Bristol City Council v B & Ors [2025] EWFC 121 (B)

[2025] EWFC 121 (B)Case No BS24C50351
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BRISTOL
Venue Bristol Civil and Family Court Justice Centre
2 Redcliff Street
Venue BristolDate 17 April 2025
BS1 6GR
Before
Her Honour Judge Cope
Between
Bristol City CouncilApplicantBFirst RespondentCSecond RespondentDThird Respondent
Mr Fuller (instructed by Bristol City Council) for applicantMr Wilkinson (instructed by RKW Goodman Solicitors) for motherMs Dines (instructed by Bobbetts Mackan Solicitors) for fatherMr Brookes-Baker (instructed by Daniel Woodman Solicitors) for childHearing Hearing dates: 9, 10, 11, 15, 16 and 17 April 2025
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down on 17 April 2025 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail at a hearing and by release to the National ArchivesJudge’s name: Her Honour Judge CopeJUDGMENTThis judgment was given in private. The judge gives permission 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 this judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.Introduction
[1]I am concerned with a nine month old baby girl who I shall refer to as D. This hearing has been listed as a fact-finding hearing to determine allegations pursued by the local authority. The mother is the first respondent, the father the second respondent and D the third respondent. D’s guardian is Ms Coughlan.[2]For the purpose of this hearing, the local authority is represented by Mr Fuller, the mother by Mr Wilkinson, the father by Ms Dines and D by Mr Brookes-Baker. I am grateful to them all for their assistance.

Background

[3]The mother is aged XX and the father XX. They met when the mother was 19. D is the mother’s first child. The father has children by two former partners. The parents met on an online anxiety forum. The mother was studying at university at the time but gave up her degree to move in with the father in June 2023. She moved away from where she had been living all of her life for this purpose.[4]In March 2024 the mother was visited by the local authority and the police to make her aware that the father was awaiting trial for the alleged rape of his daughter, Z, between the ages of six and nine. Z now identifies as male (and has done since around April 2022) but this post-dates the allegations and I shall therefore refer to Z as ‘she’ which is not intended to cause any offence or upset.[5]The mother went on to marry the father in April 2024 just two weeks before his trial. The father was acquitted on all four counts and the jury was unable to agree on a fifth count.[6]In addition to the allegations made by Z, there are said to be a number of other factors which indicate that the father presents as a sexual risk to D. An assessment undertaken by the Lucy Faithfull Foundation concludes that the father is a moderate risk of causing sexual harm to children and young people and that he should be supervised while in contact with D and that the mother’s protective capacity should be assessed. The father does not accept the conclusions in the report. This also appears to be the case for the mother, but I am told she will reconsider her position following this judgment.[7]These proceedings were issued due to concerns about D being exposed to sexual harm. They were issued on 29 October 2024 and an interim supervision order was made on 29 November 2024.[8]In summary, the local authority’s case is that the father presents a sexual risk to D and that at the relevant time the mother was unwilling or unable to recognise the risk and therefore was unable to protect her daughter.[9]The case on threshold can be divided into three elements. First, the father’s behaviour towards Z. Secondly, the other evidence of the father’s sexual proclivities and thirdly key aspects of the relationship between the parents.

The legal framework

[10]The following legal principles which I provided to the advocates in advance of giving this judgment have been agreed.[11]The burden of proof lies with the local authority. The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred (Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35 at paragraph 15). There is no room for a finding by the court that something might have happened. The court may decide that it did or that it did not happen (Re B at paragraph 2). The standard of proof does not shift according to the seriousness of the allegation, nor the inherent probability or improbability of an event occurring (see Baroness Hale in Re B (Children)(Fc) [2008] UKHL 35).[12]The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (Re B [2008] UKHL 35).[13]Findings of fact must be based on evidence including inferences which can be properly be drawn from the evidence (Re A (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12).[14]Findings of fact must not be based on hypothesis. The court must avoid speculation, particularly in situations where there is a gap in the evidence (Re A (Fact finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12). The parents have to prove nothing and the court must be careful to ensure that it does not reverse the burden of proof (Lancashire v R [2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam)).Having heard all the evidence it is open to the court to conclude that the evidence leaves it unsure whether it is more probable than not that the event occurred and accordingly, that party who has the burden of proving that event has occurred has failed to discharge the burden (The Popi M, Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds, Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Fenton Insurance Co Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 948).[15]In Re A (Application for Care and Placement Orders: Local Authority Failings); sub nom Darlington Borough Council v M, F, GM and GF [2016] 1 FLR 1, FD, Re J (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 222 and Re R (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 167, the following principles were reiterated: - Where a party or witness provides an appropriately verified written statement of evidence, and is willing to attend for cross-examination, the court cannot be invited by other parties to disbelieve that evidence on a matter within her personal knowledge, unless it has been tested in cross-examination. This is a basic and deep-rooted aspect of the fair conduct of a trial and reflects the central role that cross-examination plays in the ascertainment of the truth. - If the local authority's case on a factual issue is challenged, the local authority must adduce proper evidence to establish the fact it seeks to prove. - Hearsay evidence about issues that appear in reports produced on behalf of the local authority, although admissible, has strict limitations if a parent challenges that hearsay evidence by giving contrary oral evidence at a hearing. If the local authority is unwilling or unable to produce a witness who can speak to the relevant matter by first-hand evidence, it may find itself in ‘great, or indeed insuperable’ difficulties in proving the fact or matter alleged by the local authority but which is challenged. - It is vital that local authorities, and, even more importantly, judges, bear in mind that nearly all parents will be imperfect in some way or other. The state will not take away the children of ‘those who commit crimes, abuse alcohol or drugs or suffer from physical or mental illness or disability, or who espouse antisocial, political or religious beliefs simply because those facts are established. It must be demonstrated by the local authority, in the first place, that by reason of one or more of those facts, the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm.[16]Hearsay evidence is admissible in family proceedings of this nature-see The Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993. Family Proceedings fall within the definition of ‘civil proceedings’ for the purposes of the Civil Evidence Act 1995. By virtue of section 4 of the 1995 Act, there is a checklist of factors that the court should consider when ‘estimating the weight to be given to hearsay evidence’. Case law has emphasised that where hearsay evidence is admitted and relied on it must be scrutinised by the court with considerable care.[17]AS v TH (False Allegations of Abuse) [2016] EWHC 532 Fam Macdonald J gave guidance as to how to approach allegations of sexual abuse. The same case provides a comprehensive overview of the relevant guidance for professionals talking to children whom they suspect have suffered abuse. The ABE guidance should be adhered to and any breaches will affect the weight (if any) that can attach to the resulting evidence. At paragraph 36:
‘If a child reports, following a conversation you have initiated or otherwise, that they are being abused and neglected, you should listen to them, take their disclosure seriously, and reassure them that you will take action to keep them safe.’
[18]It is important for the court to hear proper evidence before making a finding of sexual abuse in the face of a complete and consistent denial by the alleged perpetrator Re D (Sexual Abuse Allegations: Evidence of Adult Victim) [2002] 1 FLR 723, FD. There will be cases in which a failure to follow Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) guidance when interviewing children will undermine that evidence such that no reliance can safely be placed upon it. However, even where the court identifies a failure to follow best practice, it is entitled in an appropriate case to conclude that there is a core truth in what is described in the ABE interview unless the whole process is so flawed that nothing reliable emerges Re H (A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 232. The court must thoroughly analyse any deficiencies in the ABE interview in order to evaluate whether the allegations made could be relied on (Re T (Children) [2020] EWCA Civ 507). In the face of a defective ABE interview process it becomes even more important to analyse with care the credibility of the denials made by a parent against whom findings of sexual abuse are sought.[19]The court can take judicial notice, inter alia, that:(i) Children, and especially young children, are suggestible.(ii) Accounts given by children are susceptible to influence by leading or otherwise suggestive questions, repetition, pressure, threats, negative stereotyping and encouragement, reward or praise.(iii) Accounts given by children are susceptible to contamination by the statements of others, which contamination may influence a child’s responses.(iv) The way, and the stage at which a child is asked questions/interviewed will have a profound effect on the accuracy of the child’s testimony. Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27 [577], MacDonald J.[20]When considering cases of suspected child abuse the court must take into account all the evidence and furthermore consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence (Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558 (paragraph 33)).[21]In O (Description of Sexual Abuse), Re [2024] EWCA Civ 126, which although concerning ‘non-contact’ sexual abuse is of some assistance. The Court of Appeal looked at the use of the specific term ‘sexual abuse’ and it being ‘exceptional’ as a term because it has been specifically included within the definition of ill-treatment within Section 31(9) Children Act 1989. Paragraphs 34 - 44 refer to the use of generic terms and the pitfall of ‘incautiously’ using labels, such as ‘rape’. Specifically at paragraph 41:
‘Judges in the Family Court are accustomed to making an evaluation of the evidence, and where possible reaching findings on the facts; judges always need to think about whether describing the conduct alleged by reference to a generic label will add to an understanding of the facts. I would counsel against over-analysis. Judges should use descriptions that they consider appropriate to describe their findings and to convey their nature and relative gravity.’
[22]The court will be alert to the dangers of inferring that because a parent has not provided an explanation for an injury, the real explanation must be a sinister one (Re M (fact-finding hearing: burden of proof) [2012] EWCA Civ 1580).[23]The court is not bound by the cases put forward by the parties but may adopt an alternative solution of its own Re S (A Child) [2015] UKSC 20. Caution is required and the court must ensure that any additional or different findings made are securely founded in the evidence: and that the fairness of the fact-finding process is not compromised. (Re G and B (Fact-finding Hearing) [2009] EWCA Civ 10).[24]The hearing before this court is not a re-trial of the counts on the indictment. The criminal law and rules of procedure do not apply. The task of this court is ‘to determine what has gone on in the past so that those findings may inform the ultimate welfare evaluation as to the child’s future with the court’s eyes open to such risks as the factual determination may have established’ (Re R (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 198 at paragraph 82). More recently the position has been approved and expanded upon in J, P and Q (care proceedings) [2024] EWCA Civ 22. This court is not concerned with establishing what criminal offences, if any, have been committed. Criminal law concepts ‘have neither relevance nor function within a process of fact-finding in the family court’ and ‘the approach adopted in Re R applies equally to rules of evidence and procedure such as the directions given to juries about delay and a defendant’s good character.’[25]An express denial is no less an account than is a positive account of abuse [Leeds City Council v YX & ZX (Assessment of Sexual Abuse) [2008] 2 FLR 869 [143], Holman J.[26]The evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. They must have the fullest opportunity to take part in the hearing and the court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence and the impression it forms of them (see Re W and another (Non-accidental injury) [2003] FCR 346).[27]As observed by Mostyn J in Lancashire County Council v R [2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam) (citing Onassis and Calogeropoulos v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep 403, per Lord Pearce and A County Council v M and F [2011] EWHC 1804 (Fam) [2012] 2 FLR 939 the assessment of credibility generally involves wider problems than mere demeanor. Contemporaneous documents are of the utmost importance.[28]It is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720). In Re A-B-C (Children) [2021] EWCA 451 Macur LJ provided updated guidance on the assessment of credibility.

Evidence and impression of witnesses

[29]I have had the benefit of reading the court bundles. I have also been provided with a helpful chronology from Mr Fuller and a detailed case opening note.[30]Over the course of the hearing, I have heard oral evidence from Ms L (midwife), Ms B (paramedic), Ms T (residential placement), Ms Fisher (social worker), the father and the mother.[31]The professional witnesses did their best to assist the court answering questions to the best of their recollection. I have been provided with the notes of Ms L and Ms B following their oral evidence.[32]The mother was due to be assisted by a lay advocate when the father gave his evidence and when she gave hers. However, the lay advocate was not available when the father gave his evidence and the mother was therefore assisted by her solicitor, Ms Webb. This was also the case on the second day of the case. On the first day of the case, the mother sat next to the father and it was apparent that she took comfort from this. This was also the case when the parties made submissions on the penultimate day of the hearing.[33]In addition, I ensured that questions to all witnesses were asked in a straightforward manner. Breaks were afforded at regular intervals (at least every hour). I am satisfied that the mother was able to participate fully and fairly throughout this hearing.[34]The father was given a section 98 warning prior to giving his evidence. He appeared to answer questions with a view to assisting the court. However, for reasons which I will return there were times when I was not satisfied that he gave an honest account.[35]The mother was a quietly spoken witness. However, she was able to say when she did not understand a question and spoke articulately and intelligently. Despite her diagnosis, she did not obviously present as someone with difficulties but of course I am aware that symptoms might not be apparent and some individuals are skilled at masking. There is also the recent report of Dr White which I have read. Z[36]Z, the father’s first child was born in XX. Z’s mother was just 15 when she gave birth to Z. The father was weeks away from being 20. XX years later the father had a child with L. The couple went on to have XX more children. Z is the father’s XX child.[37]Z displayed signs of sexualised behaviour from a young age. This was towards other children as well as herself. When she was not even 10 she was seen to mimic oral sex on a doll and to say ‘you like that don’t you’. Z was and remains a troubled young person.[38]Z was the subject of care proceedings which started in XX. Z was eventually placed at a therapeutic residential placement later that year.[39]It was not until May 2020, by which time Z had been at her placement for some XX months, that the allegations were made that ultimately led to the father’s arrest and criminal trial. However, the first reported allegation by Z of sexual abuse by the father happened as long ago as November 2017. Z was then just short of her XX birthday and was spending time, including overnight, at the homes of both parents. Concerns had already been raised about Z’s sexualized behaviour. Z has also experienced vaginal bleeding (later this was noted to be within the broad range of normality). Two other pupils at Z’s school had referred to Z having ‘fucked her dad’ and that ‘she was allowed to do this’ and ‘and she is the only one that can do this’. After a strategy meeting on 27 November 2017 Z was seen by two police officers and a social worker. Z made no disclosures and denied what had been reported. No further investigation followed, although Z’s parents were spoken to by the police. The father is said to have presented as being anxious. Despite no further investigation, the GP surgery appeared to remain concerned about Z and the paediatrician made reference to the bleeding being ‘highly suspicious.’ It seems that Z started her periods some time later when she was at her residential placement. Z’s mother says she started her periods at the age 10.[40]The sexual concerns were then replaced by concerns that the father was hitting Z. Z shared some pink diary entries with a school mentor in this respect. An attempt to carry out an ABE was unsuccessful. Z was reported as saying she hated her father and was nervous about the father seeing any ABE recording.[41]The police spoke to the father about the allegations and having been told that Z had not given an ABE interview he provided a prepared statement in which he denied the allegations made by Z in the diary notes. On 4 March 2018 Z was seen in hospital because of abdominal pains. Z’s mother referred to sexual abuse allegations and the father no longer seeing Z but Z wanting to see him. This was just one month after Z had told various professionals that she hated her father. On 11 April 2018 during a child in need visit Z alleged physical abuse by the mother’s partner (Z also said her grandfather had strangled her) and Z said she wanted to go back to the father stating that he had not realized that what he was doing was mean and he would stop hurting Z. However, Z also referred to this as being another of one of the father’s tricks and he was not going to be any different.[42]Having been in foster care, on 9 August 2018 when Z was about to leave her respite carers, Z told them that she had lied to everyone about the family doing things to her and hurting them. The suggestion by the local authority is that Z felt responsible for being in care. Astonishingly at not even 10 years of age, Z required chemical sedation on four occasions whilst in hospital in early September 2018. An application for deprivation of liberty order was made in September 2018. Shortly thereafter Z was placed at a therapeutic residential placement.[43]In about February 2020, Z was expressing worry about her half-siblings who lived with the father and L. Z referred to the father turning up drunk on an occasion and teachers not letting him take Z home. Z said the father would always hit her and do things when he was drunk and then say that he could not remember.[44]On 14 May 2020, after a lesson about rape, Z told their teacher ‘my dad tried to do that’. Z gave a more detailed account to someone else at school saying ‘in that lesson before, my dad did almost all of those things’. Having tried to change the subject and run off Z then gave a longer account which was set out in a statement from this member of staff to the police.[45]On the same day Z asked her key worker whether what she had said would be passed on to the father before saying they did not think he did it. When asked what ‘it’ was Z replied ‘that thing’. Z told their keyworker what they had told the safeguarding officer that when they were learning about laws in school and rape came up and Z was trying to forget what her father had done to her. When Z spoke to a teaching assistant on 15 May 2020 she made no allegations of sexualized behavior by the father but said that if he found out he would be ‘mad’. Z expressed fear about her half-siblings and spoke of the father being drunk. Z queried why he had done what he had, how could he do that to her?[46]Z spoke to the key worker on 19 May 2020 when they were in the car together. Z was worried about the father finding out and said ‘dad had told her in the past that if she ever told anyone he would hurt her and her siblings’ and the father ‘had told her nobody would believe her as he was an adult and she was a child.’ Z gave a detailed account of what the father had done to her on the night she slept on the couch.[47]On 4 June 2020 Z was again worried about their father finding out but said they would talk to the police (planned for the next day) as ‘she doesn’t want it to happen to her siblings.’[48]Z was ABE interviewed on 18 June 2020. I have seen the video recording. The father was interviewed by the police on 15 August 2020 and denied the allegations. At the criminal trial the key worker, Z’s mother and the father gave evidence and their transcripts have been made available to me. Z’s cross-examination evidence is also recorded and I have seen this. It is just 18 minutes in length. I have already referred to the verdict.[49]In addition to the pink diary notes, Z made blue diary notes which refer to allegations of sexual abuse. They are not dated but were found in early December 2020. They detail what Z says the father did to her ‘… he was touching me and put his private part in mine and using his fingers as well …’ These were not adduced as evidence as part of the criminal proceedings.[50]Sadly, in July 2020, Z began to display more extreme self-harming behaviour. Z spent many nights in hospital and she is no longer at the same residential placement. The father’s parental responsibility was removed by Cobb J.[51]Ms T from Z’s residential placement told the court that Z had a troubled background and could present with extreme behaviours. She knew Z well. There was an element of attention seeking behaviours. This was particularly so in respect of health issues after Z had seen things on television for example putting on a limp saying she had sprained her ankle. After Z broke her elbow, she removed the plaster cast and seemed to enjoy going back to hospital. After Z made the allegations in Spring 2020 her behaviour declined suddenly and significantly. Fairly, Ms T did not attempt to suggest what the cause for this might have been.[52]The father told the court that he cannot understand why Z has said what she has said. He denies any sexual or physical abuse of Z. He can only think that Z has said what they have as he was unsympathetic when Z sprained her ankle. He denied drinking or giving Z alcohol as Z has alleged. He says he drank very rarely and denied having been stopped from collecting Z from school because he was drunk as is recorded in a police statement of Z’s mother. The father was aware of Z’s diary entries. He denies Z was scared of him and maintains that the two of them got on well.[53]Before I determine the sexual allegations made by Z, as part of the broad canvas of evidence I have considered other evidence which may be relevant in this respect.

Other evidence of the father’s interest in young girls

[54]Indecent photographs have been found on the father’s telephone in 2013. He says he received these photographs without asking for them from a group chat. L made this allegation and told the police they made her feel sick. The father is said to have to told L that it was a game and he was on drugs at the time and he had passed the photographs on to others. L later said the age was an error and pictures were of 18 year old girls. Notably the father and L stayed together after this discovery, their XX child was born in XX and their XX child in XX.[55]The father’s oral evidence was that he was part of an anonymous group on his telephone which was similar to a WhatsApp group. However, it was anonymous and he could not say how many people were part of the group. Pornographic photographs and videos were exchanged. He described these as being ‘amateur’ pornography. When asked to expand upon this he stated that they were things others had found online or were home videos which were shared. He said he tended to get messages in the evening and he was part of the forum for about a month. He said that everything that was sent to him was automatically saved on his telephone and L went through his telephone when he was asleep and discovered the pictures of children. He said as soon as he saw them, he decided to come off the group and deleted the app. However, the photographs had already been saved. I am afraid that I did not understand his explanation to enable me to form the view that it was an innocent one. It is not of course for the father to prove anything but the allegation is plainly made out in any event. The father accepts the photographs were on his telephone. However, I am also satisfied the father has a sexual interest in young girls.[56]In 2021, further photographs were found on the father’s telephone. The father has not offered a written explanation other than he was watching a lot of pornography at the time and they may have come from there. There were images of children and extreme images of adult genitalia injury. As before, the allegation is made out.[57]Z’s mother was of course only 15 when she gave birth to Z. She was 14 when she became pregnant. This is not disputed by the father. However, the circumstances leading to the pregnancy require further exploration. The father accepts that when Z’s mother (Y) was 13 he was 17 or 18 when they commenced their sexual relationship. He says that they were part of the same group of friends. In this respect he had friends who had been at the school Y attended. They all spent time together. Some of them were a year or two younger than him. He says he was taking a lot of drugs and drinking at the time and this was also the case for Y. He denied grooming Y but I think accepts she was vulnerable. He said they were both taking drugs and drinking and he would take drugs she had obtained and she took drugs he had obtained. Y was not old enough to buy alcohol and he would do this for her if she gave him the money. My interpretation from his evidence was that he was buying the drugs. He did not think there was anything wrong with the relationship at the time as he thought he was quite young at the time and presented as more of a 14 or 15 year old. It was only later looking back that he can see that it was not appropriate and felt disgusted by it.[58]The mother said she was concerned about the father having a sexual relationship with a child and said her sister had been in a similar position which she had reported to the local authority. The mother did not think it was appropriate and would be extremely worried if D embarked upon such a relationship in similar circumstances. However, her evidence appeared to be that as the father had subsequently reflected and accepted the inappropriate nature of the relationship, she accepted his explanation that it had happened as he was ‘young and dumb.’[59]In my view, the father’s relationship with Y was plainly inappropriate. The father was an adult and Y was a child. The relationship had all the hallmarks of having been groomed. I do not and should not embark upon some analysis in accordance with the criminal law. I say so as Y was young, vulnerable, consuming drink and drugs purchased by the father and having sex with him. The mother was right to be concerned about the relationship (the details of which were not shared by the father until L contacted the mother) but it is troubling that this no longer appears to be her view and the ease with which she has to date accepted the father’s explanation. It is part of her being vulnerable to exploitation by the father.

Analysis of sexual abuse allegation

[60]A finding that a child has been subjected to sexual abuse, and if so by whom, may be made as a result of direct evidence from the child, reported evidence of what the child has said or demonstrated, the direct evidence of adults, admissions by adults, expert psychological or psychiatric evidence, or expert medical evidence and diagnosis. In many cases, a finding will be based upon a combination of more than one source of evidence. Where there is an absence of any probative medical or other direct physical evidence the ability to make such a finding is less straightforward. In this case there is no medical evidence, no abuse has been witnessed by a third party and there are no admissions.[61]The consequences of the court reaching the wrong conclusion in respect of an allegation of sexual abuse are significant. Accordingly, when determining whether sexual abuse has taken place, it is vital that the court remains aware of the forensic difficulties. I have given the matter careful consideration and undertaken a holistic analysis of the evidence. The findings sought by the local authority in respect of Z being sexually abused have been the most difficult part of my analysis.[62]Notwithstanding the emotive subject matter, the task before me is to take an entirely objective approach to the process of determining whether on the evidence available the facts alleged by the local authority are established to the required standard. I remind myself as always that it is not for the father to prove anything. Further, even if his explanation as to why Z might have made the allegation is implausible, it does not mean that the allegation is made out.[63]I remind myself that I have not heard directly from Z. I have referred to her ABE and the evidence she gave in the Crown Court. I have also considered the report of Dr Bird with care. The report was prepared in 2018 as part of Z’s own care proceedings. Dr Bird undertook a psychological assessment of Z who was then nearly XX years of age. Dr Bird noted that Z was confrontational from the outset. There was a clear attempt by Z to exert control and this was a theme which appears throughout the report. Z had a poor awareness of personal space which the foster carer confirmed was generally the case. Z said she had lied about her father and her step-father. She lied about her father as he made her do chores and she wanted to punish him. She made allegations against her step-father as he moved in with her mother and she was irritated by this. Z said she wanted to live with her mother and see her father but not overnight. The allegations which arose when Z was at school she said came from a young person who she was in conflict with at the time. There is reference in the report to Z making similar allegations against this person too. Her retractions were thought to be further manipulation and whether they were true was as difficult to discern as the allegations themselves. Z’s foster carer was sufficiently concerned about Z that they wanted the door to remain open and to hear everything in case Z made allegations against Dr Bird. Z was noted to have a precocious sexual awareness. This was again linked to her desire to exert control or secure what she considered to be her needs. It was thought that Z may have been exposed to inappropriate sexual conduct by someone and this had distorted her sexual conduct. Dr Bird did not accept the father’s assertion that Z recovered in the father’s home only to deteriorate when with the mother. Harm was thought to have been sustained in both households. It was possible that Z had experienced sexual abuse. Z’s blurring of fact and fantasy was also noted as was her highly egocentric worldview. Z’s relationship with her father was noted to be ambivalent and the nature of this might emerge as Z settled into her long-term care arrangement. Of course, by the time of this report Z had not made allegations of sexual abuse directly to any professional.[64]Overall, the evidence can be summarised in this way. Z was showing signs of sexualised behaviour at a very young age. Even though she has made and retracted allegations against others, she has been steadfast over the last few years in respect of the core allegation that her father has sexually abused her. There are diary entries which support what she has said. They make for compelling reading. However, Z has also made a false accusation against another child of a sexual nature. Z was and remains a troubled young person who was removed from the care of her parents at a young age. The first report of Z having been sexually abused was made by others (albeit on the basis of what Z had apparently said) in 2017 when Z was not even XX years of age. I have set out the detail elsewhere. However, Z did not say anything when asked by the police and even denied what she had apparently said to others.[65]I do not overlook that Z was nervous about giving an ABE interview in case the father saw it. There were many references to Z not wanting to see the father again, although at about at the same time Z then said she wanted to see her father. Z has made allegations against her step-father and made reference to her grandfather physically abusing her. Z also said she had lied about matters and this was the reason she was ‘in the mess’ she was in (referring to being in care). At the residential placement Z was supported by a deprivation of liberty order and required 2:1 supervision which was reduced to 1:1 in July 2019.[66]The sexual abuse allegations were resurrected in early 2020 when Z expressed concern about her siblings and about the father doing things to her when he was drunk. Crucially, in May 2020 after the lesson at school, Z said the father had ‘tried to do that’ and later ‘almost all of those things.’ There was vacillation by Z who then said she did not think he did it. Z’s fear of the father was again apparent as was the concern for her siblings. I have considered the evidence that Z has acted out having seen things on the television and this might be said to be a further manifestation of similar behaviour - although the evidence from Ms T was that this seemed to relate to health issues. However, the father gave evidence that having watched an episode of Casualty Z made a sexual allegation (rape) against another boy. Z has referred to no-one believing them given that they were a child at the time and the father had said this would be the case causing Z to doubt herself.[67]The ABE is also of some concern. It starts off with Z being asked ‘what was it you told Jade he’s done?’. Z talks about the father trying to take her clothes off and trying to take his own clothes off. She refers to him trying to hug her and being ‘kind of like on top of me.’ She said the father he gave her alcohol and got her ‘a bit drunk’ and that she was given a big cup of alcohol and she drank ‘loads of it’. She said ‘and I didn’t like, I didn’t, I didn’t really mind, but I didn’t like, kind of, like, like it’. She described the father as being drunk. Later she says he was ‘trying to touch my private parts’ she referred to him leaning on one of his elbows. She said he also put his private parts in hers. The incident went on for about two hours. Further, ‘he’s done three and attempted four but I didn’t do it.’[68]There was a break and Z was praised for being ‘super brave’ for speaking up. However, I remind myself that by the time this conversation took place, Z had already made the allegations against her father.[69]Z did not seem to say that the alcohol she was given tasted particularly unpleasant. There is no suggestion that she felt sore, was injured, her clothes were soiled etc. There is a lack of forensic detail.[70]In Z’s recorded Section 28 evidence, there is reference to being injected with drugs in the leg.[71]The blue diary notes appear to have been left so that Z’s carer would find them. These might suggest that what Z had said to other school pupils in 2017 was true. I am not sure that it is known when these were written.[72]Sadly, having given her evidence in the criminal trial, Z’s behaviour deteriorated significantly. Whether this was related is not known. However, the father’s parental responsibility was removed in October 2024. The father did not oppose the application.[73]Can I form the conclusion that the father sexually abused Z and specifically make the findings which the local authority seeks? Overall, having given the matter very careful thought, I am not satisfied that the local authority has discharged the burden of proof. This is so in respect of the pleaded allegation or on the basis of the case put by Mr Fuller in closing submissions. However, in accordance with the case law (The Popi, Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds, Rhesa Shipping Co SA Fenton Insurance Co Ltd (ibid)) this does not mean that I have formed the view that Z has lied.

The relationship between the parents

[74]I have already referred to the ages of the parents. Given what is known about the father, the local authority says the age difference is significant and is relevant to the father’s predatory nature and the mother’s vulnerability. The father had XX children when they met and the mother was an anxious first year student with Asperger’s. They met on an online anxiety forum. Their relationship progressed to them living together within weeks and they were engaged very shortly thereafter (September 2023). Z was conceived in early October 2023 – the mother says she found out on Halloween.[75]The father told me that he joined the online anxiety forum to help manage his own anxiety. He searched for forums for anxiety and depression. He wanted to reduce his medication in 2023 and did so successfully. He said he came off all medication within two weeks of joining the forum. He also thought he could help others and offered advice based on his own experiences. He says all sorts of people were on the forum and he would log on at least once or twice a day. You could private message people and that is was happened with the mother. Very quickly he and the mother were exchanging private messages and then they swapped numbers (he offered his number first) and started to talk to one another on the telephone. He said to the mother that she could contact him if she was upset or needed mental health advice.[76]The mother said she instigated contact away from the forum and felt the father did not pick up on the signs that she was flirting with him. He offered various techniques such as breathing techniques which she found helpful. They quickly progressed to messaging privately by which point she knew his name but little else. They had just a couple of video calls before they met in person.[77]The father did not initially consider the mother to be vulnerable but conceded this when cross-examined on behalf of the guardian. The mother accepts that she was and was taken to the list of traumatic events in Dr White’s report at paragraphs 7.17 onwards which include her being sexually abused as a child. The father knew that the mother was living with her aunt and her relationship with her family was strained.[78]The mother said she was living with her aunt having moved around between her mother, grandmother and aunt. The parents arranged for the father to visit her in her home city. The father stayed in a private house and the mother stayed with him. They had sex and the mother then started to visit him in his home city when she could take time off from her cleaning job. I was not clear when the father considered them to have started a relationship but it was obviously very soon after they had met. This was also the case for the mother who said she wanted to be in a relationship with him and felt that they were quickly falling in love.[79]Having met on the forum in April 2023, by June the mother was living with the father and resat her failed exam in August from his home. She said having failed the re-sit she would have needed to retake the entire year and at this point dropped out of university.[80]The father said he did not feel able to tell the mother about the allegations made by Z and wished he had done so. He said he was petrified of losing her. When it came out they spoke at length about what Z had alleged. The mother asked his family why they had not told her and he thought they said it was down to him. The father told the mother that she could leave him if she wanted to and said it was not the case that she had nowhere to go as she was back on reasonable terms with her mother. He said he had told the mother that he had XX children and did not see any of them. He told her he was not seeing them due to a verbal altercation between him and L. He told the mother that Z was in care due to his relationship with Y, and Z being beyond parental control. When they did speak about it, the conversation was full and frank. He thought the age of Z’s mother being 13 when they started a sexual relationship also came up (I did not understand this to be the mother’s evidence). He said he also told the mother about the photographs being found on his telephone.[81]The mother said after the parents decided to get engaged, she updated her status on Facebook. This was seen by L who then contacted her through Facebook to tell the mother that the father was on bail in respect of allegations made by Z which included rape. L said something along the lines of ‘He’s on bail. Don’t get with him’. She was receiving messages as they were being typed and the father was with her. The word rape was used and it was clear that the father being on bail related to the father’s own young child having made allegations. The mother said she was told Z’s age at this time. The mother described the father as being withdrawn. She said she was shocked and that had she known he was facing these allegations at the outset she would not have had any involvement with him. As the father had said, if those on the forum were aware, it is likely that he would have been ‘kicked off’ and the mother agreed that this would have been appropriate. The mother told me that they had a big argument. The father told her that Z had made false allegations about others and there was a rift between him and Z. Something was also said about Z watching Family Guy which was not considered appropriate for her young age. The father also told the mother his theory about why Z had made the allegation against him. The mother thought this was a possible explanation for Z having made the allegations. It was only at this time the mother said that she became aware of the father having indecent images of children on his telephone and it was L not the father who told her this.[82]The mother said she was worried the father presented a risk but they also spoke to the paternal great grandmother and she explained how Z had made false allegations and was not to be believed. She took comfort from this as ‘she is an honest woman’. The mother said on several occasions during her oral evidence that while she and the father had a huge argument, having slept on it and ‘sat on it’ she believed him. Z said can be manipulative and the paternal great grandmother had seen this first hand. Even now she does not think the father groomed Z but accepted it might be perceived that he groomed Y. Undoubtedly, the time when Z’s allegations were known to the mother this was a stressful time for them both. I am also reminded that the disclosure to the mother coincided with the mother’s step-grandfather having taken his own life which was upsetting for her and her family. At this stage, the mother did not accept that the father was a sexual risk. Their relationship continued and the mother became pregnant.[83]The father says the pregnancy was not planned as so far as he was concerned the mother was using an implant as contraception. Whilst there are references by the parents telling professionals it was unplanned, he said it was not unwanted and it was a happy accident. The mother could not recall when she had the implant but largely said the same.[84]In addition to the mother having been told about the allegations by Z, the local authority also spoke to the mother about them in late March/early April – by now the mother was quite heavily pregnant with D.[85]It is plain from the mother’s evidence that she wants to believe the father and this appears to be even more so following the not guilty verdict following the criminal trial. She told others that if the father was found guilty she would reconsider her views about him. She told me that she will review the position following my decision. However, what is clear, is that she has not independently formed the view that the father may pose a risk to D and whilst she says she will also revisit her view on the basis of the allegations relating to Z and the photographs on the father’s phone, it is a real concern that she needs to be told that the father presents a risk. It is clearly the case that as it stands she is standing by the father and her evidence along the lines that anyone can be a sexual risk was concerning.[86]As for getting married on 15 April 2024 just two weeks before the start of the father’s trial, the father told me that the date was a significant one being a year from when they met on the forum. The mother wanted to get married on this date as she did not want a child born out of wedlock. Her family were old fashioned in this respect even though the maternal grandmother had two children by two different men and not been married to either. The mother said her mother faced a lot of stigma. The mother’s sister attended the wedding and as did her friend but that was it. Ms Fisher was clear that the mother did not have a good relationship with her family and her support came from the father and his family. The father says he only had two guests as well. That does not detract from the concerns. The mother’s own evidence was that she had fallen out with her mother when she was just 15 or 16 and had moved about various times as a consequence. The mother also accepted that she was isolated at school. The mother maintained that she wanted to get married so that D would not be born out of wedlock and she could always get a divorce. She said they could not get married if he was in prison. She saw no benefit in waiting until after his trial. In my view the mother was misguided by her loyalty towards the father and marrying him when she did is a real concern.[87]As for the father’s trial, the father said that the mother attended some but not all of it. He said she attended on the first day. She did not attend when he gave his evidence as he had been threatened and did not think it was safe for her to do so. He said the mother did see Z’s evidence being given. He denied persuading her not to attend at any time.[88]The mother told me that she only attended on the first day but then L said a female had made threats towards the family. The mother and father discussed whether she should attend to hear his evidence. The mother was unable to attend the second day as she had an appointment with the midwife. She wanted to report the threat to the police but there was no direct evidence and the father said she was not to worry and he would tell his legal team. As the father was supported by his uncle she did not feel a need to attend even to hear the father’s evidence. This is a real concern. It seems that the mother simply did not want to form a view about the father herself by listening to his evidence. Even though she said she wanted to hear his evidence, I am far from persuaded that this was the case and she was simply accepting what the father told her.[89]The local authority invites me to find that the father has exploited the mother and she is vulnerable to further exploitation by him. I accept this to be the case. The evidence of the duty midwife at the hospital, Ms L, was that the mother was completely pre-occupied by the father when she was in hospital and this was at the cost of caring for D.[90]Ms L was of course looking after numerous mothers and babies. She recorded that the mother had said that the staff were plotting against her and the father. She was worried about the father controlling the mother. The mother kept talking about the father and felt there was no need to worry about the father even though Z had made allegations against him. She understood there had been a misunderstanding about the father being able to visit but nonetheless her view remained that the mother was preoccupied with the father to the extent she said she would discharge herself. She felt this was the case even accepting the mother’s diagnosis of Aspergers. I accept her evidence.[91]Ms Fisher said the same and was concerned that when the mother was away from the father she demonstrated more insight but would then switch back when she was with the father. She referred me to the text messages in this respect which show a notable change of position. When the mother was with her family and away from the father (15 September 2024) she sent a text stating she wanted a risk assessment of them both. She also stated ‘I also understand he is a sexual risk and want to put measure into place. I was scared to admit it but he is, and needs help.’ Then on 24 September 2024 when she was back with the father ‘I told (Ms Fisher) my decision I don’t want to see you next week. I want reunification. End of.’ When she gave her oral evidence the mother said this was after she had gone through the Lucy Faithfull report with the father. Notably, the mother then complained about the local authority in various respects stating ‘staff have neglected us round every corner with giving Lucy Faithfull misinformation.’ Any challenge to the risk assessment of the father is not for this hearing but it is indicative of the mother’s change of stance and whether she has reached such a view independently or having been influence by the father.[92]Even if it is right that the mother has swayed back and forth as she told me, to date she has remained consistent in her support of the father. I accept the evidence of Ms Fisher that the mother’s explanations used the same words as the father. Ms Fisher was clear that the mother was groomed by the father which I accept. There are many similarities between the mother and Y. Whilst it is not specifically pleaded, it is a natural consequence of the findings I make.[93]It is also worrying that soon after D’s birth the mother when the mother was ill and paramedics attended her home on 5 August 2024 the father was on the telephone to her for most of the time and listening in to the conversation. Aside from concerns about the father being referred to by the incorrect name in the notes and there being reference to him the subject of an ‘asylum assessment’, the clear evidence from Ms B was that she and her colleague were not aware that the father was on the telephone for some time.[94]The father accepts there were times when he was on the telephone to the mother but said this was because she wanted him to be on the phone. When she was taken to hospital the mother did not know where they were taking her.[95]I accept and prefer the evidence of the professionals to that of the parents. The mother is vulnerable to the influence of the father. Even if the father was not present for the entirety of calls with professionals, his presence was noted by several all of whom were rightly concerned by it. It was not therefore the case that a conversation was happening between the parents. It appears to have been far more covert than that.[96]It is particularly worrying that the parents were having sex less than three weeks after the mother had undergone a C section. The mother also told the guardian that they had sex in hospital (this was after she had been admitted with an infection). The father denied this was the case but accepted they had sex when D was being cared for by his father and aunt in their home. He told me that the mother has a higher libido than him and it was at her insistence. I have not heard from the guardian as the parents did not request her to give evidence. In fairness to the parents I make no finding but even aside from this, their sexual activity so soon after D had been born is further evidence of the mother being keen to please the father and/or putting her own needs above those of her baby. If it is right that the mother wanted sex, the father ought to have said no.[97]Ms B understood the father and mother had been seeing each other in breach of the safety plan. The mother told her this and Ms B set this out in her statement. There is no reference to this in the notes (provided after Ms B had given her evidence). I have set out elsewhere what are said to be errors in Ms B’s notes. Ms B was not asked about the error in respect of the father’s name. She was asked about her reference to the ‘asylum assessment’ and said this is what she was told. The mother denied saying that the parents had breached the safety plan. However, she also accepted that she might have forgotten saying this. There have been two schedules of expectations. The guardian wished for there to be clarity in respect of the first schedule, as whilst family time was supposed to be twice a week for a maximum of two hours, the parents had suggested to her that it was up to five times a week and for much longer. The schedule was based on what family members were able to commit. I am satisfied that the mother told Ms B that the parents had been seeing each other in breach of the agreement. Ms Fisher understood the parents had complied with the safety plan which related to the father’s time with D. Whether there had been a breach is not a finding I make. However, the mother thought she was acting in breach of the safety plan which in itself is a concern.[98]Ultimately, this mother was vulnerable and has a strained relationship with her family, although I accept there is some contact with some members including her mother. However, the mother is virtually entirely dependent upon the father and his family to support her. In this respect the father’s aunt has recently been put forward as a possible kinship carer. The mother maintained that she felt she would be a suitable carer for D even though there is reference in the papers to an anonymous referral alleging she had said that the father’s telephone could be microwaved in order to destroy any incriminating evidence. The mother appeared to not be remotely concerned about this which is a concern to me.[99]Despite the sexual abuse allegations in respect of Z not being made out, to date, other than for brief periods of time, the mother has not been accepting of anything having happened. This was the case in September 2023 when she was first made aware of the allegations. This remained the position when the local authority spoke to her in April 2024 when she was noted to be ‘sticking’ by the father. To some extent one can understand that she may not be alone in awaiting the outcome of a criminal trial. However, her decision to marry the father just two weeks before his trial and her rationale for this makes no sense. Importantly, the allegations made by Z were not the only matters which should have been a warning to the mother. The images on the father’s telephone on two occasions have never been disputed by the father. Whilst he offers an explanation it is not one I accept. The mother also knows about the father’s relationship with Z’s mother and her pregnancy when she was a child. Even with the knowledge of the Lucy Faithfull report (September 2024) the mother remains committed to the father which is further evidenced by her comments in February about having a family home with the father. Sadly, the evidence is clear that to date the mother does not accept that the father presents as a risk to D. However, I am of course mindful that there will be the opportunity for both parents to reflect on this judgment before welfare decisions are made. I hope they do so.

Conclusion

[100]It is apparent from the admissions and other findings that at the relevant date, namely 11 July 2024, being the date D was born that D had suffered and was likely to suffer significant harm, and the harm or likelihood of harm was attributable to the care given to them or likely to be given to her, not being what it would be reasonable to expect the parents to give (section 31(2)(a) and (b)(i) Children Act 1989).[101]That is my judgment. Her Honour Judge Cope 17 April 2025 Schedule of findings 102. Allegation 1 103. The father is the father of a child now known as Z who was born female on 1 December 2008. 104. The is not an allegation as such. However, it is accepted and is factually accurate. 105. Allegation 2 106. When Z was aged between XX and XX the father sexually abused Z on more than one occasion by:a. Inserting his penis in their vagina.b. Attempting to insert his penis in her vagina.c. Inserting a finger or fingers in her vagina.d. Forcibly removing her clothes.e. Giving her alcoholic drinks to facilitate his behaviour towards her. 112. The allegation is not proved, although this does not mean the court formed the view that Z had lied (see paragraph 73 of the judgment above). 113. Allegation 3 114. On XX, unopposed the father and supported by Z’s mother and Z’s guardian, Mr Justice Cobb made an order in case number XX that the father cease to hold PR for S. 115. This not an allegation as such. However, it is accepted and is factually accurate. 116. Allegation 4 117. In 2013 the father had on his telephone category C images of girls aged about 10. 118. The allegation is made out. 119. Allegation 5 120. In 2021 the father had on his telephone a small number of category B and C images and prohibited images of children and three ‘extreme porn’ images including of adult genitalia injury. 121. The allegation is made out. 122. Allegation 6 123. Y was born when their mother was 15 years and two months. F (who is Z’s father) was three weeks off his 20th birthday. 124. This not an allegation as such. However, it is accepted and is factually accurate. 125. Allegation 7 126. The father began a sexual relationship with Z’s mother when she was aged 13; he bought her alcohol and drugs for her (the father’s Crown Court evidence). 127. The allegation is made out. 128. Allegation 8 129. The mother and father met in an online anxiety forum in April 2023 the mother was then aged XX. The father was then aged XX. 130. The allegation is made out. 131. Allegation 9 132. In June 2023 the mother gave up her university course, left her home in XX and moved in with the father in XX. 133. The allegation is made out. 134. Allegation 10 135. In September 2023 the father’s former partner (and mother of XX of his children) told the mother the father was on bail for allegedly raping his daughter. 136. The allegation is made out. 137. Allegation 11 138. In Late March/early April 2024, in the context of protecting the unborn baby D, a police officer and social worker spoke with M (in the presence of a lay advocate) about the allegations against the father, in respect of which his trial was due to commence on 29 April 2024. 139. The allegation is made out. 140. Allegation 12 141. On XX the mother and the father married. 142. This not an allegation. However, it is accepted and is factually accurate. 143. Allegation 13 144. As part of the pre-proceedings process the father underwent a sexual risk assessment by the Lucy Faithful Foundation. The assessment concludes, and the LA asserts it to be the case, that the father presents a ‘moderate chronic risk to children and young people and should not be unsupervised with them’ and that he ‘presents a high risk of sexual offending if he is unsupervised with children,’ 145. The allegation is made out. 146. Allegation 14 147. The mother has been exploited by the father and is vulnerable to further exploitation by him. 148. The allegation is made out. 149. Allegation 15 150. The mother does not accept that the father presents as a risk to children including D. 151. The allegation is made out. 152. Allegation 16 153. The mother is isolated from her own family and has become emotionally dependent on the father. 154. The allegation is made out. 155. Allegation 17 156. The mother has put the father’s sexual desires above her own health (having sexual intercourse with him on multiple occasions in the third week after giving birth) and lacks an understanding of sexual boundaries and of her own right to say ‘no’. 157. The allegation is made out.