J, K, L & M, Re [2025] EWFC 367 (B)

IMPORTANT NOTICEThis judgment was delivered in private. It was be formally handed down at 2pm on 10 October 2025. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with.Failure to do so will be a Contempt of Court[2025] EWFC 367 (B)
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT CHESTER
Between
A Local AuthorityApplicantThe MotherRespondentThe FatherRespondent
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
IN THE MATTER OF J, K, L & M
BEFORE HER HONOUR JUDGE HESFORD
J, K, L & M(BY THEIR CHILDREN’S GUARDIAN)3rd – 6th Respondents
Ms Fitzharris for Local AuthorityMr Carey & Ms Holt & for DMs Brennan & Dr Dale for PMr Sanders for ChildrenHearing Hearing dates: 29, 30 September, 1, 2, 3 October 2025
FINAL JUDGMENTDate 8 October 2025
[1]This is the final hearing in this matter which concerns four children, J aged almost 9, K aged almost 7, L aged almost 5 and M aged 2 and 1/2. They are the children of D and P, separated parents.[2]The children had resided with both parents until they separated in 2024 with the children remaining with D; the local authority became involved in early 2024. The concerns include physical, emotional, and sexual abuse of the children, exposure to incidents of domestic abuse and elements of neglectful care. Initially, P moved out of the family home in February 2024 following his arrest for causing/inciting a child to engage in a sexual act, rape of D and neglect of the children.[3]D engaged in three “Achieving Best Evidence” interviews with police which highlighted concerns around P’s volatile and sexualised behaviour towards her. She also made a number of allegations regarding the care he afforded to the children including physical aggression, verbal aggression, targeting of L in particular, tickling of the babies penises, assaulting the family dog in front of the children, watching pornography and masturbating in front of the children and engaging in sexualised behaviour with the family dog in front of the children which had allegedly gone on to be replicated by K.[4]A Strategy Discussion took place in the light of D’s allegations and the fact that she told social care that she knew that the sexual matters were going on but did nothing about it. Concern was raised at this meeting about the children’s behaviour and D’s ability to manage them. L’s behaviour was deteriorating, and D had told J’s class teacher that she was struggling to manage him; M was occasionally inappropriately dressed; J was not up to date with his immunisations and not registered with a dentist.The children were subject to child protection plans from July 2024 under the category of neglect due to worries around D’s ability to safely parent all four children.[5]A further strategy discussion meeting took place in September 2024 due to information shared to the Primary school by D and recorded: Mum came to school today and disclosed that last night before bedtime K and her older brother J were playing roughly and inappropriately with each other. K was hitting J in his private area and he was lifting up her dress. Mum said to the children we don't touch private parts, I don't do it and neither does Daddy. K then said Daddy touched my private parts. When I was naughty Daddy would take me upstairs and hold my hands above my head, lift my leg and touch me, she pointed and said with his hands.”[6]The children continued to be cared for by D alone, until they were made subject to Police Protection Orders in October 2024.On that date the social worker completed an unannounced visit to the family home, where the home conditions were poor, there was food and mess all over the floors both upstairs and downstairs. All four children were present with their mother. K accompanied the social worker to her bedroom first, where a pink sex toy was observed on K’s bed. K made an allegation of sexual abuse towards D and explained to the social worker how the sex toy is allegedly used. Following Children’s Services informing the police of this information the police attended the home address and D was arrested on suspicion of sexual assault of a child by penetration and inciting a child to engage in sexual activity and the children placed with their maternal grandparents. Proceedings were commenced in November 2024 with the concerns and threshold reflecting both the issues raised by D and also her own actions in relation to the same, including failing to protect the children. An interim care order was made on [..] November 2024 with the children remaining in placement with their maternal grandparents. D has contact 3 times each week but P has had no direct contact since February 2024 in accordance with his bail conditions. Indirect contact has recently recommenced. D was initially arrested but charges were later dropped.[7]The matter is outside the 26-week target for these proceedings due to the need for expert assessment and significant police evidence including ABE interviews with the children. This final hearing took place at week 49 which is regrettable but unavoidable.[8]During the proceedings there have been a number of assessments, including a cognitive assessment of the parents by Dr Allen, which did identify the need for an intermediary for P but not D. Participation measures were considered and applied throughout.[9]D has been the subject of a parenting assessment by the local authority and P by an ISW Adam McCarthy. Both were negative. In respect of D:
“D has not demonstrated that she can safely care for the children, instead she has exposed them to a significant level of trauma by continuing in the relationship with P for as long as she did despite alleging that he has physically, sexually and emotionally abused the children over many years. D has not been forthcoming with serious and alarming information that could have been acted on to ensure that the children were kept safe. Instead she has concealed and failed to report this information in a timely manner so that children's needs could be prioritised.” “Again as previously mentioned, should the children have been subject to the abuse D alleges against their father, they have suffered significant harm over a prolonged period of time without their mother reporting this to services in order to safeguard them. They would have seen and been subjected to terrifying events and sexual boundaries within the home would have been completely blurred. However, should these allegations made against P by D, not be true and it is found that D has been dishonest about these, the children have also suffered significant harm. They have been stopped from having a relationship with their father for over 12 months as a result of bail conditions, they are currently not cared for by their mother and they have been subject to intrusive forensic medicals and police interviews. This level of interventions from services is extensive and intrusive and given the children's very young ages, theses experiences have no doubt been detrimental in their own way to their childhoods.”
[10]The assessment recommended that D should undertake further work and training, but “The timescale for this work [significant recommended work including the CAT] to be completed by D is not within the children's timescales and sadly given that D has had interventions recommended to her previously that she hasn’t engaged in to change the situation for her and her children, it is unlikely that the children could be safely cared for at home in her care.”[11]In respect of P:
“In my professional opinion, P does not demonstrate the ability to meet the competing needs of the children. He struggles to understand their lived experiences and he does not consider it his role to assist the children to develop and learn appropriate and positive sibling relationships”
. P did not challenge the outcome of his assessment, D did until the hearing commenced.[12]There was also a psychological assessment of the whole family by Dr Jennifer Mathews which raised significant risk issues with the parents themselves and their ability to care for the children. The report confirmed that the children have secure attachments to their maternal grandparents but were not close to their father and were scared of him. They were closer to their mother than their father. She had no concerns about the children’s sibling relationships, with them having been in the protective care of their grandparents for 5 months. M and K were showing some signs of delay in developing in certain areas but these have improved since they moved from their parents. J and L have some organic difficulties. In her view “the care that they have been provided by their maternal grandparent has enabled them to begin to recover from harmful experiences, to feel safe and it is likely to have ameliorated emotional, social and behavioural harm to their development as a result of their experiences. This is a significant protective factor, and a reason why as described above the children’s relationships with the maternal grandparents are crucial”. Dr Matthews recommended therapy for the parents, twenty-four sessions of Cognitive Analytical Therapy for D and twenty sessions of Dialectical Behaviour Therapy for P. Prognosis was uncertain.[13]There is a considerable quantity of police evidence including interviews and there is also a separate bundle of video recordings. I have read and viewed all these. Only the three short CCTV videos were played during the hearing.[14]The guardian in her final analysis agreed with the recommendations of the parenting assessments and supported the children remaining with their maternal grandparents. As far as the children’s wishes and feelings were concerned “J shared that his care plan makes him “kinda sad” and he wants to live with his mum again. K was “happy living there”, with her maternal grandparents. L and M are too young to understand their care plan and share their views.” She was satisfied that the maternal grandparents are providing the children with a high standard of care. Contact between the children and D should be fortnightly but not be at their home as this would be confusing for them. Contact with their father could be reintroduced in due course with support and explanations and with P accepting that the children have been harmed by their lived experiences. It could be tailored for each child’s needs and wishes and feelings[15]I have read the evidence contained in the bundle and heard evidence from the initial social worker, the allocated social worker and author of D’s parenting assessment, the parents, and the guardian. I received late documents including a statement from D, text messages, medical records and amended threshold. I do not intend to review all the evidence in detail but will address where it was either relevant to my decision or particularly pertinent in my analysis section.

PARTIES POSITIONS, THRESHOLD AND NATURE OF HEARING

[16]The local authority seek findings in accordance with their threshold, to determine whether the allegations against P and D are true and whether D has failed to protect the children from harm, in order to assist with future planning for the children, with their plan for the children being for them remaining with their maternal grandparents subject to care orders. D accepted much of the threshold, P accepted little and accordingly this hearing has proceeded as a combined fact finding and welfare hearing. With regard to the welfare issues and future plans for the children, until part way through the first day, D sought for the children to be rehabilitated to her care failing which she accepted they should remain with her parents. This suddenly changed to her accepting that the children should remain with her parents in long term foster care but seeking an immediate plan or “roadmap” setting out work which would ultimately lead to them being returned to her care. P agreed with the plans of the local authority. The Guardian supported the plans of the local authority. This has been a fully attended hearing over five days.

RELEVANT LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS

[17]This case did not fulfil the criteria so as to justify a discrete fact-finding hearing. Both the social worker and the children’s guardian expressed the opinion that they would be supporting the making of care orders whether or not all the allegations and threshold were established. Nonetheless, I am called upon to consider and make or reject the allegations. Certainly, as far as P was concerned this was the crux of the dispute.[18]The legal framework resolving the threshold / schedule of findings sought is now well settled. In determining issues of fact, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (Re B [2008] UKHL 35). The burden of proof lies upon the person or body that makes the allegations.[19]Findings of fact must be based on evidence and not speculation (Re A (A Child)(Fact Finding Hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12). In that case Munby J (as he then was) pertinently said:
"[104] Any judge who has had to conduct a fact-finding hearing such as this is likely to have had experience of a witness – as here a woman deposing to serious domestic violence and grave sexual abuse - whose evidence, although shot through with unreliability as to details, with gross exaggeration and even with lies, is nonetheless compelling and convincing as to the central core. It is trite that there are all kinds of reasons why witnesses lie, but where the issues relate, as here, to failed marital relationships and the strong emotions and passions that the court process itself releases and brings into prominence in such a case, the reasons why someone in the mother's position may lie, even lie repeatedly, are more than usually difficult to decipher. Yet through all the lies, as experience teaches, one may nonetheless be left with a powerful conviction that on the essentials the witness is telling the truth, perhaps because of the way in which she gives her evidence, perhaps because of a number of small points which, although trivial in themselves, nonetheless suddenly illuminate the underlying realities."
[20]Evidence must not be looked at in separate compartments and a judge must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion as to whether the allegations are made out to the appropriate standard of proof (Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558).[21]In relation to the issue of similar fact evidence and propensity I have considered Peter Jackson LJ in S (Children: Findings of Fact) [2023] EWCA Civ 1113 para [30]:
“I also consider that the judge was in error in relation to the issues of propensity and hindsight bias. The question of propensity or similar fact evidence arises where an individual's behaviour in other circumstances makes it more likely that he will have behaved in the manner now alleged: see R v P (Children: Similar Fact Evidence) [2020] EWCA Civ 1088, [2020] 4 WLR 132 at [23]. In that case, the question was whether a's behaviour towards one partner was admissible in relation to allegations made by another partner. Here, the court was concerned with a sequence of events within the same family. Self-evidently, one finding about a parent's behaviour towards a child might be relevant to another similar allegation and there was no need to resort to the concept of propensity or to erect artificial barriers around the assessment of evidence. Similarly, the well-known concept of hindsight bias cannot deflect the court from making a common-sense assessment of the evidence as a whole, and I do not understand the judge's apprehension that the local authority was asking him to do something unusual or impermissible.”
[22]A leading case is Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27. where the comments and decision of Macdonald J throughout remain relevant and persuasive and they have been considered. 573. The courts have long stipulated, and continue to demand, that very great care is taken when dealing with allegations of sexual abuse made by children, both in the initial phases and at the ABE interview stage (see for example Re E [2017] 1 FLR 1675 at [45]). This conclusion has been drawn from long experience and having regard to the results of a body of research into the way a child registers, processes and recalls memories, and the way in which a child may respond to figures perceived by the child to be in authority when questioned about such memories. In Lillie and others v Newcastle CC, Eady J observed as follows at [407]:
“It is of course elementary that one should put to one side any notion that an unwillingness to place reliance on a child’s evidence of sexual abuse necessarily imputes bad faith to the child, its parents or any other interrogator. What the research has thrown into stark relief is quite simply that very young children do not appear to have the same clear boundaries between fact and fantasy as that which adults have learned to draw”
In Re B (Allegation of Sexual Abuse: Child’s evidence) Hughes LJ (as he then was), alluding to past public enquiries that have demonstrated the point both starkly and repeatedly, stated at [34] that: “…Painful past experience has taught that the greatest care needs to be taken if the risk of obtaining unreliable evidence is to be minimised. Children are often poor historians. They are likely to view interviewers as authority figures. Many are suggestible. Many more wish to please. They do not express themselves clearly or in adult terms, so that what they say can easily be misinterpreted if the listeners are not scrupulous to avoid jumping to conclusions. They may not have understood what was said or done to them or in their presence.” … 577. That said, and considering the authorities set out above, the Report of the Inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland 1987 Cm 412 and Report of the Inquiry into the Removal of Children from Orkney in February 1991 among others and the contents of the current ABE Guidance, I am satisfied that this court can take judicial notice of the following matters: i) Children, and especially young children, are suggestible. ii) Memory is prone to error and easily influenced by the environment in which recall is invited. iii) Memories can be confabulated from imagined experiences, it is possible to induce false memories and children can speak sincerely and emotionally about events that did not in fact occur. iv) Allegations made by children may emerge in a piecemeal fashion, with children often not reporting events in a linear history, reporting them in a partial way and revisiting topics. v) The wider circumstances of the child’s life may influence, explain or colour what the child is saying. vi) Factors affecting when a child says something will include their capacity to understand their world and their role within it, requiring caution when interpreting children’s references to behaviour or parts of the body through the prism of adult learning or reading. vii) Accounts given by children are susceptible to influence by leading or otherwise suggestive questions, repetition, pressure, threats, negative stereotyping and encouragement, reward or praise. viii) Accounts given by children are susceptible to influence as the result of bias or preconceived ideas on the part of the interlocutor. ix) Accounts given by children are susceptible to contamination by the statements of others, which contamination may influence a child’s responses. x) Children may embellish or overlay a general theme with apparently convincing detail which can appear highly credible and be very difficult to detect, even for those who are experienced in dealing with children. xi) Delay between an event recounted and the allegation made with respect to that event may influence the accuracy of the account given. xii) Within this context, 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.[23]In the case of SR [2018] EWCA Civ 2738, Baker LJ set out a number of points about ABE guidance, which is relevant to the evidence of children both within and outside the formal process. I have also considered the very recent Court of Appeal case of Re H (Children) (Findings of Fact) [2025] EWCA Civ 993 which specifically considers issues of disclosures, ABE interviews and findings.[24]The principles to be applied in relation to the evidence of children have been set out in numerous authorities. In AS v TH [2016] EWHC 532, MacDonald J noted that the courts have endorsed a number of the general principles set out in the ABE guidelines:
"It is desirable that interviews with young children should be conducted as soon as possible after any allegations are made (Re M (Minors)(Sexual Abuse: Evidence) [1993] 1 FLR 822)."
MacDonald J made a number of similar points in Re P (above). Where a child has been interviewed on a number of occasions the court may attach diminishing weight to what is said in the later interviews (Re D (Child Abuse: Interviews) [1998] 2 FLR 10). The court will wish to see responses from the child which are neither forced nor led (Re X (A Minor)(Child Abuse: Evidence) [1989] 1 FLR 30). It is normally undesirable for a parent to be present during an interview with the child (Re N (Child Abuse: Evidence) [1996] 2 FLR 214) and see the Cleveland Report (para 12.35). In Re S (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1254, Ryder LJ confirmed that the guidance set out in the Cleveland Report at paragraph 12.34 with respect to interviewing children remain good practice.[25]I have also considered the recent Court of Appeal case of Re H (Children) (Findings of Fact) [2025] EWCA Civ 993 which specifically considers issues of disclosures, ABE interviews and findings.[26]Despite these cautions, findings of abuse based on ABE interviews are and will continue to be made in appropriate cases. The standard of proof remains a balance of probability.[27]If a court concludes that a witness has lied about one matter, it does not follow that he or she has lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons, for example, out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure (R v Lucas [1981] QB 720). The application of this principle should go beyond the court merely reminding itself of it in broad terms: Re H-C (Children) [2016] 4 WLR 85.[28]In Lancashire County Council v C, M and F (Children; Fact Finding Hearing) [2014] EWFC 3, Peter Jackson J (as he then was) stated:
"in cases where repeated accounts are given of events…, the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of any reported discrepancies. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is of course that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record-keeping or recollection of the person hearing and relaying the account. The possible effects of delay and repeated questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one person of hearing accounts given by others. As memory fades, a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural – a process that might inelegantly be described as "story-creep" may occur without any necessary inference of bad faith"
. These words echo the words of Leggatt J in Gestmin SGPS v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 as to the fallibility of human recollection, and the limitations of memory".[29]A judge should avoid placing excessive or exclusive reliance on the demeanour of a witness: Re B-M (Children: Findings of Fact) [2021] EWCA Civ 1371 albeit the assessment of the impression made by a witness may be given weight by a judge alongside other matters in a case where the facts are not likely to be primarily found in contemporaneous documents and where due account is taken of the pressure involved in giving oral evidence.[30]Finally in relation to issues of fact finding and threshold, there are many allegations against the parents and a very detailed threshold document. In this regard, I have also had in mind the very recent appeal decision in Re K and G (Care Proceedings: Fact-Finding) [2025] EWCA Civ 910 which addressed the fact that whilst in some fact-finding hearings, judges structured their judgment in line with a local authority's threshold document that set out the findings it sought, they were not obliged to do so. Provided the judge in a fact-finding hearing ensured that the parties had a fair hearing and delivered a judgment covering the ground within the known parameters of the case, it did not matter that the structure of the judgment departed from the threshold document. Noting this, I will further address my reason for making the findings as I consider to be necessary. In my judgment, it is the overall presentation of the family and the issue of domestic abuse, sexual boundaries, and failures to protect which are most pertinent.[31]Turning to the proceedings more generally I must consider the four questions at the heart of care proceedings. These are as follows:(i) Is the legal threshold set out in section 31 of the Children Act established?(ii) If so what are the permanence provisions of the care plan?(iii) What are the contact provisions?(iv) having regard to the welfare of the child as the paramount consideration of the Court, what final orders, if any, should be made?[32]The legal threshold requires the Court to find that the children have either suffered significant harm at a relevant date or were likely to suffer significant harm if an order is not made with such harm being attributable to the care given to them by their parent/carer and with such care falling below the care to be expected of a reasonable parent. The establishment of the threshold empowers the Court to make a public law order (care or supervision orders) but does not direct the Court to do so. Whether an order should be made will be assessed having regard to the welfare of the child, which is the Court’s paramount consideration, and with regard to the intersection between the order sought and the Article 8 rights of the family members to respect for their private family life and the right not to have this infringed save where to do so is proportionate, necessary, reasonable and lawful. I must consider the options for the children applying the considerations set out in Re B-S (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1146 and other leading cases. I have also considered section 1 of the Children Act 1989 with regard to the no order principle and the issue of delay. ORAL EVIDENCE, THE THRESHOLD AND ANALYSIS[33]I heard oral evidence from the previous social worker. She was challenged strongly on the nuances of different wording in her initial note and statement to the police about precisely what K said to her but I was satisfied that the differences were minimal and her explanation was entirely adequate. Further, I do not accept that asking K whether “mummy rubs it” was a leading question in circumstances where K had just stated that she rubbed it on herself “with mummy.” I found her to be an impressive and professional witness who was fair and balanced. I accept her evidence that K made the disclosures as stated to her and that she acted appropriately and professionally thereafter.[34]The allocated social worker’s oral evidence was in line with her written evidence. She was clear and consistent throughout. She considered that D’s engagement with the local authority had reduced more recently, including at contact. P had fully engaged throughout and she had now re-introduced indirect contact and further progression would be planned based on the children’s responses.[35]D’s lower cognitive functioning level was apparent during her evidence with her appearing to be naïve and rather idealistic in some of her answers and her diagnosed avoidant coping style was also apparent. She sought to paint herself in the best possible light and attempted to avoid or minimise many of the significant concerns and issues raised as well as lying at times. There were several inconsistences in her evidence, both written and oral, and on occasions the concessions she made when challenged did not fit rationally with her reasons for the same. For example she was adamant that she had never used the word “tap” in relation to P hitting the children yet when confronted with the evidence from the police that she had used the word, she moments later conceded this but claimed she was merely using the officer’s own words. I simply cannot accept that. The officer carefully used the word “tapped” in quotes in his note, usually used to symbolise someone’s precise words. There is then the explanation about her shouting at the children which D insisted had never ever happened yet her own text message accepted that she screams and shouts at them, effectively when she is at the end of her tether due to their behaviour. The court was then told that this was not shouting and screaming as normal people would think but her merely being firm, certainly not shouting or screaming. Again I cannot accept this as a rational or reasonable explanation. Shouting and screaming is different from speaking firmly. There is also evidence from at least one of the children that she shouts.[36]Whether D’s evidential contradictions were due to her cognitive profile or to having a poor memory or even due to lies is not straightforward. Much of her evidence had a ring of truth to it and were it not for other contradictions, it could be entirely believable. I have of course considered the case of Lucas and finding that D has lied about one thing does not mean that she had lied about everything. In her oral evidence about P forcing her to have sex with him, she was clear that this had happened, that she had said no and that he had forced his hand between her legs and continued despite her saying no. She did not seek in her evidence to accuse him of rape and indeed in her police interview, despite revealing the abuse, she downplayed it, saying she had given in to avoid “aggro.” Had she been lying about these events, then she may have chosen to make a more detailed allegation and indeed a proper accusation. I note however that in her final statement, filed during the final hearing, she refers to showing P in “subtle” ways that she did not want to have sexual intercourse, another anomaly or contradiction. It is also correct that she did not mention any sexual assaults to the police when completing the police report on the log following P’s arrest save for rough sex. Her explanation was that she had only given information which related to the children and this may be understandable at what was no doubt a shocking and stressful time. If D has been the victim of domestic abuse throughout the relationship as she informed the psychologist, then she may have found it difficult to admit this or not even recognised such behaviour as abusive. It is common for victims of any form of abuse not to be open about them at the beginning and indeed only open up many years later. However, in my judgment there are simply too many inconsistencies in D’s accounts for me to make some of the findings either without corroboration or as isolated matters.[37]Her behaviour as explained in her evidence concerning the issue of K’s sexualised behaviour with the dog was unsatisfactory but was in line with her profile’s coping style of avoidance. It was clear that she chose not to question K as to the reasons for her behaviour with the dog, and attempted to justify this in her evidence by suggesting that K would not have been able to explain at her age. I do not accept that a normally developing five-year-old child like K would not be able to explain or give a reason, particularly as her own mother describes her as bright. It is notable that in other evidence D is happy to accept J’s words at the same age and he has communication difficulties. In my judgment, it was not simply a case of her acting to stop the behaviour as she claimed, but she deliberately chose not to question K, potentially as she may not want to know the answer, maybe she already knew or maybe the sexual boundaries in the family were so skewed that it was not thought to be such a big issue. Whatever the reason, failing to recognise the risks, including serious infection, and investigate the cause at all is not a normal caring or appropriate response to such a shocking act, particularly when there have been three instances of the same. She admitted never discussing reasons for the behaviour this with P despite claiming he was present on one occasion.[38]D’s evidence about the sexual acts by P which she saw taking place on the sofa in the presence of the children and in the kitchen with the dogs was clear and she stated that she had seen the behaviour with two different dogs. Such behaviour could help to explain how the behaviour and boundaries of the children have become so blurred and sexualised. P admitted in his evidence that the dogs had tried to lick his penis so D can legitimately claim to have seen this on the video. Her evidence was stated simply and dismissively to the police and she seemingly failed to appreciate that her own limited reactions to these incidents would leave her open to considerable criticism for not protecting the children due to her (lack of) response to the same. The fact that D appeared not to appreciate that what she had seen P doing with the dog and his penis was extremely inappropriate (per her police interview) raises significant concerns about her understanding of right and wrong and of proper sexual behaviour and boundaries within the family. There was no real evidence of shock and revulsion either in her evidence and she appears to have done little by way of challenging him other than a text message.[39]She also consistently left her vibrator where it could be found by the children. I do not agree with D’s opinion that K does not know what a penis or a vibrator is, K clearly has some understanding from her conversation with the social worker and from her embarrassment and hiding of the implement. Nor do I accept D’s denial that she told K off, I accept the evidence of the social worker about what K told her and her change of demeanour as well as D herself telling the social worker that she had told K off. Hiding the vibrator afterwards was likely done in panic but was not appropriate.[40]The matter of fact and dismissive way she dealt with most of the allegations, including those about K and the dog (three occasions), the several occasions of the children using the vibrator as a toy and the fact that she saw P (using his phone and so potentially watching porn) and masturbating with K next to him, and with the dog in the kitchen raises significant concerns about her understanding of sexual abuse and risk. It appears not to have occurred to her that the scenario of these matters, with the children also playing with themselves and being sexualised with each other is all part of a bigger picture which has caused remarkably little real concern in D or indeed P. There is no evidence she took steps to protect the children or truly change things as the behaviour was repeated in some instances, this is also evidenced in her claims to have allowed P to have sex with her when she had said no and not understanding that this was potentially rape. The sexual boundaries in the family were extremely poor and offered little or no protection to the children. She either chose to ignore the risks by avoidance or she simply cannot see them.[41]It was submitted on behalf of P that he was a straightforward and honest witness. I do not agree. Even if he was being more honest during his oral evidence, some of this directly contradicted his written evidence and consistent denials of bad behaviour on his part. P was simply a witness who was unable to maintain his denials in the face of challenge. He consistently minimised his behaviour or sought to justify it. As with D, I have taken account of his cognitive issues and additional needs and the support which he had during these proceedings but these cannot deflect from the fact that his oral evidence particularly when challenged, was very different to his written evidence, even in his very late witness statement where he finally made some concessions. In short he too has lied at times. His excuses included shame and poor recall. Both parents were poor witnesses, seeking to self-serve within the proceedings.[42]P’s diagnosis of a Semantic Pragmatic Disorder and its effect was apparent during his evidence. He had certain styles of speech, or turns of phrase, which could be interpreted as being deliberately avoidant such as not answering directly yes or no and instead saying “maybe,” such as for example “I may have voiced it.” It was hard at times to know whether this was him being natural, forgetful, minimising, lying, or indeed delaying, avoiding or hedging his bets to see what the next question would be. Follow up questions usually clarified the answers but they were not always willingly offered at first.[43]He minimised his own behaviour and responsibility on many occasions. This includes the pregnancies where he seemed to claim that they were all due to D’s wishes and that he was shocked when she became pregnant but he then agreed that they had been actively trying for a baby including a consultation about IVF and he eventually but very reluctantly accepted that he played a full part. He admitted being annoyed at the pregnancies and that he did not want them all, had considered termination at one point and admitted that he had told D that he did not want another baby at one point. He minimised the issue of D’s pre-eclampsia, sending her a “simple” text message about hospital saying “oh don’t bother”. Now he accepted that it was wrong but then he “didn’t think”. He was thinking about his own aversion to hospital. He downplayed D’s contribution to looking after the family, criticising her for taking a break by going to her parents after looking after the four children all day; it was clear that he considered his working contribution to be much more significant. This was particularly surprising as he accepted that he found it difficult to parent the children alone even for short periods. He was not pleased that she became pregnant with L and admitted making this clear to D. He felt overwhelmed, despite the pregnancy being foreseeable due to lack of birth control and was grumpy and scathing to her, accepted that she was sad, hurt, and unsupported by him. He was cross when told she was pregnant with M at 16 weeks and admitted this to D. She had told him she was scared to tell him until 16 weeks and he accepted that she felt afraid but he had thought about himself and needed space and time to process things. When asked whether he had suggested an abortion he did not deny it but replied that he did not remember this.[44]Clear examples of P’s lies and minimisations was evidenced by the videos shown to the court. P certainly showed remorse for his actions and was genuinely upset in the witness box at times, particularly when watching the videos. He, however, continued to maintain in his evidence that he did not think he had an anger problem, and that his behaviour was merely frustration. Indeed he said that his frustration could have turned to anger but had not. I accept none of this. His behaviour in the videos was appalling, he was physically abusive to the dog, used very abusive language to D and screamed at and terrified the children, who were cowering under a table. If P still considers that his behaviour was merely frustration and not as bad as anger, it is a significant concern how his behaviour could manifest itself in anger.[45]P has belatedly admitted some abusive behaviour towards the children. This included, despite earlier denials, roughness with L and J on occasions. The main disputed issue now is that he claims that other than these admissions, his reprimands of the children were only a tap whereas D describes a smack. One incident viewed by the police satisfied them that it was a tap but smack is also the word used by K and the children have told professionals that he hits and hurts them. In his oral evidence he demonstrated a firm two or three fingered tap on the forehead and admitted that sometimes he used more force than he should have to get their attention.[46]In addition to his abusive behaviour towards D he was dismissive and lacking in empathy and awareness, this may be exacerbated by his diagnosis. He did not consider that someone being squeezed whilst pregnant would ever feel frightened. He was completely unaware that the children were close for the incident in the kitchen in the recording of his abusive behaviour despite them being heard in the background. He accepted bad language to D in both videos but seemed to blame her for his behaviour in shouting and banging in the second video as she had not told him about a meeting and he considered that she should have done so. He said he was merely frustrated, not angry although he was getting angry. In the video it is very apparent that there was a loss of control and temper, he is visibly seething, with clenched fists, using foul language, stalking around the kitchen and appearing very threatening. He denied this, which in my judgment damages his credibility. He even admitted that the argument went on for one to one and a half hours with him trying to make his point. He finally admitted that he had gone too far and that when he focussed on himself this could happen.[47]His deflections and minimisations continued. The language which he has used abusively towards D was unacceptable but at one point he excused the sending of an abusive message because D had been antagonising him and on another sought to excuse his behaviour because D had failed to tell him about the meeting. He admitted swearing in front of the children but only by mistake. He admitted hitting the kitchen worktop but “not very hard.” The reality from the video is that he did hit it hard and with both hands clenched in fists whilst screaming at D.[48]P admitted that he could become entirely focussed on himself and not be aware of other matters around him. Examples of this were being unaware that the children were in earshot of his videoed behaviour as I have just addressed and when masturbating. He initially denied masturbating in the lounge, saying that he was merely scratching and blaming his work trousers and heat. He was sat in his dressing gown and it was clear that this behaviour was not a one off, he admitted it was “quite a few times” and that he had received text messages from D telling him to stop once or twice from what she had seen on the cameras. She, however was mistaken, as it was merely scratching he claimed. We now have the text message D sent on one occasion which specifically tells him “don’t do that in front of your children… stroking yourself”, which is corroborative evidence both that D has seen him touching himself and that the children were present on at least one occasion. His immediate response to such a significant allegation was not as you would expect to deny the accusation but rather to accuse D of doing similar, with a later denial almost as an afterthought. In his oral evidence he admitted having a quick scratch when he thought the children were not looking. He did finally admit to masturbating but only if the children were not downstairs. He said he would have seen the children if they were there but did admit that if he was very focussed on his own needs and could have missed them, admitting that he was not always aware of their presence (as in the video). He said that if he wanted to “do my needs” he would check that they are not there, “if they come downstairs I’ll stop and clear up.” There is then the issue of the involvement or presence of the dogs during masturbation, with P readily admitting that he would masturbate in the lounge with the dogs around and they would try to sniff and lick his penis. D claims to have seen the dogs licking him and it is possible that this may have taken place before P pushed them away, with him being so concentrated on himself as he admits. These issues raise significant concerns about appropriate sexual behaviour, boundaries, and awareness of risk in general. It is difficult to see how P thought that sitting in the living room, masturbating, scratching or stroking whilst in his dressing gown with dogs present and interested, children possibly present or likely to enter the room could ever be appropriate or safe behaviour.[49]P also stated in his oral evidence that he was aware and saw the dog run to L’s genital area when he was shouting in the video; L covered up. His explanations for this behaviour were they he had been teaching the children to cover themselves if a dog approached them in this manner. However, he denied ever having seen K being licked by the dog and claimed to be giving this advice to her independently. It would not be common teaching for a small child unless something has happened and L’s instinct was to protect himself too. It appears that neither parent ensured that the children were properly dressed and wearing underwear when around the dogs as would be the usual actions of a caring and protective parent, particularly if the dogs were showing interest. To me this is further evidence of the laissez-faire attitudes and blurred boundaries concerning the family and sexual matters. D’s evidence was that the dogs had licked K’s vulva in the kitchen with P present, his response was that he may not have seen it as his back was turned. I note that he denied even being aware of the behaviour which contradicts with his claim in his oral evidence of teaching the children to protect themselves against it, whilst additionally failing to ensure that they were protected by underwear. It simply does not make sense and to me this explanation is implausible. I accept D’s evidence that he was present on one occasion when K allowed the dog to lick her and that D mentioned it to him.[50]P denied tickling L’s penis and could not recall being told not to by D. He admitted being “handsy” when cleaning K’s genitals when he was washing her until age 4/5 years. He accepted that the children walked around nude. He accepted watching porn on his phone (as did D).[51]I now set out now the agreed parts of the threshold. AGREED THRESHOLD FINDINGS EMOTIONAL HARM: 6. Father screamed and shouted at a family dog and at the children on one occasion and picked up the dog and slammed her down on to the floor with force. The children cowered under the kitchen table during this event and were obviously afraid of P and his actions. 7. Father became frustrated whilst the children were in the house and punched the wall whilst shouting INAPPROPRIATE SEXUALISED BEHAVIOUR OF ADULTS AND CHILDREN IN THE HOUSEHOLD 16. Mother failed to keep her vibrator wand in a place which was out of the reach of the children and:(i) K and L were able to access the sex toy and had been playing with it on one occasion.(ii) K had been playing with it in her bedroom on another, separate occasion PARENTAL MENTAL HEALTH: 19. Mother has been diagnosed with a Major Depressive Disorder and has developed an avoidant coping style with low self-esteem. This impacts upon her functioning in that she is likely to present with the following traits which in turn affect her ability to safely parent: (i) Present with a narrative which is psychologically incoherent, i.e., their experiences and affect’ responses are not consistent (ii) Minimisation of their own experiences(iii) Present with a lack of emotional expression occasionally(iv) Minimisation of danger and a tendency to underestimate risk and do not recognise it(v) Normalisation or an acceptance of behaviours which are risky, and which most people would not tolerate.(vi) Have a high tolerance for danger and risk - as their assessment of risk is distorted by their minimisation of their own experiences. 20. Father struggles to control his emotions, in particular to control his anger: (i) When L was a newborn baby Father rocked him backwards and forwards away from his chest with too much force in an attempt to try and settle him. (ii) When J was a toddler and having a tantrum, Father held him with more force than was needed across his shoulder and he left a mark on J’s shoulder and neck where he had been held which remained visible for up to a week. (iii) On several occasions, when L was a toddler, he cried in the car which caused Father to become frustrated whilst driving, so he pulled over and leaned back and restrained L’s legs with force with his hand or his arm which hurt L (iv) On one or two occasions, when L was a toddler, Father was rough with him, shouting at L and grabbing hold of him FAILURE TO PROTECT 21. Mother was aware of all of Father’s abusive behaviours as set out above and continued to leave the children in his sole care. POOR HOME CONDITIONS: 22. On the [2024] home conditions where the children lived with mother were observed to be poor, with food and mess all over the floors, upstairs and downstairs. THE BALANCE OF THE FINDINGS[52]P had continued to deny much of the threshold save for where there was clear physical evidence of the same such as the videos of him punching the fridge, physically abusing the family dog or where it did not directly affect him such as D’s mental health diagnosis. His oral evidence, however, provided more information and admissions.[53]Before I address the individual disputed threshold findings I intend to address specific areas of concern related to the family. My concerns are not just linked to the findings and individual issues of threshold but the larger picture of this dysfunctional family, with a father whose behaviour to/in front of the mother and children can be both abusive, threatening and occasionally violent, with the inappropriate and blurred sexual boundaries and a wholesale failure by the mother to take action to protect the children against any of these.[54]DOMESTIC ABUSE I am satisfied that P is unaware of just how abusive his behaviour can be and the impact of this upon those around him, even when it is just addressed towards D. His minimisation and denial directly affect his credibility. It is difficult to understand how he can claim that the evidence on the videos was not him losing his temper but merely being frustrated. It was noticeably clear that he was close to being out of control in at least one of the videos and the children and the dog were terrified. It is also clear that P, contributed to by his diagnosis, was unaware of how his behaviour particularly on that day impacted on others or that the children may have been present, nearby or certainly within earshot. D too appeared unaware of the impact of his behaviour on the children but she has latterly admitted failure to protect them. Her protestations in her evidence that she had tried to seek help (yet at one point almost seeming to blame the local authority) simply did not suffice, she could and should have done more to protect them. Both P and D were more fixated on their own needs.[55]The domestic abuse issues also crossed over into sexual abuse issues with D tentatively suggesting rape but then admitting being subtle in her refusals. Her evidence to the police is contradictory and she has minimised the behaviour which she has alleged was perpetrated by P on occasion. I do not consider either of them to be particularly credible witnesses. This has meant that, where there are uncorroborated accusations and findings sought where it would be simply one persons word against the others, together with their contradictory evidence, some of the accusations cannot be proven to the civil standard even with the whole evidential picture being taken into account. I have considered the Lucas direction when making my decisions and considered all the evidence including the veracity of denials and the totality of the evidence. I cannot be satisfied that she clearly made P aware that she was saying no when she herself said in her final statement that she was subtle.[56]SEXUAL DYNAMICS AND BOUNDARIES I have significant concerns about the whole sexual dynamics within this family. There are allegations and information about L and others acting out and playing with themselves and each other, L humping, K as a 5-year-old child being licked intimately by dogs and actively seeking it out, with D being aware of this on three occasions and P on at least one. I am satisfied that he was present on one occasion, whether he actively saw it or not and accept D’s evidence that she briefly spoke to him about it. Yet neither has done anything to investigate why this has been happening, D has on her own admission never asked K to explain, and her excuses for not doing so are rejected as being wholly implausible. It does not seem to have really struck the parents that this behaviour is shocking and abhorrent and should have been investigated. L too is aware of the potential for dogs licking him and covers his groin when the dog appeared. The instinctive reaction of a small child when a dog runs towards it should not be to cover its genital area. That is highly unusual. The children do not wear underwear in the house despite these issues. We then have P scratching/stroking himself whilst sat on the sofa in his open dressing gown with the children present. He also admitted masturbating in the lounge and to doing all of this whilst the dogs were present and trying to lick him, and not on only one occasion. It does not seem to have occurred to him to masturbate somewhere safe like a locked bathroom, or to withhold from touching himself when the children are present or even for he and them to be properly dressed.[57]The only evidence for some of the sexual abuse allegations concerning the children is from D and it is uncorroborated. The children’s limited evidence is not sufficiently persuasive, taking into account all the guidance and caselaw, certainly not to the required burden of proof. These allegations relate to the tickling of L’s penis, which if done even in fun was inappropriate, and to the allegation of lifting K’s hands and touching her genitals. P denied these and there is no other evidence of the same, certainly not sufficient to satisfy this court to the requisite burden. Even though these cannot be proven, the children’s sexualised behaviour and the blurred sexual boundaries remain of great concern to this court. P has admitted being “handsy” with K when cleaning her genitals and denied “flicking” L’s penis. He denied masturbating when the children were around but later admitted that he could have been unaware. It is hard to know exactly what these children have actually witnessed but it appears likely that it is considerably more than their parents were aware of. I do not accept D’s assertions or submissions that the incident with the vibrator is as innocent as she claims, with the children using it as a wand. Nor do I accept that the social worker immediately jumped to the conclusion that there had been abuse. I have already said that she was an impressive witness. In her evidence D downplayed and suggested that the whole vibrator incident was not sexualised behaviour, that K did not know what a vibrator was and said that she did not believe what the social worker had said about K rubbing it. She said that she had no idea why or how K would know how to use it. I accept that K was embarrassed and had been told off.[58]It is not my role to ascertain precisely why K behaved as she did or made the disclosures about the vibrator in the absence of a plausible explanation which satisfies the burden and standard of proof, but what is clear is that there was a highly sexually charged and active relationship/atmosphere between the parents, with P masturbating and watching porn, potentially being unaware that the children were present in the same room, also nearby when he was in the kitchen and on other occasions. Both parents watch porn on their phones, both parents allow the children to play with the phones but denied porn being present on the phone. D’s evidence is of P frequently demanding sexual intercourse and one of the arguments on video is about this issue. A potential explanation may be that the children have witnessed certain behaviour by and between both of their parents potentially with the parents being unaware of the same. K may have witnessed her mother playing with her vibrator and may have seen her father masturbating, with the dog if not directly involved then on the periphery, and seen porn on either her mother or father’s phone. These could explain her behaviour with the dog and her disclosures about the vibrator. We will likely never know, but I have addressed the parents’ evidence earlier and my comments on the issues of sexual boundaries and risk and those comments are particularly relevant in relation to these issues. D’s dismissive way of dealing with P’s demands for sex, with denials but laughter and acceptance do not suggest a suitable and appropriately protective atmosphere where precautions were taken to protect, keep private and not to expose the children to adult behaviour. The same casual lack of care is evidenced by the apparent ease whereby K could locate D’s sex toy on several occasions and with how D has dealt with the sexual behaviour as I have already addressed. The dismissiveness and lack of curiosity and concern are stark. I cannot be satisfied to the standard of proof that the actual sexual abuse suggested by the local authority in the threshold has happened as opposed to the children merely being exposed to sexual behaviour in some other way such as witnessing the same in person, on a screen or even hearing such behaviour. Children are naturally very inquisitive and most parents are very careful to protect them. Given the behaviour of the children individually and with each other, it is highly likely that these children have witnessed sexual acts in some form, although not necessarily deliberately. They have certainly been exposed to sexualised behaviour, there is no other rational explanation. Children do not simply and suddenly become sexualised beings.[59]FAILURES TO PROTECT[60]Mother has admitted failure to protect. I am satisfied that P has failed to protect too, that he failed to take any action when aware of the behaviour of K and the dog and any other behaviour he may have witnessed between the children.[61]I will now directly address the disputed findings DISPUTED THRESHOLD FINDINGS DOMESTIC ABUSE / CONTROLLING BEHAVIOUR: 1. When mother was pregnant with K, Father repeatedly discouraged her from seeking medical advice despite knowing that she was suffering from pre-eclampsia and even when mother told him that she felt unwell and had swollen fingers The evidence to the police from D was that she was very poorly following miscarriages and a partial molar pregnancy which had necessitated many hospital appointments and when she was ill with K, he told her not to go as it was a waste of time.P stated in his late final statement that he could not recall seeking to prevent her obtaining advice. However in his oral evidence he admitted discouraging her attendance at hospital, telling her not to bother. He attempted to avoid a threshold finding on this issue by blaming his own personal concerns about hospital and claiming that he had not actively prevented D from attending hospital but with respect that is not what is pleaded. I am entirely satisfied that I can make this finding on P’s own admission. 2. When mother became pregnant with L, he was unhappy about the fact and blamed mother for the event, despite refusing to use birth control himself. D’s evidence is set out in her police interview and is stated simply. She said that he was unhappy, blamed her and there were arguments, with him giving her dirty looks. She was worried about telling him she was pregnant and hid pregnancy tests from him. She also said that P had a bad reaction to her being pregnant “he’d suddenly, erm, stop, sort of stop, either stop talking to me and giving me the silent treatment”. The evidence to the police from [MGF] was that he was clear that P did not want L. I was not convinced from the evidence that P solely blamed D for being pregnant but it was clear that he was unhappy and resentful at her wanting to be pregnant again, and then her pregnancy and indeed unhappier with each additional pregnancy. I accept his evidence which was effectively that they were both to blame due to lack of birth control. Accordingly I make the following alternative finding:
“When D became pregnant with L, P was unhappy and resentful about the pregnancy and D’s wishes for another child, and blamed both D and himself for the event, as neither was using birth control.” 3. When mother was pregnant with L and Father knew that she was pregnant with L, Father approached mother from behind and squeezed her so hard around the abdomen that mother became afraid and pushed him off D made this disclosure to the social worker in December 2024 and in her police interview in March 2024. Her description was quite graphic and precise and she recalled that it was early in the pregnancy, around 8-12 weeks. She was also clear that the behaviour was unusual and she asked him what he was doing as he was hurting her. Her oral evidence was consistent. P denied hugging D hard to cause a miscarriage but did admit squeezing her as a cuddle. His oral evidence and understanding of the issue were not particularly clear from his evidence as he appeared to be confused concerning earlier questions about termination. I cannot be satisfied on the evidence that he intended to cause a miscarriage if possible but I can accept that D may have had this belief, particularly in view of P’s admitted unhappiness with the pregnancy This criteria wording is based wholly upon D’s perception of P’s hug of her and not P’s intentions and she stated in evidence that she believed that such a hug could cause a miscarriage, I am satisfied that she was alarmed. I am satisfied that the burden of proof has been satisfied and I can make this finding in the terms sought (but not that there was any intention by P to cause a miscarriage by his actions). 4. When mother was pregnant with M, father refused to acknowledge the pregnancy at all until she was around 20 weeks pregnant and when he did, Father would text mother telling her to “get rid of it”
. The evidence to the police from [MGF] was that he was clear that P did not acknowledge D’s pregnancy at all, would not pay for anything and openly said he did not want another baby. D told the police that P did not accept her pregnancy with M until around 15-20 weeks and she was sent text messages telling her that she needed to get rid of it. These were not produced to the court. On D’s own evidence she did not tell P she was pregnant until she was around 16 weeks, so it would have been impossible for him to acknowledge it before then. In the absence of any corroborating text messages and in view of the fact that the pregnancy was undeclared until 16 weeks I do not make this finding. 5. When mother was pregnant with M and Father knew that she was pregnant with M, Father approached mother from behind and squeezed her abdomen so tightly that she told him to stop and pushed him away. D was clear to the police that this happened to her, as with L, but this time it was at around 15 to 20 weeks when she had a bump and when she told him to stop he carried on and she had to push him off. She was shocked. I repeat the comments and finding as per paragraph 3 above (substituting M for L). EMOTIONAL HARM: 8. Father threatened mother that if she ever took the children “he might as well go and kill himself” P denied this in his response to threshold but in his final statement he merely stated that he did not recall saying this. D’s evidence to the police was that he did say this and indeed she was worried that he may take the kids with him. This was not challenged in cross examination and the Local Authority were agreeable to withdraw it. No finding. 9. Father exhibited little interest in L following his birth. P admitted to Adam McCarthy that he does not know about J, K, L and / or M’s health needs, diet, routine, and any additional needs that they may have. The social worker reported, in the health visitor records, “Dad has a poor relationship with L, there is poor attachment, dad never wanted another child originally however mum had another after L, when SW visited on Thursday, D was lovely with M but some of the comments he made of L, L was having a cuddle with mum, dad said to L to not grab mummy's booby as he is too old, SW felt this was a strange comment when L wasn't doing that, he was having a nice moment with mum. Dad focusses a lot of his anger and aggression towards L and it has been like that since he was a baby.” MGF stated that L would constantly be pushed away by P in favour of J. The health visitor confirmed that P was unaware of the location of L’s nursery. D reported to the social worker that P treated L differently and had not bonded with him. To the police she said that he just did not care about L, and the only logical explanation she had for this was him not being at the hospital for the birth. Straight from the birth he was not interested and did not want to hold him and she had to keep encouraging him; there was a “disconnect” between them. P denied treating L differently. I make this finding. I accept the ample corroborative evidence in support of the making of this finding from the various sources mentioned and prefer it to the evidence of P. INAPPROPRIATE SEXUALISED BEHAVIOUR OF ADULTS AND CHILDREN IN THE HOUSEHOLD: 10. When he was changing M’s and L’s nappies, Father would occasionally tickle the base of their penises including after mother observed this and asked him not to do that. D was clear with the police that this was on two occasions when they were babies and whilst he was not playing with their penises but merely tickling, she did not think it was appropriate. When she told him to stop he denied doing it. She was clear to the police that this had happened and that she felt he was doing it to get the babies to laugh; it was playful, she had not thought it was sexual. P denied this other than generalised tickling and it was not sexual. There is insufficient evidence for me to make this finding but in relation to general sexual boundaries and behaviour I make more generalised findings at the end of this section and additionally I have already addressed my concerns about the household before addressing the disputed items. 11. On an occasion Father initiated sexual intercourse with mother by trying to force his hands between her legs and although mother moved away, and said no, he moved his hands back between her legs and carried on anyway, knowing that she did not really want to have sexual intercourse. D was clear in her evidence to the police that P had had sex with her on two occasions when he pushed, after she had already said no, saying that it just wasn’t worth it to cause a fuss or ”any more aggro” about it and he’d just get on with it. She was clear that he had forced his hand between her legs and she had just let it continue. He would not stop despite being told to stop and he was being rough. From her evidence, as I have discussed, she minimised this behaviour but she was clear that she asked him to stop and was reluctant. Her oral evidence was consistent with her police statement and she did not seek to enhance it. She became upset when dealing with this issue. She admitted in her late statement that her behaviour was subtle. P denied this. There is insufficient evidence for me to make this finding but in relation to general sexual boundaries and behaviour I make more generalised findings at the end of this section and additionally I have already addressed my concerns about the household before addressing the disputed items. 12. On at least one occasion, Father was seated in a chair with only his dressing gown on and with his legs open, showing himself to be naked from the waist down, stroking his penis whilst watching his phone. K, M and L were playing in the same room as Father whilst he did this D saw this behaviour on the CCTV in K 2023-2024. P was looking at his phone and stroking his semi erect penis and the children were close to him. She told him to stop by text and he stopped and covered himself up, then denied doing it. She felt he was ashamed and embarrassed. P initially denied and admitted only scratching but later admitted masturbating and not being certain that he was alone. I have already addressed this earlier in my analysis and I make this finding, the evidence in support is clear including the text message sent by D. 13. Father has on occasion masturbated until the point of ejaculation and encouraged or allowed the family dogs to lick the semen off his testes / groin. D had seen P masturbating on camera with the dogs present “ there were times when obviously he’d have his member out, erm, and like he’d allow the dogs to lick him, erm, yeah and it was just … he’d act as if he wasn’t aware if I’d caught him…sometimes it would be that he’d be in the kitchen and the dog would be licking his penis and he’d, you know, get a hard on cos the dog’s licking his penis…” P denied encouraging or allowing the dogs to lick him. There is insufficient evidence for me to make this particular finding but in relation to general sexual boundaries and behaviour I make more generalised findings at the end of this section and additionally I have already addressed my concerns about the household before addressing the disputed items. 14. Mother found K with her legs apart and allowing a family dog (Jasper) to lick her genitals on one occasion. Mother told K that this was not appropriate behaviour but failed to take any adequate actions to ensure that K and the dog were not left alone together again to ensure that this behaviour did not repeat. In fact, K was found in the same compromising position on two occasions following the first event mother observed. Mother accepts that this happened on at least two occasions with a third attempt by K which she stopped. This is admitted and I make the finding. 15. Mother failed to adequately address the sexualised behaviour of K with the family dog with K, or seek advice from her GP, Health Visitor or social care as appropriate to help with this issue. This is admitted and I make the finding. 17. Sexual Activity with K: (i) Father has held K’s hands above her head, lifted her leg and touched her genital area with his hands There is insufficient evidence for me to make this finding but in relation to general sexual boundaries and behaviour I make more generalised findings at the end of this section and additionally I have already addressed my concerns about the household before addressing the disputed items. (ii) K has rubbed a sex toy on her genital area whilst with her mother I accept the social worker’s evidence that K told her that she rubbed a sex toy on her genital area and indicated that she did this with her mother but I am not satisfied that the actual occurrence of any such event is proven to the civil burden of proof. K did not repeat the allegation at any stage beyond the initial disclosure. I do consider that the local authority acted entirely properly in view of K’s disclosures. I do not make a finding that D [or father] has sexually abused K. I do, however, accept that K has engaged in the sexualised language and actions concerning the vibrator as I accept the social worker’s and D’s evidence of the same. GENERAL ADDITIONAL FINDINGS OF INAPPROPRIATE SEXUALISED BEHAVIOUR OF ADULTS CAUSING HARM TO THE CHILDREN: I am not satisfied that the burden of proof has been satisfied in relation to the specific matters mentioned in this section but I am satisfied that the parents conduct has at times been inappropriate and I make alternative / additional findings: That the children have been exposed to inappropriate sexualised behaviour by P due to the lack of suitable boundaries and protection in particular on occasions when he was touching himself on the sofa and when he allowed the dogs to come into contact with or close to his penis. P has also behaved recklessly in masturbating whilst in the lounge when unaware of the precise whereabouts of the children and whether they could be present or watching. I make an additional finding that K has been exposed to inappropriate sexualised behaviour by D due to the lack of suitable boundaries and protection potentially when she has used her vibrator when unaware of the precise whereabouts of the children and whether they could be present or watching or by K viewing porn. I am satisfied that K knew the basic function of a vibrator, that it should be rubbed on her genital area, and this could only have been behaviour learned from watching D or viewed on porn; the pink vibrator was not owned when the parents lived together. I make an additional finding that there was a lack of cohesive and appropriate boundaries in the household and the children were exposed to a risk of sexual harm due to the parents own sexual behaviour, lack of protection for the children, lack of acknowledgment of risk and failure to take the children’s sexualised behaviour seriously and make adequate enquiries. PARENTAL MENTAL HEALTH: 19 (vii) Father has been diagnosed with a Semantic Pragmatic Disorder which impacts upon his functioning in that he presents with problems with his social skills, communication and inflexibility of thought. P in his written evidence did not accept his mental health had any impact upon the threshold criteria and invited the local authority to evidence facts linking his mental health to threshold as pleaded. During P’s oral evidence, when being asked about struggling to care for the children he admitted that he could not manage all 4 children together and that he thought K and L needed to work on their own relationship before he saw them and accepted he needed parenting work. When asked whether it was the parent’s job to make them behave better he said that he had done his best but “it’s overwhelming with my disorder.” He admitted this finding and that the link to threshold is established by his explanation in oral evidence of how his additional needs fed into his responses to D and the children 20 (v) Father would smack the children if he thought they were misbehaving on the head, and sometimes more than once. He would also firmly tap/smack them on the legs or arms to get their attention, sometimes with too much force. (vi) In October 2024 K and L were fighting and Father firmly tapped/smackedthem on the head several times, but this did not stop them fighting. Father separated them by pulling them or carrying them to their rooms by their arms and by using more force than he needed and L’s arm was bruised by his actions. These occurrence of events were agreed, the only area of dispute appeared to be whether the children were tapped or smacked. D’s evidence was sometimes it left a red mark and it was audible. P demonstrated a firm tap but also accepted that he may have used too much force. The phrase firmly tapped/smacked is inserted in the findings, it makes minor difference. In February 2024 Father became frustrated and upset as he found out that mother knew about a child in need meeting that was coming up. He shouted at D, slammed his fists on the work top in the kitchen and behaved aggressively. This is clear from the video and I make the finding. (vi) On the [02.2024] Father again argued with D, called mother names and behaved aggressively. This is clear from the video and I make the finding. WELFARE CONSIDERATIONS[62]The order which is sought in relation to all four children is a profound order which would result in the loss for them of a chance to be brought up by their own mother or father at this time. To make such an order I must be satisfied that it is both necessary and proportionate to the gravity of the harm which they would suffer if I do not. I must be satisfied that all avenues have been explored to allow them to be cared for by their mother, including with the provision of appropriate services. In view of D’s late change of position and indeed the duty upon the court to choose the best option for these children, I still need to consider and address the welfare issues.[63]Here I am weighing up two realistic options; D who despite her later position dearly wishes to care for her children and a placement remaining with their present relative carers with whom they have lived since October 2024. Whichever option I approve, they will have the benefit of remaining within their family long term which is a great positive. They will have regular contact with their mother and if appropriate and safe, their father.[64]It is in that context that I should consider the capacity of D and anyone else I think relevant to meet those needs. Firstly, I will note that until the final hearing D disputed parts of the threshold which I have found proven, mainly in relation to issues concerning failures to protect and act appropriately. The fact that she still disputed these matters raises concerns that she does not fully appreciate the risks. P of course denied most allegations until very late and many have been found proven as I have stated. This raises significant concerns about his honesty, understanding and ability to protect the children as well as his continued placing of blame on the children or their mother and his failure to take personal responsibility. It is noted that it is only after the allegations were made that D sought to end the relationship with P, that she initially maintained contact with him and that it took her some time before she spoke openly about the nature of their relationship.[65]The Local Authority has prepared a detailed analysis of the options for the children in the final SWET, likewise the Guardian in her Final Analysis. I agree with the conclusions therein.[66]Contact with D is presently twice each week and the local authority’s final plan was for contact to take place on a monthly basis. The guardian recommended fortnightly and the local authority agreed, with the frequency to be reconsidered at the fortnightly stage, some weeks into the final plan implementation. D sought flexibility – “as and when” but wanted three times each week and to include putting them “to bed at least twice a week, and do a nice activity with them at the weekend, as we would normally do, and go out for the day.” This is wholly unrealistic. I agree entirely with the guardian in her analysis that contact should be at least fortnightly and “be dependent on the arrangements and how long the duration could be. The children are within a family placement, with their mother living locally with risks that can be managed, as D has not done anything to undermine the safety planning for the children. A limited amount of contact within a family placement could risk the children wanting to gravitate back to their mother as they grow older, if their relationship is not suitably promoted, and risks them feeling resentment towards their grandparents if they feel they are prevented from having a relationship with their mother. I have the view that the children’s mother visiting them at maternal grandparents’ home, whilst would be more convenient, would not be recommended as this could confuse matters in terms of their main carer, but also may undermine the guidance and boundaries that [MGPs] have in place.” I accept that at least fortnightly contact, of at least 1.5 hours but potentially with varying durations dependent upon plans and supervision is the appropriate level to balance their time, relationships and need for security and routine. The local authority with the input of the family will be able to make suitable arrangements for contact as the children grow and develop.[67]Regarding the time with P, I agree with the guardian and the Local Authority’s view that only indirect would be appropriate initially. Their plan stated “The children require their time with their father to be re-introduced, but also be offered a child-friendly explanation about why they have not had any communication with their father in over a year, to prevent them feeling a sense of rejection. P also needs to be able to show an acceptance to the impact on the children based on their lived experience, and his responsibility with this. However, once this is in place and implemented, it could be considered following this whether direct contact would be appropriate for each child individually (as the feelings for each child would differ due to their different relationship they had with their father).” Happily, indirect contact has commenced, and the local authority continue to plan for future contact. It would be useful if they could set out a basic plan, subject to the progress and children’s needs merely as a guide.[68]I did not require the local authority to prepare a swift reconciliation roadmap for D as suggested by her, as there are numerous issues which need to be addressed and considered in respect of potential support, therapy and work, for both parents and children alike, over a significant period of time. To set out a road map at this time would be rushed and based on an unclear picture, and could be disruptive or cause problems later with misunderstandings. There should be time allowed after this decision for matters to settle and for contact and its progress to be assessed before future planning. I stress that the court does not make short term care orders, the order which I make will be on the basis that it will last until the children achieve their majority without a plan of rehabilitation, but of course matters will be reviewed and plans can be challenged if appropriate. A document setting out the general nature of what D (and P) need to do to improve themselves and indeed for contact would however be useful for them following these proceedings.

THE WELFARE CHECKLIST

[69]All four children are very comfortable and settled with their grandparents. K is happy living with them and does not want things to change. She did not mention her father to the guardian. J would like to live with his mum and see his father L and M are too young to properly express their own wishes and feelings verbally. They would most likely wish to be brought up by one of their birth parents. They are all dependent on their carers.[70]They have been protected from harm since being in the care of the grandparents. If I do not make orders which sufficiently protect them, this failure would leave them exposed to future harm from the matters which I have set out in relation to the threshold.[71]The flipside of course is that the local authority’s plan, which would have them remain placed with the grandparents, exposes them to the possible long-term harm which will flow from being separated from the care of a parent, and in particular, the harm that that can do to a child’s sense of their own identity. This would of course be alleviated by contact. It may well be necessary for the children to have individual separate plans for contact with their father depending upon their reactions and with D if she remains unable to truly work as a family unit during contact. All this can be reviewed as time progresses.[72]Their physical, emotional, educational needs are essentially those of any other children of their age, having regard to their age and characteristics. They are receiving appropriate support for their learning needs. They need attention to be paid to their physical and emotional health, they need to be protected from harm, they need to have opportunities to socialise and learn, and commitment from their carers to provide them with what they need for the whole of their childhood. At home now, they have clear boundaries in place but a high level of emotional warmth. Feedback from J’s and K’s school mirrors what was reported by the grandparents, that they appear much more settled. There have also been improvements observed by school in terms of the children’s presentation, punctuality and having necessary items available. If they remain with the maternal grandparents they will not be subjected to change. The evidence of the social worker was that there have been great improvements in the children’s presentation and relationships with each other whilst in foster care and this can continue if they remain with their carers.[73]Given the harm suffered in the care of P and D, as I have found established in the threshold, they are at risk of suffering further harm. In view of D’s failures to protect her children, which was only partially or latterly accepted by her, no support would be able to protect them at this time given that the recommended work is of significant length, outside the children’s timescales.[74]Sadly at this time neither parent is able to care for the children but they have both recognised this and I give them credit for this. They now need to support the children in placement and promote this to them, making no attempts to unsettle them by any talk of change or return home without the express agreement of the local authority after all work and necessary consequent reassessment had been completed.[75]I have considered all of the options for placement of the children in accordance with Re B. The best place for any child would be within a child’s birth family unless there were clear welfare grounds to prefer an alternative. I have considered the detailed analysis of the options, by both the LA and the Guardian. I endorse their recommendations and accept their analysis. The proposed family placement is the best option for these children. It will provide the stability and security they need and will enable them to maintain links with their parents and within the extended family.

ORDERS, SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING COMMENTS

[76]I make the findings as stated and final care orders.[77]I approve the plans including the amendments to the contact plans[78]This concludes my judgment HHJ Shelley Hesford 8 October 2025