my jumper and hands smell of it.”

The smell was described by the teacher as being very strong.

[125]When spoken to on that day according to the recording, the mother said that they usually have a bottle of half washing up liquid and half bleach to wash up with and that W had probably used too much of the liquid on her hands. In her oral evidence the mother denied ever having had such a bottle. I find that W’s hands did smell of bleach because she had been exposed to bleach while washing a cup and had used an unsafe concoction of washing up liquid mixed with bleach.

[126]I find that there was a likelihood of physical harm to W arising from this. I also find that it was a lack of adequate supervision so that W was able to access that concoction without an appropriate adult to make sure she was doing so safely.

[127]The next allegation relates to W washing her clothes. I am unconcerned about whether she was told to wash her own clothing. Even if it were the case, I am not persuaded that it is relevant to the section 31 threshold, but the heart of the allegation is whether W was instructed to wash her underwear with bleach. I have struggled to locate the original allegation in the CPOMS recordings. There appears to be a reference in a report for the child protection conference prepared by T1 on 26 February 2024 that states: ave “These have reportedly included W’s hands smelling of bleach after she reportedly washed her own underwear.”

[128]However, I note the initial allegation did not relate to washing underwear, it related to washing a cup. I note that there are allegations in relation to W having itchy underwear as a result, but I also note that itchiness can occur for many reasons. Often girls of W’s age can suffer discomfort arising from not wiping themselves properly after urination. There was evidence around the same time of W having wetting incidents which may also have had an effect on itchiness. I am not persuaded that the Local Authority has established these allegations relating to underwear to the necessary standard.

[129]The last allegation is that W has attended school looking dishevelled and smelling of urine. This allegation is set out in the CPOMS records of the primary school. I note there are also recordings that W had attended without socks. These relate to a period of time when P was no longer in the family home due to his police bail conditions, and when the mother had to contend with the care of all of the children.

[130]I accept that generally the children presented at school in clean, appropriate clothing with their hair done, however on these occasions I am satisfied that the mother failed to ensure that W attended school in appropriate clean clothing. However, I do not find that his goes to the threshold criteria. It was a very short period of time when the mother plainly struggled to cope, and subsequently this issue has not been repeated. I also note it post dates the relevant date for threshold.

[131]On the basis of the findings that I have made, I am satisfied that the section 31 criteria has been established in relation to all five of the children.

[132]That is my judgment. This Transcript has been approved by the Judge. The Transcription Agency hereby certifies that the above is an accurate and complete recording of the proceedings or part thereof. The Transcription Agency, 24-28 High Street, Hythe, Kent, CT21 5AT Tel: 01303 230038 Email: court@thetranscriptionagency.com