A Local Authority v A & Ors [2025] EWFC 311 (B)

[2025] EWFC 311 (B)

This 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. If the judgment is to be reported or published, there is a requirement to ensure that no reporting restriction will be breached. This is particularly important in relation to any case involving a sexual offence, where the victim is guaranteed lifetime anonymity (Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 1992), or where an order has been made in relation to a young person. 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.

Date 17 July 2025

IN THE FAMILY COURT

Before

HHJ Elizabeth Willsteed

Between

A LOCAL AUTHORITYClaimant

ADefendant

BDefendant

CDefendant

A CHILD, DDefendant

AC HILD, EDefendant

A CHILD, FDefendant

A CHILD, GDefendant

(Via their Children’s Guardian)Defendant

A LOCAL AUTHORITY-and-A-and-B-and-C-and-A CHILD, D AC HILD, E A CHILD, F A CHILD, G (Via their Children’s Guardian)

Hearing Hearing dates: 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26 June 2025

JUDGMENT

[1]This matter was listed for a fact-finding hearing to determine the truth of allegations of sexual touching, physical abuse, neglect and failure to protect in order to inform welfare decisions for 4 children of this family. The Local Authority who pursues these finding is represented by Lucy Reed KC and Olivia Pike.

[2]The mother of all the subject children is A. She does not accept that her parenting has fallen below the s31 Children Act 1989 threshold. Save for some minor breaches of safety planning she also denies failing to protect the children. She has been diagnosed with depression, anxiety and PTSD and in 2024 was advised to engage in therapy to develop coping skills and resolve past trauma (which she has not consistently engaged in). She is also the victim of domestic abuse at the hands of C. For the purposes of this hearing she has been treated as vulnerable, and has been offered breaks and the opportunity to leave court should the evidence become unmanageable for her. She has had the benefit of consistent support from her lay advocate. She has been represented by Claire Wills-Goldingham KC and Paul Bitmead.

[3]The father of D and E is C. He is not directly included within the findings sought and thus as a result of current difficulties with his mental health was excused from attending this part of the proceedings. He has been represented by Omar Malik.

[4]The father of F and G, is B. He was accused of sexually touching D following allegations made by D herself, which he denies. He has been represented by John Vater KC and Ryan Morgan.

[5]The children are represented through their Guardian by Gemma Taylor KC and Saoirse Harris.

[6]Law, Background and evidence:

[7]There has been a significant and lengthy period of substantiated concerns and local authority involvement for this family. I have read a large number of documents produced for these proceedings and the last set, and have heard from a number of live witnesses.

[8]Where factual matters are disputed I remind myself that it is for the LA to prove the findings they seek, on the balance of probabilities. There is no pseudo burden on any other party to disprove what is said against them. I must make my findings based on evidence, rather than speculation or suspicion, and although hearsay is admissible I must place the appropriate weight on it in light of the factors set out in the Civil Evidence Act 1995. I cannot look at pieces of evidence in isolation, and an overview of the broader canvass is required to help me to consider whether the LA case has been proved.

[9]The evidence of the parents is of the utmost importance, and I must necessarily form a view as to their credibility. Parents often lie within the course of proceedings such as these, for many reasons – shame, misplaced loyalty, or fear for example but that does not mean that they have lied about everything, and most importantly does not on its own mean that they are guilty of what they are accused. The court should identify deliberate lies, the significant issue that they relate to and why it is found that the only explanation for that lie is guilt.

[10]Because of the unusually large volume of papers in this matter, it is necessary for me to summarise briefly the background and evidence. As far back as 2002 the first child born to A and C sustained a skull fracture and was removed from her parents’ care and placed for adoption. Their second child was removed at birth and subsequently adopted.

[11]In 2007 their 3rd child was born, and following a child and parent assessment remained in the care of the parents under a Supervision Order which expired in 2009.

[12]In 2009 their 4th child was born and was raised by his parents, as were D and E. In 2016 A and C separated. Very shortly afterwards A and B commenced their relationship, which saw a new period of concerns raised for the children, including anonymous referrals which led to a C&F assessment in September 2016. In 2017 a s37 assessment was directed within private law proceedings between A and C.

[13]Around the time of the birth of the youngest children referrals were raised for a lack of emotional warmth and poor handling. That C&F assessment was closed on the basis of a plan for the family to receive support from the health visitor and FSW.

[14]In 2019 D made reports at school that B ‘slaps her butt’, and says that he massages mummy’s ‘tits’ in front of her and her siblings.

[15]In October 2022 logs record that A reported to the school that she had witnessed sexual behaviour between D and her brother, reporting that she found them together and believed they were about to engage in intercourse. E had been in the room and had told her mum that “[the brother] is trying to have sex with D”. In February 2023 A reported to a professional that on the previous Sunday morning [A brother] had followed D into the toilet and “put his stick into her”, although he denied it and said D was lying. Later that evening A found [the brother] straddled over D and “ready to penetrate her” and intervened to stop it. Following enquiries by police and children’s social care [the brother] and Bmoved out to a hotel. D did not wish to speak about it at the time although later told a social worker that they had sex. A and B confirmed that they believed D was lying about it for attention. The mother was reported that the other siblings were no longer playing with D as she had caused trouble. In June 2023 [the brother] became looked after under s20 and moved to semi-independent accommodation. At that stage B returned to the family home.

[16]Care proceedings were issued in November 2023, and in February 2024 [a brother] made an allegation of abuse against B’s brother who had been staying at the family home. By that stage it appears that A and B had already asked him to leave after they learned that he had brought drugs into the home. In April 2024 the proceedings were concluded on the basis of a final care order for [a brother], and 6 month supervision orders for D, E, F and G. The findings made in those proceedings included:a. The relationship between the mother and [a brother] was domestically abusive, with each having physically assaulted the other placing [a brother] at risk of significant physical and emotional harm, which the other children would also have witnessed;

b. The home conditions were extremely poor, overcrowded, cramped, dirty and unhygienic;

c. A and B were unable to meet the needs of all the children, resulting in their basic needs being unmet;

d. A’s mental health difficulties impacted her ability to maintain the home to an acceptable standard and to adequately respond to the children’s basic needs.

e. The relationship between A and Cwas domestically abusive, including C threatening in a voicemail to stab and kill the mother.

f. There was a significant risk of inter sibling sexual harm, including the incidents of a sexual nature between [a brother] and D in October 22 and February 2023, increased by a lack of supervision.

[17]The LA assert that very shortly after the conclusion of proceedings, home conditions and concerns for the children rapidly re-emerged, so that very shortly afterwards a case note records poor home conditions and a strong smell of urine. This is said to have declined further throughout April and May, with records sporadically recording an improvement. In July D was suspended for vaping, and made reports about being angry with B and her mother for saying that she would go into care and for hitting her daily. An increase in D’s sexualised behaviour was noted and direct work around boundaries and hygiene was planned, as well as family therapy.

[18]Into August headlice infestations persisted, with F being observed to have a nasty rash to the back of her neck and head. Safety cameras installed by the parents to support the monitoring and protection of the children from D’s sexually harmful behaviours captured E allegedly trying to ‘hump’ F & G (which she denied). Improvements in the children’s presentation and headlice situation were noted.

[19]By September the home conditions were once again described by professionals as poor, D by this stage had joined [secondary] school, a specialist provision, which recorded in cpoms logs almost from the outset concerns about her smelling of urine and speaking of wanting to kill herself. By October these logs note deteriorating behaviour, and the social worker noted a deterioration in the home conditions. Sexualised behaviours and language were noted from D. A s47 assessment concluded that permission would be sought to initiate legal proceedings as a result of the cumulative impact of sustained neglect on the children. At that point the allegations against B made by his siblings were known, but D’s allegations were not. On 5 November 2024, the day before D made allegations against B, the legal gateway planning meeting took place at which a decision was reached to issue these proceedings.

[20]In November 2024 these proceedings were issued, commencing with an application for an EPO. A fact finding hearing was determined to be necessary, and the LA sought findings in summary as follows:a. Neglect, based on poor home conditions, poor hygiene and presentation for the children and a failure to engage in medical appointments for the children;

b. Sexual and physical abuse of D by B; and

c. Failure to protect the children from exposure to the risk of sexual harm, exposure to sexual language and behaviours in the home, failure to adhere to safety plans, and emotionally abusive behaviours.

[21]I heard from a number of live witnesses to supplement their written evidence. A number of these witnesses went solely (or primarily) to the allegations made by D against B, which the Local Authority took a decision mid trial not to pursue. I shall deal with the issues surrounding this part of the fact-finding hearing in part 2 of this judgment.

[22]Part 1:

[23]A pastoral support and safeguarding lead at D’s previous school. I was impressed by this witness’ obvious care for the families with whom she worked. She was balanced, fair and gave an overview which was free from judgment or criticism but which made it plain to me that her experience of the children of this family was consistently neglectful presentation. She noted that this prompted unkind comments from peers at times.

[24][a Social worker] gave evidence remotely from another jurisdiction, having ceased working with this family in October 2024. I found her evidence to be impressive: She was considered, thoughtful, and balanced. She was able to recognise occasional improvements in the home conditions and gave A credit for her open mindedness around care planning, although she recognised that often they did not agree about home conditions. She had been alive to the possibility that the deterioration in care or home conditions may have been linked to low periods in the mother’s mental health and had tried to support her through referrals for family therapy which unfortunately did not go ahead. She set out the direct work she was undertaking with the family, as was a student social worker, to support the children in their understanding of sexually safe behaviours and boundaries. She noted difficulties in trying to discuss with the mother the possibility that D’s behaviours were a way of her trying to communicate something, because the mother was fixed in her view that D was the problem. As a result, she found it very difficult to support the mother to consider D as a child and a victim of her experiences with [a brother]. She said that the mother had really struggled to see it that way. She did not have the impression that the kids were washed regularly, and she had been very concerned by their presentation. She also confirmed that by the time she left her role they were sufficiently concerned to be looking to re-start proceedings. This was prior to the other people’s allegations against B or D’s allegations against B. She recognised the record of D making very serious allegations against e.g. [another child] which may have been out of spite, as well as having given contradictory accounts, and had then retracted some allegations, saying that she had just said them for fun. She acknowledged the factors which could combine to give an alternative explanation to D’s sexualised behaviour and language. She had been worried about the impact on D of the mother and siblings always saying that she told lies, which would have been traumatic for her and compounded the trauma she had already experienced with [her brother]. She could not understand why the mother now questioned whether D had lied about that aspect of her past having observed and reported it. She did not believe that the cameras were positioned so that they would show if D was going into her sisters’ rooms.

[25]The mother gave her evidence with the support of ground rules established in order to enable her to participate effectively. She gave her evidence with a detached effect, presenting with low mood and very little insight into the impact of her parenting on each of the children. The only points in her evidence where I detected her to become irritable or energised was when she was describing D in almost entirely negative terms. I considered her to be an honest witness, insofar as she was able to be. She was frank that she had not made efforts to pursue weekly welfare calls from her GP, and that she was not willing or able to access the recommended talking therapies. A told me freely about the extent to which her life has been impacted by her own traumatic experiences: through the parenting she received and through an abusive relationship with C. Included in her own traumatic experiences she described dealing with her boys running away and [her son] sexually abusing D, and her belief that she may herself require a diagnosis of ADHD, like D. It was notable to me as her evidence went on that whilst A was able to recognise and describe the impact of these issues on her, she does not appear to have any recognition or insight into the impact that these issues have had on her children. She agreed that she had declined help for her mental health because at the time she didn’t feel she needed it, and that she has on several occasions simply stopped taking medication prescribed to support her, with extremely negative consequences for her functioning and parenting capacity.

[26]One aspect of her evidence that particularly troubled me was her conviction that D has lied about being sexually abused by [her brother], despite having reported witnessing this herself: she saw [the brother] naked with an erect penis standing over D as if ready to penetrate her, on more than one occasion. She has now wholly reframed her own observations in order to cast D as a liar rather than a victim. This may well be because that is necessary in order to fit her current narrative of D as the problem (as was previously the case for [this brother] and subsequently [another brother]), and she now says that when she told social workers that she had started to understand what [he] had done she was basically agreeing with the social workers to “get them off my back”. She agreed that descriptions recorded by professionals of the home being in an extremely poor state were accurate and accepted that the condition of the home wasn’t good enough. She said that it was ok “at times”. Despite that, she did not accept support to deep clean or declutter the property, she said because she has always found it difficult to accept help. These issues crystallise my view that she was not giving dishonest answers, rather that she was unable to objectively report or understand the reality of home life for her children. The concern was of reliability rather than dishonesty.

[27]Whilst I accept without hesitation that A is a mother who has herself experienced many adverse life experiences and consequential mental health difficulties which have impacted her overall parenting capacity this does not lessen the impact on the children, which must be my focus during this stage of determining the factual matrix from which welfare decisions will later be determined.

[28]The final witness I heard from was B. He was able to be a little more reflective than A about how D may have felt as a result of what he accepted, in retrospect, was his habit of prioritising his own children above D and E. He told me that after this hearing he hopes to reunite with A. He was also able to accept (when pointed to specific references) that the family had been given support and advice which they had not followed. Strangely he now denies any memory of either seeing E behaving in a sexually inappropriate manner towards the younger children, or having reported it, although he accepts he must have. I found that very concerning and difficult to accept: In a worrying time when there was a focus on inappropriate sexualized behaviour between the siblings such that cameras were being employed alongside a safety plan, I find it very unlikely that this has simply been forgotten. It fits with the mother’s narrative and habit of identifying D as the main problem in the household and her tendency to absolve the other children of any negative behaviours, although I take into account that B was less prone to this, accepting that E also lied and stolen at times. I also noted in his evidence a tendency to minimise parental responsibility and to paint a more positive picture than was likely to have been the case. Examples of this included denying that they had been asleep in the other room as E reported at the time that D straddled her, saying they were elsewhere doing jobs at the time, and that there was no safety plan in place at the time (which wasn’t correct). He gave a lengthy and comprehensive answer about the efforts that they had made to support D with her bed wetting yet didn’t acknowledge that they hadn’t followed all advice given, nor taken her to all relevant medical appointments. Similarly to A he considered that when D had been woken from deep sleep at 11pm to go to the toilet and had simply sat and urinated in her bed that this was laziness or bad behaviour rather than considering that she may not have been fully awake or able to control her urination at that stage. He described a rota where everyone chipped in to do housework: walking the dogs, cleaning the dishes, putting clothes in the washer or drier and cleaning up dog mess in the house, but given what is known about the state of the house and the difficulties in keeping it routinely in an acceptable state he does not recognise that any such rota was ineffective or inappropriate. He described in admirable terms the priority he put into improving his health so that he was able to be a more active parent, yet within that description could not seem to comprehend the impact of his lengthy absences during the day on the family’s ability to manage the home conditions or the financial cost of the gym membership at a time when A says they couldn’t spend what little they had on nit medication for the children. He described his role in the family as playing games, eating meals together, the bedtime routine, hand and face washes, teeth washing, getting uniforms ready for the next day. This positive picture of a bedtime routine is difficult to reconcile with the consistent professional observations of neglected personal hygiene and uniform for the children. His description of D sitting reading a book in her room when the younger children went to bed is hard to reconcile with the parents’ own descriptions of D’s behaviour and ADHD symptoms and the poor, neglected dirty conditions and urine sodden mattress in D’s bedroom. When challenged he conceded that the children did not in fact have a good toothbrushing routine. I take into account his tendency to either perceive or describe a significantly more positive home life for these children than actually existed. Again, reliability is an issue.

[29]Analysis of Evidence and Findings:

[30]In pursuit of threshold proceedings within this matter the LA rely upon the findings made by consent at the IRH in the previous proceedings. These were not challenged, and allegations 5 and 6 are found as pleaded:

[31]Allegation 5: On 9 April 2024 findings of fact were made [I62] within care proceedings relating to the children and their older brother. For the avoidance of doubt, the local authority relies upon the full set of prior findings of fact in those proceedings. Those findings included that the home conditions are extremely poor; that A and B are unable to meet the needs of all the children resulting in neglect of their basic needs; and that there is a significant risk of sexual harm between the sibling group, including inter-sibling sexual relationships which occurred due to a lack of supervision.

[32]Allegation 6: A and B have accepted that they cannot meet the needs of [non subject child] (became looked after under s20 CA 1989 on 13.06.23), followed by [non subject child] (became looked after under s20 CA 1989 on 12.09.23, then made subject to a care order by consent on 09.04.24).

[33]Allegation 7: Since the conclusion of the previous care proceedings, A and B have failed to maintain adequate home conditions and conditions have frequently been extremely poor (12.04.24 – [G30]; 23.04.24 – [G30 - 31]; 02.05.24 – [G31]; 29.08.24 [G41]; 11.09.24 [G42]; 08.10.24 [G43]; 23.10.24 [G44 – 45]; 28.10.24 [G46]; 05.11.24 [G47 – 48]; 07.11.24 [G48].

[34]In her written response to this allegation the mother accepts that the home conditions have fluctuated but does not agree they have frequently been extremely poor. B in his written response also refuted this allegation, confirming his view that the parents have made progress with the home conditions and they have not been given sufficient direction as to what further improvements were needed. This response is a further example of A and B giving an overly positive impression of what life was like within the home.

[35]Neither of these parents maintained this position in their oral evidence. Each agreed that the photographs of the family home demonstrated on those occasions extremely poor and inadequate conditions. The mother accepted it was harmful to all of the children. Both accepted that they were frequently told by professionals visiting the home that improvements were required, albeit improvements and efforts were also acknowledged and commended when they arose. Both accepted that the frequent professional descriptions of concerning home conditions were accurate – a strong smell of urine, full litter trays, clutter, visibly dirty floor, stained, dirty and wet mattress in D’s room with no bedding, children’s room floors covered with clothes so unable to identify what was clean or dirty, dog mess, dirty laundry, and dirty dishes.

[36]I do not accept that this is a situation where the mother’s mental health and potential correlation with her ability to manage the home was disregarded by professionals. Instead, support and help were frequently offered which was declined for the reasons given by the mother. Over the relevant period the parents were unable to recognise or rectify the state of the home on a sustained basis in order to provide a safe and suitable home for the children. It was an issue of concern highlighted to the parents as harmful to the children and requiring improvement throughout the last set of proceedings, which makes it very hard to understand the level of disassociation the parents express, either not noticing the state of the home, not recognising the clear advice they were being provided with, or accepting the need to accept support when offered if they were not willing or able to make the changes themselves.

[37]I accept each of the professional descriptions of the home: they were not in fact seriously challenged. Whilst there have been occasions where improvements were made they were not sustained, and the conditions were frequently so poor that the children’s lived experience was of neglectful home conditions which did not meet their needs. This finding is made as pleaded.

[38]Allegation 8: Since the conclusion of the previous care proceedings, A and B have failed to ensure the children’s adequate and hygienic presentation at school and the children have frequently presented smelling of urine, having uncontrolled headlice and wearing ill-fitting/dirty clothes and shoes, requiring school replacements (06.06.24 [G165]; 07.06.24 [G341]; 11.06.24 [G163]; 08.07.24 [G61]; 15.07.24 [G37 – 38]; 17.07.24 [G150 – 152]; 01.08.24 [G40]; 17.09.24 [G325]; 26.09.24 [G325]; 28.09.24 [G324]; 01.10.24 [G147]; 24.10.24 [G144].

[39]In their written responses A accepts this in respect of D but it is denied in respect of E, F and G save for some limited concessions about stained (rather than dirty) clothing and a single occasion when E wore shoes that were too big over a period of one week. B shares this position.

[40]In support of this allegation the Local Authority rely on the unchallenged evidence of the Deputy Head at the school attended by the younger 3 girls.

[41]About E he says: “Since becoming a looked after child, E has presented as more settled, calm and presents consistently well. There has been a marked improvement in presentation and E now presents with all of the equipment she needs and is in the correct uniform. Prior to being a CLA, there are a number of logs and incidents of hygiene issues and dirty clothing. Her face and nails used to often be dirty as well as her clothing. On occasions, E or her belongings (e.g. coat, PE kit) smelt of cat urine. They were often creased, discoloured and her hair was often unkempt. E often presented with head lice. In the past her shoes have been too big and have been slipping off her feet and causing her to trip over. School had, on occasion, provided clothing and a coat for E. There was no consistency to these being used by E” [C136].

[42]For F, his overview reads: “Prior to becoming a looked after child, there were frequent occasions when she came into school and appeared dirty or unwashed and in dirty clothes. Her presentation was variable and lacked being consistently good. Since entering care, she has presented consistently well and has appeared more settled and calm at school. This has been a marked improvement” [C137].

[43]He says that ‘Prior to becoming a looked after child, there were frequent occasions when G came into school and appeared dirty or unwashed and in dirty clothes. Her presentation was variable and lacked being consistently good. On occasion, the clothes were clearly not for her age. There was a time when G had visible sores on her head due to headlice. Since entering care, she has presented consistently well and has appeared more settled and calm at school. This has been a marked improvement” [C138].

[44]I accept these descriptions which are consistent with the frequent recordings made by a number of professionals and agree that they represent neglectful care of each of the children. In light of my findings about the state of the family home, the inappropriate and excessive reliance on the children to meet their own needs and the parents’ inability either to see or accept the unsatisfactory state of their home conditions it is unsurprising that they neither noted nor improved the children’s presentations. It is equally unsurprising that when children of this age are relied upon to load and dry the washing, whose floors were covered with clean and dirty clothes, and their parents were unable to even regularly manage the most basic nighttime routines that they were observed to be dirty and smelly on a number of occasions as set out above.

[45]The regular and persistent nit infestations which are a fleeting part of most children’s experience were not appropriately treated, and as a result caused the children unnecessary suffering and emotional harm. I reject the suggestion made by B that every night over a long period A would spend time conditioning and combing Fs hair to remove the nits: it does not fit with the reports of her presentation, and would make no sense to only seek to treat one child’s hair when nits are so notoriously contagious and all of the children were reported to suffer. In any event, however often that was attempted it was, perhaps unsurprisingly, not effective. Whilst A has previously referred to a reluctance to ‘going down the chemical route’ which was understood as a reluctance to use harsh and potentially toxic chemicals on her children’s hair, in evidence A confirmed that the reasons were financial (‘everyone says it doesn’t work, what’s the point in wasting what little money we had’). When challenged on not trying different methods to resolve the issue A responded “we were still battling and not giving up”, which encapsulates my concerns that even in the face of easily accessible advice and affordable alternative methods of treatment these parents did not take basic steps to resolve an unpleasant, uncomfortable and embarrassing ongoing infestation for their children, but still maintain that they had not given up, and had done all they could. Beyond their failures to take basic steps to meet their children’s needs for health and hygiene I am concerned that these parents were at the relevant date unable to accept or acknowledge the need for change or to take steps to improve things for the children, and as at the time of their oral evidence were only able to make concessions when directly presented with evidence.

[46]It is also apparent that the parents have prioritised their limited finances over meeting the children’s basic needs so that money was spent on household pets and associated costs and a gym membership at a time when money could not be made available to purchase additional uniform items in order to improve the children’s presentation.

[47]I make this finding as pleaded.

[48]Allegation 9: A and B have failed to support D’s medical needs, by:(a) missing multiple appointments relating to her ADHD (12.06.23 [J789]; 11.07.23 [J646]; 16.10.23 [J755]; 28.11.23 [J646]; 17.04.24 [J712]);

(b) failing to ensure D’s attendance at a SALT assessment appointment or re-booking the same, such that she was discharged from the service (05.03.24 [J746]);

(d) failing to engage with the school nurse by not completing charts and diaries to monitor D’s continence (24.10.24 [G67]); and

(e) failing to complete the ‘Understanding ADHD’ course (09.05.24 [G53]).

[49]B denies any responsibility for D’s medical appointments as he was often at work and does not share PR for her. In her written responses the mother accepted para (a), asserted that she had not been notified of the SALT appointments or D’s subsequent discharge from the service, forgot only one constipation review home visit rather than multiple, attributes the failure to engage with the school continence nurse to D’s refusal to engage, and says she could not undertake the online ADHD course as it took place during her work hours.

[50]In her oral evidence A accepted that where records showed missed appointments she must have missed them and failed to rearrange, despite her earlier assertion that she would not simply have missed them ‘for the hell of it’. In line with much of the parents’ evidence, the narrative the parents have adopted is that that they were doing their best, and where a short number of appointments were unavoidably unachievable they were rearranged. I do not accept that this is an accurate reflection of what life was like in the household over the period since the conclusion of the last set of proceedings: the house was chaotic, cluttered, unclean, and unmanaged. A was suffering through periods of fluctuating mental ill health: at times so low that she was as she described it zonked out of the sofa and unable to do anything, at times when experiencing brief upturns in her mental health she would decide to go ‘cold turkey’ on her medication, prompting a further deterioration in her mental health which even further impacted her ability to manage, as well as significant and concerning panic attacks and a fear of leaving the house, only raised by B in his evidence and not notified to professionals or medics before that point (insofar as I have been able to ascertain from the papers). This was compounded by the inability of the parents to manage D’s challenging behaviour stemming from her ADHD and traumatic experiences in the home. On the balance of probabilities I am satisfied that the combination of these parents’ insurmountable difficulties in managing day to day life in the home, combined with the negative views and blame levelled at D for her behaviours, that medical appointments were simply not prioritised or indeed noted.

[51]In terms of engagement with the school nurse, she reported at the strategy meeting on 24 October 2024 that “she does not have consistent info from parents regarding bed wetting. Have asked on many occasions for charts to be completed to monitor daytime habits and bedtime wetting/poo diaries. Haven't been provided with this by the family.” This was not challenged, and is plainly an adult responsibility of record keeping. It is likely that, as a result of the inadequate attention and support being provided to D surrounding her incontinence, the adults in the home were simply unable to create these records.

[52]The impact of D, both physically of preventing her needs from being assessed and addressed and the emotional and psychological impact of her mother and stepdad not prioritising her medical needs was significant.

[53]I make this finding as pleaded. Findings 10-12 were not pursued by the Local Authority and I shall return later to this in Part 2.

[54]Allegations 13, 14 and 15 are pleaded under the heading of failure to protect and I consider them together. Allegation 13: A and B failed to monitor the children or to instil appropriate sexual boundaries to the extent that the children have been inappropriately exposed to and aware of adult sexual activity [G159; G265; I525 - 529] and / or inappropriate sexual behaviour on the part of their siblings towards one another [see para 16 (e) below], including [non subject child]’s sexual abuse of D and D’s sexualised behaviour. [I62].

[55]Allegation 14: D’s sexually harmful behaviour towards her sisters [I466; and see para 16 (e) below] following the removal of [Brother] and [brother] by is a result of her exposure to adult sexual activity, sexual abuse by her brother, [sexual abuse by B – not pursued] or a combination of those factors. A and B, knowing that D had suffered sexual abuse and been inappropriately sexually exposed, failed to protect E, F and G from this behaviour.

[56]Allegation 15: A failed to adhere to the safety plan agreed following allegations of sexual abuse made by B’s sister, by permitting him to care for the children without her being present during the October half-term holiday 2024 [G319]. In doing so, A demonstrated that she is unable or unwilling to act protectively or to place the need to safeguard the children above the wishes and needs of herself and C

[57]A failed to act protectively in the aftermath of D’s allegation against B and is unable to protect the children from the risk of sexual harm in future, or the emotional impact of the same:a. Without knowing the nature or detail of Ds allegation against B, A described it as another one of her lies[H80];

b. Upon learning the nature of D’s allegation against B but without having spoken to either of them, A called D a lying little bitch [H84];

c. A refused to provide D with any personal belongings prior to her being placed in foster care [C28, C111];

d. A has questioned whether [non subject child] behaved sexually inappropriately towards D, despite having observed two such occasions herself and reported to E, F and G that [non subject child] had come home, without considering the emotional impact on them, or D of receiving that information [G34; F4; C64]

e. Despite A witnessing inappropriate sexual conversations between the children on or around 28.06.24 [G159], following which a safety plan was implemented [G35], A and B have been unable to protect the children from further inappropriate sexual behaviour, such that D regularly slapped Es bottom and on one occasion straddled her in bed, whilst the parents were asleep [G37-38].

[58]Within the mother’s written responses there are some limited concessions under this heading: she accepts one minor breach of the safety plan and that without knowing the nature or detail of D’s allegations against B she described it as another one of her lies and called her a lying little bitch. Within written submissions on her behalf it is said that this allegation must fail in light of the LA’s decision not to pursue the sexual abuse allegation against B. This is fundamentally misconceived. Just as professionals are required to receive allegations sensitively and treat them seriously without allowing themselves to be led by their belief of truth or otherwise, a reasonable parent is expected to provide protection for their child based on the assessed risks at the time, regardless of what they believe to be the truth and regardless of what evidence may subsequently demonstrate the reduction or removal of such risk. Nor do I accept that acting protectively in respect of risks she did accept absolves her from her responsibility to protect D from all identified risks.

[59]I am not satisfied that the evidence I have available to me is sufficient to find on the balance of probabilities that Ds sexualised behaviour or language arises from her exposure to sexual activities between the mother and B. This assertion arises from statements made by D to adults including in June 24 D saying during a session with ‘Conquest’ that one of the paints was “nice and wet, oh I shouldn’t say that should I” attributing it to something she heard B say to her mother when they had a towel over their laps [G159] (which she later said was 8 years ago), and in 2019 using the word “tits” explaining that Daddy massages mummy’s tits in front of her and her siblings” [G265]. I am not satisfied that compared to what is known D has suffered, in terms of sexual abuse at the hands of an older sibling and exposure to adult/pornographic material online via either friends’ and elder siblings’ phones whilst at school or via school devices whilst at school that I am able to attribute any weight to this unknown aspect as having a causal link to her sexually harmful behaviour towards her siblings as pleaded.

[60]It is clear that A was aware of several conversations of a sexually explicit nature and wholly inappropriate for a child of D’s age, let alone the ages of E, F and G because she reported these to the school. An example is at G159 where the mother reports such a conversation to the school, saying that D had been talking about how to have sex in lots of different ways, then asking the younger children to finger her, only interrupting at that point. It is difficult to understand the mother’s pleaded response to this allegation which says that “F and G had no knowledge of the incidents between [non subject child] and D” despite the mother having informed the school that she explained to “all the children in the same room and explained that they have been here with [non subject child] and D and it is not ok”, but it was not put to A that this response was inadequate or inappropriate.

[61]I am satisfied however that through their failure to fully implement the terms of the safety plans put in place to protect D and her siblings from the consequences of her own abuse, both A and B did fail to protect the children, specifically through their approach to monitoring the children. I am satisfied that A disbelief that [non-subject child] had in fact perpetrated the sexual abuse that she had witnessed, reported and willingly conceded in threshold in April 2024, D’s emerging role as the cause of all difficulties with the household, and the chaotic household conditions combined with her own inability to manage her mental health or seek support meant that she was simply unable to prioritise the implementation of safety plans designed to prevent D from having the opportunity to cause sexual harm through her behaviour or language to her siblings, in doing so causing of course additional harm to herself.

[62]There can be no doubt that keeping eyes on 4 energetic children of varying ages and needs whilst managing mental ill health such that it was impossible even to keep on top of basic household hygiene would be a tall ask, let alone of someone suffering from panic attacks and low moods such that periods were spent ‘zonked’ on the sofa during the day. In July 2024, E reported that the mother had ‘ditched’ the safety plan as D would not follow it. The mother denies that this is true, however I can find no reason or motivation for E to misreport this, and it is also supported by my findings about the parental functioning around this time. A and B did not tell children’s social care that the plan was unmanageable, or that they required further support or advice to implement it. Instead, they maintained (right up until they were challenged in their oral evidence) that they had fully complied with the safety plan, conceding only that they did not when challenged with the evidence of the children being in a room together when D is said to have tried to ‘hump’ E and not being aware of it. They sought to reduce the effort required to supervise the children by installing cameras downstairs, but this did not provide any observation of which child was in which bedroom or bathroom, (or with whom). Despite A’s efforts to describe having the camera screen in front of her whilst cooking or using the bathroom, until Autumn 2024 and following allegations made against B by his siblings the cameras were not upstairs.

[63]In this way B and A failed to protect all of the children from the identified risks of sexual harm.

[64]By her responses to D’s allegation against B, calling it another one of her lies before even hearing the allegations, and calling her a lying little bitch when she did find out, A demonstrated her prioritisation of her relationship with B over the physical and psychological protection of D (and indeed all of the children), from an as then unassessed risk of serious sexual harm. Unlike with [non subject child] (who she had physically seen abusing D, even then struggling to maintain this belief) she was unable to contemplate the possibility that D was being truthful about this allegation and as such she disregarded it, blaming and vilifying D in the terms she accepts using. Although her response in the schedule denies refusing to provide D with her personal belongings or medication prior to her being placed in foster care, [school staff] was not challenged about her account that the mother refused to provide D with her clothes, bunny and ADHD medication [c28] and it is consistent with the mother’s evidence that by going into foster care D had got what she wanted.

[65]I accept the evidence of the parents that within the family D was spoken about and considered by her siblings to be a liar, which she would have been aware of. Multiple references through professional recordings highlight the antipathy and anger that E in particular has expressed, as a result of her belief that it is D’s fault that the Local Authority are involved and that they cannot live with their parents when (even without the allegations made by D) the parents’ failure to adequately care for the children has satisfied the s31 threshold criteria, in light of the findings I have made: the parents’ unwillingness to accept responsibility for their inadequate care of all the children and their shared narrative that D is a liar and the cause of the family problems has enabled this erroneous and harmful view to persist.

[66]Ms Wills-Goldingham KC and Mr Bitmead remind me of the important words of King LJ in Re L-W (Children)

[2019] EWCA Civ 159

in respect of ensuring that a finding of failure to protect does not become a ‘bolt-on’ to the central issue of perpetration. That is not the formulation of the findings sought in this case, and my analysis identifies the ways in which I am satisfied both A and B have failed to protect D, E, F and G.

[67]I make the finding that A and B have failed to protect D, E, F and G from the risk of inter sibling sexual harm by failing to comply with the safety plan in place from 28 June 2024.

[68]Following D’s allegation against B, the mother’s refusal to provide support to D as a result of her expressed belief that D was a ‘lying little bitch’ was emotionally harmful and failed to protect D through the investigation of the allegations.

[69]Additional finding: Emotional and psychological harm:

[70]The total lack of belief, understanding or empathy that both parents have exhibited towards D in the wake of her experiences in the family home is clear, and set out in their own words. Neither have made any effort to really consider the impact on D of being sexually abused as an 11 year old by her older brother in her own home and then being disbelieved and characterised as a liar and troublemaker within her family. Neither have sought to understand any link between the trauma D suffered and her persistent enuresis. The extent to which B could acknowledge this was to say he ‘couldn’t tell you’ if there was a link, that she ‘possibly’ felt unsafe in her home, and was ‘not sure’ if it might be connected with her feeling scared. A said she ‘couldn’t tell you’ if Ds concerning behaviours were her trying to communicate something, and if so “wouldn’t know” what that might be. She thought it may be because of her ADHD or past experiences but was adamant it was not due to how she was treated at home. She maintained that D wet the bed on purpose and refused to consider that it could be a way of communicating her feelings.

[71]A’s evidence on how she viewed D was illustrative of D’s experience within the home: She viewed D as a liar, which is not how she viewed E despite other unchallenged references to E having told lies and stolen items from school. She said “E never lied to us.” She told me that she and B viewed D as a liar, as did the other kids, particularly E. She told me that the other kids talked about D being a liar in the home. When asked whether she should have put a stop to this narrative for D’s sake the mother responded “I always brought the children up to be honest and open about how they’re feeling, they had a right to express how they were feeling and they weren’t lying.” When asked how it might make D feel to be called a liar by her whole family she replied “If that’s the truth she should know it.” Despite being alerted by B to what he perceived at the time to be sexually harmful behaviour perpetrated by E on the younger children, A responded “It’s E, she wouldn’t do that.” She described D, in angry tones as “a lying little madam”, said that she was angry at her that she had made up such a lie (about B), which ‘destroyed my life and my children’s lives’, believing that as a result “she’s got what she wanted.” Her facial expression while describing D stealing things within the house was visibly disgusted. She said that she loves and cherishes D, but hates her behaviour. She said ‘on a good day she’s an angel’ but could not recall when she last had a good day, saying that it was ‘too long ago’ to recall.

[72]Even on the mother’s own account, D was ostracised and singled out within the home. Interestingly despite B’s acknowledgement that he had treated D and E less favourably at times than his own children, this was not something that the mother could recognise.

[73]In his evidence, B agreed with the mother’s description of D and identified how “she was a big cause of upset in the home”. He explained that when D had kicked off and was in a ‘cool down period’ and he was ‘trying to find out what caused it’ he would say that ‘if it continued and A could not cope there was a possibility that social services would step in and take the kids away’. He said he would explain this to all of the children.

[74]D is a teenage girl with ADHD, and a functioning age of around 6/7. She is the victim of serious inter sibling sexual trauma. The parents’ inability to view her as such was emotionally harmful to D.

[75]A within her evidence accepted that D was truthful when she reported that her mother had hit her (which A described as a hit to the back of her hands or bottom to say ‘what have you done that for?’) and that she grabbed her by the hair to stop her running away and pushed her into the car to take her to school. These incidents were reported truthfully by D. I do not have the evidence of this having caused actual physical harm but I am satisfied that there was a risk that pulling a child’s hair to stop her from running away and subsequently pushing her into a car certainly carried a risk of physical harm. It is further evidence of the parents’ inability to appropriately manage her behaviours, which was in and of itself emotionally harmful to D.

[76]In this way, B and A both failed to protect D from the aftermath of her experience of sexual abuse within the home and caused her significant emotional harm through their treatment of her within the home. Observing and normalising this treatment of D was emotionally harmful to E, F and G.The mother’s inability to manage D’s behaviour led to a risk of physical harm.

Part 2: Analysis of unpursued allegations 10-12:

[77]On 19 June 2025, having heard evidence from 7 of the 9 LA witnesses, the Local Authority emailed the court stating that they had reviewed the evidence so far and would not be actively pursuing the allegations against B. When asked to clarify this position they confirmed (my summary) that the combination of poor record keeping, lack of clarity of accounts, breaches of ABE guidance, recurring themes of belief, validation and praise and weaknesses in the safeguarding response lead them to conclude that the court would be unable to safely make the findings pleaded and as such they do not think it would be proper for B to be asked questions.

[78]Other parties responded, and I gave an ex-tempore decision noting that the LA did not seek to amend the schedule of findings as pleaded but that I would permit any proportionate questioning the Guardian pursued. In fact, that was not pursued by the Guardian and all parties agreed that in light of the procedural issues which led to that decision that I would not be in a position to safely consider any such finding.

[79]In light of the significant impact that this has had on this family, it is necessary for me to consider and analyse each aspect of professional concern which led to this family being let down in the way they have been in order to hopefully inform better practice in the future.

[80]I heard from a number of witnesses on these allegations and record my observations of their oral evidence below. I preface my observations by noting that I have no doubt that each of these witnesses acted in the way they did through a desire to do their best for D. The reality is that this desire, coupled with an apparent lack of understanding of the principles set out by Macdonald J in Re P (sexual abuse: finding of fact hearing)

[2019] EWFC 27

, and a lack of appropriate training has resulted in a situation where the court is unable to look at what D has said and reach a safe conclusion about why she said what she did. For D this may mean that her allegations cannot be properly investigated or responded to. For B, he may feel that despite the binary outcome of a finding not being made, he has had the opportunity of exoneration denied. For this whole family, a very carefully considered narrative will be required to enable them to rebuild relationships. 38 years on from the Cleveland enquiry these types of mistakes should not still be happening, and the evidence in this case has highlighted a very serious need for a review of the safeguarding training provided to social workers and education professionals in the area.

[81]Parties have referred me to the well-known statement of principles set out by Macdonald J in re P, and I append the relevant passage in full. It cannot be improved upon as a statement of the rationale for the care which must be taken in the treatment of allegations by children, and professionals involved in these proceedings would benefit from reading it alongside my judgment.

[82]I read a number of logs and statements prepared by [School staff 1], who was the safeguarding lead at D’s school from September 2024. Initially [School staff 1] held a part time role before going full time in October, but throughout that period retained oversight and responsibility for the safeguarding logs and procedures at the school. I was concerned when hearing from her that logs which on the face of it should have sparked more curiosity and prompted a request for more detail were not picked up or acted upon, such as the nature of sexualised language being used by D, the detail of reported sexualised behaviour or, perhaps even more concerningly the frequency with which it appears learners (generally, but specifically D) were able to access inappropriate sexual content on school devices and on school property. No enquiry has been made or exists to help me to understand what D was able to access, the impact it had on her, or its relevance to allegations she went on to make, but I was left with a sense that in the early stages of D’s time at this brand new school the burden upon staff of regulating and providing for learners with a broad profile of complex needs meant that D’s needs – assessed by [school staff 1] as moderate – were not met. I quote directly from Re P at para 576 that the wider circumstances of the child’s life may influence, explain or colour what the child is saying. This lack of timely scrutiny and clarification has impacted the court’s understanding of these wider circumstances. She describes D as significantly delayed in her cognitive profile, so that she performs at around the level of a 6-7 year old, which is in contrast as her presentation as a young woman. She struggles to understand complex language, and requires direct and simple language accompanied by regular checks to ensure that she has understood. This did not appear to be shared with professionals later tasked with organising an ABE.

[83]Another aspect of [School staff 1]’s evidence which caused me concern was the practice of tailoring logs so that they appear to have been recorded at the time the author best recollects the incident occurring, rather than showing accurately when it has been logged and noting the relevant time within the body of the entry. This makes it difficult to know with confidence how soon entries have been made, and led to confusion on occasions where [School staff 1] accepted that her recollection of the incident now, some months from the log being created, was significantly lacking. It was [School staff 1] who received the allegations of abuse from D on her return from half term. I was concerned at the lack of understanding of basic safeguarding and procedure. [School staff 1] thought that her note had probably been written around 24 hours after receiving D’s allegations, meaning (if she is correct about that) that in the intervening period she had had significant further involvement with D including taking her to her foster placement and attending the ABE, as well as discussing the allegations further with her. The result, it is agreed between parties, has been to hopelessly undermine the first account given to professionals, and I quote from Re P at para 597 “In particular, the courts have emphasised the need for records of conversations with the alleged victim of sexual abuse to include a full note of the questions as well as the answers (I pause to note that this requirement is thrown into even sharper relief when one accounts for the need to examine the presence of confirmation bias on the part of the interlocutor for the reasons set out above). In Re B (Allegation of Sexual Abuse: Child’s evidence) at [37] Hughes LJ (as he then was) observed as follows when commenting on an interview undertaken of a child by a police officer and social worker who were not properly prepared notwithstanding the likelihood of allegations, which allegations should have been anticipated and during which only what the child was said was noted down”

[84]It appeared from [School staff 1]’s evidence that she considered herself to be in a quasi-investigatory role, so that rather than simply listening and taking a note or pausing the conversation until an appropriately trained person could attend, she asked D questions about her allegations which are not recorded, and included at least one leading question. Re P paras 600 vi:

“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 who was involved or otherwise present). A more detailed account should not be pursued and should be left to the ABE interview. vii) As soon as possible thereafter the adult must make a comprehensive record of the conversation, which record should detail (a) the timing, setting and people present, (b) a full note of what the child said in the words used by the child (avoiding summaries of the account in the interests of neatness or comprehensibility and recordings of the adult’s interpretation of the account), (c) a full note of the actual questions asked (if any) and (d) what was said by anybody else present. The record should also record the demeanour of the child and anything else that might be relevant. viii) The adult should continue to record any comments made by the witness or events that might be relevant to the legal process up to the time of the ABE interview.”

[85]Subsequently when police attended and D did not repeat her allegations [School staff 1] (in front of D) recounted to the officers the culmination of the conversations they had had, again fatally undermining the police record of “D’s account” and compromising every further account D may have gone on to give, including in ABE. Again, directly quoting from Re P, “Children, and especially young children, are suggestible, Memory is prone to error and easily influenced by the environment in which recall is invited. Accounts given by children are susceptible to influence by leading or otherwise suggestive questions, repetition, pressure, threats, negative stereotyping and encouragement, reward or praise.”

[86]I accept that [School staff 1] was trying to do her best, in extremely difficult circumstances, where she told me she had received 2 days training which are refreshed every 2 years, and I have sympathy for those in the difficult situation of receiving extremely upsetting allegations from children. I was however concerned that [School staff 1] did not recognise that her direct questioning, including the introduction of the term ‘penis’, without any ABE training and in the absence of any note taker or ABE trained professional such as a social worker or police officer, as well as her repetition of the allegations in D’s presence had at least the potential to contaminate and influence the course of the enquiry stemming from these allegations.

[87]I do not find her to have been deliberately deceitful or obstructive in her evidence: If she had any understanding of the seriousness of her errors I cannot imagine she would have given her answers so freely and confidently. The issue is one of competence rather than credibility and indicates a clear need for further training (particularly where her role involves training and advising others on safeguarding).

[88][School staff 2], creative arts teacher at the school. I am satisfied that she accurately recorded her safeguarding logs and did not seek to embellish or depart from them. Whilst it is fair to say that I was concerned at some aspects of her understanding of safeguarding procedures there was nothing that suggests to me that her involvement had any impact on D or the manner in which she expressed her complaints against family members.

[89]Social worker 1 was the social work team manager from 6 November 2024, the point of D’s allegations against B. In April of this year, when MP3 recordings made by D were shared, which included amongst other things an allegation that she had had sex with her brother, Social worker 1 undertook a joint visit with the manager at D’s current home. During that visit both adults praised D for her brilliance – Social worker 1 says - in identifying a way to share the allegations that she had been too wary to share directly, and told her she was brave for doing so. She struggled to accept any difficulties in a situation where social workers worked on the basis of the child speaking “their truth”, which may or may not objectively be the truth, and did not consider that confirmation bias had been an issue, although she believed that D had been sexually abused by [non subject child], by [non subject child] and by B. After Social worker 1 evidence when it was asserted that Social worker 2 had been aware of the leading question asked by Social worker 1 she filed a witness statement to say that this was correct. She appended a transcript of the messages sent between herself and Social worker 1 on the topic. In response to Social worker 1 informing her that she had asked D “Did [non subject child] put his willie in you?” she said “This is a leading question and will compromise our evidence…”. I pause to note my concern that this phrase serves to identify the confirmation bias at play within this social work team. The thread of messages (albeit never intended to be shared) are replete with references to their belief that sexual abuse has been perpetrated on E and D (despite no complaint having been made by E). The concern about compromising evidence, rather than a concern about the potential impact of the leading question on a vulnerable child like D shows a concerning focus on proving a case rather than promoting a child’s welfare and identifies a lack of understanding of the principles underpinning ABE guidance. The thread confirms that legal advice was sought (and subsequently confirmed by the operations manager) to have resulted in a conference with counsel. I have not sought to trespass on the advice given in that privileged meeting, but the allegations against [the brother] were not pursued, potentially denying D and the brother the fair determination and analysis of this allegation, and the statements filed following this advice did not include or highlight any issues arising from the risks associated with the leading question. The failure to identify, understand or share with other professionals when this issue arose, that (rather than being something which could lead to criticism in court) this was an example of confirmation bias intruding into social work practise which may have materially impacted how D had communicated has prevented a multi-agency analysis of the reliability of D’s allegations before reaching the fact finding hearing.

[90]Social worker 2 met D for the first time on 15 November, after the allegations had been made and after D had been interviewed by the police. She drove D to her next foster placement, a journey of 3 hours or so. During the journey Social worker 2 says that D ‘opened up about what had been happening to her’. In response, Social worker 2 asked direct questions of her, including around whether or not B had penetrated her (which D had not and has not alleged). She recognised that this was a leading question, asked in the knowledge that D had made no allegations about penetration in her ABE interview, but justified this on the basis that she wanted to understand how badly D had been hurt (“I always have a child’s best interests at heart and like to know exactly what happened so if I did it would have been to find out how badly hurt she had been in her home and what had happened…”). There are, for obvious reasons, no contemporaneous notes of this conversation.

[91]She has not had any ABE training, but agreed that if a child detected confirmation bias they may start to say the things that person wants to hear. Social worker 2 was clear throughout her evidence that she believed that D was telling the truth in respect of all of her allegations and had communicated that to D throughout. She had reached this conclusion based on having looked back through case notes and previous allegations and findings and reaching a belief that it was very likely to be truthful. This included her knowledge of sexual matters (without having taken into account the inappropriate social media she had accessed at school, or attributing it to the findings made in respect of [non subject child] previously). Para 599 (vii) of Re P, quoting guidance from the Cleveland enquiry records: vii) Throughout the phase of the initial assessment and preliminary decision making, social workers should be conscious of the fact that the presumption that abuse has taken place can have damaging repercussions for the child and the family. Equally, an abnormally low level of alertness to the possibility of child sexual abuse may deter children from subsequently trusting adults sufficiently to reveal the fact of abuse to them (para 13.22).

[92]Social worker 2 was not aware of concerns about sexual activity between D and [non subject child] when she was at her previous school, nor that D had made allegations against [a non subject child] of a similar nature. She mischaracterised the SARC report undertaken following D’s allegations against [a brother] by telling me that she was “examined by SARC and they were really concerned”, subsequently conceding that the outcome of the SARC investigations was inconclusive. She had noted inconsistencies in D’s account to her from the account she gave to police about the period over which she said B had abused her, but had not asked D about that.

[93]She considered that D had refused to cooperate with an ABE in relation to the allegations she made about [a brother] because she loves him and feels guilty for the impact her allegations have had on the family (although I could not find a record of D expressing that). She accepted that she directly questioned D about her allegations about [a brother] with leading questions “Did he put his willy in you”, which she left out of her witness statement to this court despite acknowledging that she had raised its absence in her statement with her manager prior to giving evidence: neither of them had volunteered this in their evidence, and there is no case note about this conversation between Social worker 2 and her manager. She accepted she repeatedly encouraged D to speak to the police. She could not contemplate any harm caused to D, or risk of contamination or injustice of her influence on D if the allegations were in fact not true, because she could not contemplate that D was not telling the truth.

[94]In the absence of proper note keeping of all relevant conversations with D, it is very difficult to disregard the likelihood that they were characterised by similar leading questions. She went as far as to suggest that D’s repetition of allegations appeared to her to be a form of PTSD, rather than symptomatic of her ADHD, delayed cognitive profile or learned habit impacted upon by positive reinforcement and confirmation bias.

[95]I am bound to note my concern at this evidence. The potential impact on any evidence which can be taken from D following Social worker 2’s involvement with her is significant. Whilst I accept that it was with the best intentions of child protection and care for D, this conduct has contaminated D’s evidence and rendered it extremely difficult to place weight upon it.

[96]I repeat my concern about the failure to openly report within statements the leading questions I have referred to with the knowledge and acquiescence of the team manager, Social worker 1. Each witness made a promise to tell the court the whole truth, not simply the truth that supports their case. In her evidence Social worker 2 suggested that she had left out the leading question “I think because I knew it was a leading question so it would be questioned…”.

[97]It should not need to be said that the court is the arbiter of fact in these proceedings. The insistence of this social work team in reaching their own conclusions, maintaining them and conducting their duties with that aim in mind, and then providing evidence which supports that end without proactively identifying issues which potentially speak against that outcome is extremely concerning. It risks injustice to alleged perpetrators or to victims whose evidence is so sullied by this type of behaviour that it cannot be relied upon, and untold harm to children who are swept along in a current of belief and support and find their opportunities to recant a false or exaggerated allegation denied. When I asked Social worker 2 how it would be managed with D in the event I did not make the findings of sexual abuse, she suggested that she would tell her that she still believed her, even if the court did not. This is, for obvious reasons, extremely concerning. From Re P para 578 “Within the context of the proposition that accounts given by children are susceptible to influence as the result of bias or preconceived ideas on the part of the interlocutor, a particular issue that has arisen in this case is that of the practice of “believing the child” as complainant, in circumstances where the foster carers, a number of the police officers and the majority of the professionals who gave evidence before the court made clear that they had, to varying degrees, proceeded on the basis that the children who made allegations were telling the truth and were, accordingly, to be believed. [15.23] The preservation of an open mind requires a concentration in listening with care to what a child says, absorbing all that is said and weighing the child’s words objectively. A mind coloured by suspicion or a mind already moving towards a diagnosis can readily undervalue or ignore material that does not fit with the preconceived picture. Similarly material which does appear to fit may be over emphasised and highlighted in such a way as to distort the child’s further account of the situation … as much care should be given to assessing a denial as examining an allegation … Where allegations are made by a child regarding sexual abuse those allegations should be treated seriously, they should not necessarily be accepted as true but should be examined and tested by whatever means are available before they are used for the basis of action.” 97. I heard from a T/A at school. Her primary involvement for the purposes of this hearing was that she had been requested by D to accompany her as her familiar person during Social worker 2’s visit to D on 7 November. D had been aware of the visit in advance, and aside from it having been delayed, was happy to go in and speak with her. She hadn’t been taking notes, and wasn’t really aware of the purpose of the meeting. Her initial recollection was that she was sat alongside D when Social worker 2 was asking her questions about her siblings and things like that. She was with D when she was found looking at inappropriate material on you tube, and on a separate occasion, rubbing 2 figures together in play. Unfortunately, she did not note and cannot recall the content that D was accessing. She said she had not asked D to have a conversation about sex through figures, so was not clear what the reference made by School staff member 1 in the strategy meeting was referring to. As with the other school witnesses, I am confident she was trying her best to recall what she could but was hampered in her recollection by inadequate CPOMS entries. 98. I heard from the Deputy head. Unfortunately, I accept in all likelihood added to by nerves and remote attendance, she gave the air of not taking the evidential process very seriously. 99. Her evidence was peppered with inadequate knowledge and note keeping. Whilst she had overall responsibility for safeguarding she did not discuss the concerns recorded for D with those who recorded them in order to better understand the context. She could not recall how long D and school staff member 1 had been speaking together at the end of the day when D first made her allegations against B, and had not noted it. She was not listening to the conversation between D and school staff member 1 in her office. Indeed, the fact that she was there and able to take a full note but that neither she nor school staff member 1 thought to do so is indicative of the very low base of understanding of ABE procedure of both of these professionals. She believed she had taken a note of the conversation when she realised it was serious but couldn’t initially remember whether she had scribbled it down on a bit of paper or typed it. She did not know where that note was, believed it may still be on School staff member 1’s desk, but had not asked to see it in order to refresh her memory before writing her statement for court. She could not remember if her notes or recollections related to the time that D was speaking to School staff member 1 whether it was from the conversation when the 2 uniformed police officers attended, or whether it was later when the non-uniformed officers attended. She did not think her recording in the statement was accurate and told me that it was “probably not. I’ve written that on memory and it sounds really condensed. I’m not going to remember every step.” To repeat, this witness had safeguarding responsibilities within this educational setting. She thought that she heard D speak a reluctant few words to police, with ‘scaffolded conversations and sentence starters’, as she described them. She was unaware of when D started to see the ELSA practitioner, what the referral said, or what was spoken about in the sessions. Unfortunately as a result of these issues I am able to place very little weight on the evidence given by this witness. 100. The final LA witness to give evidence had been the team manager for this family until the role was taken over by Social worker 1, shortly after the children were removed from the family home. She recognised that her early statement that she believed D was telling the truth about her allegations against B appeared quite absolute given that she recognised that the purpose of this fact-finding hearing was to determine whether it had happened or not. Her answers in evidence were significantly more considered: she held in mind a number of hypotheses about why D may have made the allegations but did express her belief that the circumstantial and background evidence made it, in her view, highly probable that D continued to experience sexual abuse in the home. She confirmed that there had been worries about the family’s ability and willingness to comply with safety plans to reduce the risk of inter sibling sexually harmful behaviours. 101. She was aware that D had accessed sexual content on a friend’s phone at school, but not the extent to which that had continued when she moved to her secondary school. She recalled that the mother declined the support offered from a mental health worker. She considered the way that D was treated within the home was likely to be distressing for her. She clarified that she had undertaken care planning for the children on the basis that there was a probability that what D had said was true, but that that did not shut off other areas of exploration for her. She had been conscious of an alternative explanation being her past experiences with [a brother] in addition to the impact of declining home conditions and lack of emotional warmth that were being observed in the home over that period. 102. Whilst this social worker expressed her belief in the ‘high probability’ that D’s allegations were true I did not detect that this had undermined her ability to keep an open mind to other hypotheses. I am concerned however that her expressions of probability and belief, may have been taken on by other professionals in a significantly less nuanced manner, contributing to the difficulties I have already outlined. I am concerned by whatever failure of information sharing enabled her as Team manager at that stage to be apparently unaware of the allegations D had made (despite being at the family home as D was making the allegations), her urgent removal to foster care and subsequent ABE interview. I note from Re P at para 599 “(vi) (setting out the guidance from the Cleveland report) vi) The social worker will need to establish a clear understanding with the police about how their respective roles are to be co-ordinated (para 13.12)”. This failure requires urgent internal investigation. 103. Globally, I am concerned that the handover process was rushed and inadequate in a complex case where there have been a disappointing number of social workers allocated. It is notable that the social workers who did have the full picture including for example occasions when it appeared D had made untruthful allegations, or accessed harmful content on the internet were better able to maintain an open mind about the range of explanations for her allegations. It seems that these fuller insights were not however routinely shared as new professionals became involved. 104. I am also extremely concerned about the lack of professional support that has been provided to D (and to an extent her family) to support her in the aftermath of the extremely serious findings made by the court in April 2024. Whether A and B are able to engage in that work will be a matter for consideration, but D’s recovery from such a traumatic and harmful experience should not have been left in the hands of adults struggling with their own emotional and practical parenting difficulties who are expressing disbelief about her experiences. This must be urgently addressed. 105. I make the following additional finding: As a result of the combined failures of social care and educational professionals the Local Authority were unable to pursue allegations made by D against B of Sexual and Physical abuse, resulting in an unsatisfactory outcome for both the alleged victim and alleged perpetrator. 106. I do not make findings against named individuals, notwithstanding the criticism within my judgment. It is likely to be a wholesale deficiency in training provided to professionals working within this Local Authority and school, and it is simply by chance that those individuals who gave evidence exposed the deficiencies. It is notable however that (as contained within the written submissions filed by the Guardian) the school has a published policy dated September 2024 which gives good clear advice about questioning and record keeping: whether school staff member 1 and the deputy head were aware of this guidance was not an issue which was canvassed with them. I have reminded myself of the guidance contained in Re W

[2016] EWCA civ 1140

[2017] 1 FLR 1629

, and am satisfied that each of these areas of criticism have been raised in cross examination of the witness. Whilst Social worker 1’s evidence had been concluded before the issue relating to social worker 2’s evidence arose, she was in court to hear the cross examination arising from the point, and must have been aware of the nature of concern and criticism before she provided a witness statement addressing the issue, before absenting herself on sick and then [planned] annual leave. In those circumstances I am satisfied that she was aware of the issues and proportionately responded. 107. I accept and agree the concerns raised about the conduct of the ABE interview raised both by the Guardian and B, although these issues were not canvassed with the responsible police force but have added to the cumulative impact of systemic errors on this case. Of particular concern are:a. The absence of an intermediary notwithstanding D’s ADHD and functioning age of 6/7;

b. The absence of a coherent plan in advance of the ABE;

c. The absence of communications and co-planning with the social work team despite the live child protection plan;

d. The absence of advice being provided to social worker 1 either prior to the ABE (when it should have been clear to them that her communication of D’s account was inappropriate), in respect of her transport of D to the ABE, the lengthy and undocumented time midway through the ABE that D spoke with her where no advice appears to have been given either to D or school staff member 1 not to discuss the subject matter of the ABE.

e. The decision to follow up the ABE informally with additional questions outside of the appropriate practice in taking evidence from children.

[98]Para 856 Re P: The ABE Guidance is advisory rather than a legally enforceable code. However, significant departures from the good practice advocated in it will likely result in reduced (or in extreme cases no) weight being attached to the interview by the courts. Within this context guidance from the Children Act Advisory Committee concerning the Memorandum of Good Practice, which preceded the ABE Guidelines, made clear that: “Any joint child abuse interview conducted by police and social services must follow the memorandum of good practice. Otherwise, not only is the resulting interview of no forensic value, but it may impede or contaminate any further assessment of the child ordered by the court.”108. These concerns should be shared with the relevant force in order to highlight the concerns which have been identified in this case.

109. The combination of errors and breaches of good practice is forensically significant. This part of the judgment should be released to the Local Child Safeguarding Partnership and the Trust overseeing the school in order to inform and identify training. I invite further brief submissions on publication (and if so the extent of anonymisation) and disclosure to other agencies