Girl (allegations of sexual abuse), Re [2026] EWFC 102 (B)

Case No RG25C50117[2026] EWFC 102 (B)Date 9 April 2026
IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING AT READING
Before
HHJ Vincent
Between
A LOCAL AUTHORITYApplicantA MOTHERRespondentRespondent motherRespondentA FATHERRespondentGIRL ARespondentGIRL B, BOY C, GIRL D, BOY E & BOY FRespondent(through their Children’s Guardian)RespondentTHERespondentA LOCAL AUTHORITYApplicantA MOTHERRespondent motherA FATHERSecond respondent fatherGIRL AThird respondent childGIRL B, BOY C, GIRL D, BOY E & BOY F(through their Children’s Guardian)Fourth to Eighth respondent childrenTHE INTERVENORIntervenor
Janet Mitchell instructed by the Applicant local authorityStephen Crispin instructed by Rowbery Morris, solicitors for first respondent motherDavid Marusza instructed by Careys Law, solicitors for second respondent fatherAlice Darian instructed by RWK Goodman solicitors for third respondent childEleanor Howard instructed by Oxford Law Group solicitors for fourth to eighth respondent childrenThe intervenor represented himself at the hearing.Hearing Hearing dates: 23 to 27 March and 9 April 2026
Approved JudgmentThis judgment was handed down on 9 April 2026 by circulation to the parties or their representatives by e-mail and was subsequently released to the National Archives..............................This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.
[1]I am concerned with a large family, a sibling group of nine children.[2]The adult children are: [the intervenor], male, aged 22; [older son G], male, aged 20 [older daughter H], female, aged 18[3]The younger children are: [Girl B], a girl, aged 17 [Girl A], a girl, aged 16 [Boy C], a boy, aged 13 [Girl D], a girl, aged 11 [Boy E], a boy, aged 7 [Boy F], a boy, aged 6[4]The children’s parents are their mother, who is 42, and the father, who is 45. The parents are from [country name redacted]. They moved to live in England during the year of 2014. At the start of 2014 their oldest son [the intervenor] was 10, [Girl A] was 4, and their youngest child was [Boy C], aged fourteen months. The three youngest children were born in the UK.[5]Since arriving in the UK the family have experienced multiple house moves, and have often lived in very cramped accommodation. More recently they have lived in a home at [address anonymised], where they moved to from [Town A] in around 2024.[6]The family appear to be known to the local authority since 2022, after a referral was made when one of the adult siblings was assaulted. Since then there have been intermittent referrals from housing, schools and the police in relation to arguments in the family home, instability of housing, and the younger carer roles for the children. It is not known if other local authorities had involvement when the families were living in different areas.[7]The precipitating event for these proceedings is an allegation made by [Girl A] that her oldest brother, [the intervenor] had sexually abused her between the age of around six or seven until she was around thirteen or fourteen years old.[8]The allegation had surfaced previously, at the end of March 2025, when one of [Girl A]’s school friends reported to a teacher that [Girl A] had previously told her she had been raped by her brother. [Girl A] was spoken to by teachers, but denied she had been sexually assaulted.[9]In June 2025, the allegation was renewed. This time, [Girl A] took part in a pre-interview assessment at her school, conducted by the police, in the presence of two teachers. Contemporaneous notes record her saying, in response to questions, that she had been sexually abused over a period of years by her brother.[10]Thereafter, she has not given a full video recorded interview, nor provided a witness statement, or otherwise given direct evidence in respect of the allegations she recounted at school.[11]More than that, at the fact-finding hearing she has asserted to the Court through her legal representatives, that the allegations she made were not true.[12]The local authority in this case says that notwithstanding the absence of a direct account from [Girl A] to the Court, and despite her retraction, there is sufficient evidence in this case to enable the Court to find that the essential element of her allegation of abuse is true. The local authority asserts that [Girl A] has been subject to significant pressure from her family, both direct, and from perhaps more subtle emotional and cultural influence, not to speak to others about her allegations, and to withdraw them.[13]At the outset of proceedings in June 2025, the Court made interim care orders in respect of [Girl A], and she went to live in foster care. [the intervenor]and his wife moved out of the family home to a hotel at first, and then to their own home. A prohibited steps orders and a non-molestation order were made, providing that [the intervenor] should not have contact with any of his younger siblings. All other children have remained at home, and there have been no concerns about the care they have received from their parents.[14][Girl A] experienced a number of placement moves, and on 1 December 2025 she returned home, albeit the care order remained in place. The local authority continued to search for alternative placements, but did not find one until nearly three months later. [Girl A], by now sixteen, signed herself into the care of the local authority on 26 February 2026.[15]The case comes before the Court for a fact-finding hearing. The law Threshold pleadings

The law

[16]The applications for public law orders are made pursuant to section 31 of the Children Act 1989. The Court only has jurisdiction to make a public law order if the threshold test set out in section 31(2) for making orders is crossed: A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied—(a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and(b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to— (i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or (ii) the child’s being beyond parental control.

Burden and standard of proof

[17]In Re A [2015] EWFC 11 (sometimes referred to as the Darlington case), Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division at that time, emphasised (at paragraph 9), ‘the elementary proposition that findings of fact must be based on evidence (including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence) and not on suspicion or speculation.’ And later in the same paragraph:
‘It is a common feature of care cases that a local authority asserts that a parent does not admit, recognise or acknowledge something or does not recognise or acknowledge the local authority’s concern about something. If the ‘thing’ is put in issue, the local authority must both prove the ‘thing’ and establish that it has the significance attributed to it by the local authority.’
[18]Further, the Court must be astute to analyse the findings and to determine whether, having made all (or some) of the findings, each of the elements of section 31 is met, and the threshold for making public law orders is crossed.[19]In two separate cases in which allegations of sexual abuse were made (Re P (sexual abuse (fact finding) [2019] EWFC 27 and AS v TH (false allegations of abuse) [2016] EWHC 532 Fam), Macdonald J set out fully the approach he suggests the Court should adopt in a fact-finding exercise of this nature, in the process providing a comprehensive review of case law and research. These judgments are essential pre-reading for any judge carrying out a fact-finding exercise of the sort that I am engaged in.[20]I have read and considered these cases afresh for the purpose of guiding my approach in this case. I direct myself to hold in mind all that he says as I evaluate the evidence in the case, but have highlighted below those paragraphs from each case which have particular relevance to my task.[21]With reference to both the allegations of sexual abuse and the allegations of failure to protect, the law is well-established, here summarised by Macdonald J in AS v TH at paragraphs 23 onwards:23. The burden of proving a fact is on the party asserting that fact. To prove the fact asserted that fact must be established on the balance of probabilities. The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. As has been observed, "Common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question regard should be had, to whatever extent appropriate, to inherent probabilities" (Re B [2008] UKHL 35 at [15]).24. The decision on whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard must be based on all of the available evidence and should have regard to the wide context of social, emotional, ethical and moral factors (A County Council v A Mother, A Father and X, Y and Z [2005] EWHC 31 (Fam)). Where the evidence of a child stands only as hearsay, the court weighing up that evidence has to take into account the fact that it was not subject to cross-examination (Re W (Children)(Abuse: Oral Evidence) [2010] 1 FLR 1485).25. 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).26. The court must not evaluate and assess the available evidence in separate compartments. Rather, regard must be had 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 whether the case put forward has been made out on the balance of probabilities (Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838 at [33]).27. There is no room for a finding by the court that something might have happened. The court may decide that it did or that it did not (Re B [2008] UKHL 35 at [2]). However, failure to find a fact proved on the balance of probabilities does not equate without more to a finding that the allegation is false (Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 388).[22]The burden of proof rests on the local authority. There is no obligation on a respondent to provide, much less to prove, an alternative explanation for the allegations made. Further: [G]reat care should be taken before deciding that an obviously unsatisfactory explanation provided and pursued by a respondent, or the failure to provide and pursue an explanation for a given allegation, is evidence of culpability. A blameless person may cast around for all manner of explanations simply as a means of seeking to understand the situation in which they find themselves but in respect of which they have no culpable knowledge. Likewise, the failure by a person to provide any explanation at all may be indicative of culpability where the situation in question would ordinarily admit of one, but it may also be indicative of no more than bare ignorance borne out of innocence. (Re P (sexual abuse (fact finding) [2019] EWFC 27 at paragraph 246).[23]It is for the Court to assess the credibility of a witness’s evidence. No weight should be given to the opinions of others about the credibility of a particular witness.[24]The Court should consider how much weight to attach to discrepancies in accounts between witnesses or from one witness at different times. See Re A (A Child) [2020] EWCA Civ 1230 and in Lancashire v R[2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam): per Mostyn J: [8]… (xi) The assessment of credibility generally involves wider problems than mere “demeanour” which is mostly concerned with whether the witness appears to be telling the truth as he now believes it to be. With every day that passes the memory becomes fainter and the imagination becomes more active. The human capacity for honestly believing something which bears no relation to what actually happened is unlimited.”[25]See also Peter Jackson J (as he then was) in LCC v The Children (2014) EWHC 3 (Fam) about the notion of ‘story creep’: [9] To these matters I would only add that in cases where repeated accounts are given of events surrounding injury and death 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 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 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 which might inelegantly described as “story creep” – may occur without any inference of bad faith. Allegations of sexual abuse[26]At paragraphs 23 of AS v TH:30. In accordance with the foregoing general principles, when assessing whether or not allegations of sexual abuse are proved to the requisite standard, the court should focus on all of the relevant evidence in the case, including that from the alleged perpetrator and family members (see Re I-A (Allegations of Sexual Abuse) [2012] 2 FLR 837).31. The court should adopt a two-stage process. First, is there evidence of sexual abuse? If so, is there evidence of the identity of the perpetrator (Re H (Minors); Re K (Minors)(Child Abuse: Evidence) [1989] 2 FLR 313 and Re H and R (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1995] 1 FLR 643).

Hearsay evidence

[27]Care must be taken where evidence comes from a child. Per Baker LJ, Y and E (Children) (Sexual abuse allegations), Re [2019] EWCA Civ 206:
‘In most cases, there will be no physical evidence of sexual abuse, and the evidence will often consist only of statements made by the child. Evaluating that evidence can be extremely challenging, especially where the child is very young, and/or if, as in most cases, he or she is not called to give evidence in court and therefore not subjected to cross-examination. Frequently, there will be concerns that the child may have been influenced by other people when making the allegations, particularly if they arise in the context of disputes between parents. Unpicking what exactly the child said when and to whom, often through layers of hearsay, can be very difficult.’
[28]At paragraph 259 of Re P, Macdonald J expands more fully on the challenges of assessing evidence of a child whose evidence has not been tested by cross-examination:259. In family proceedings, evidence given in connection with the welfare of a child is admissible notwithstanding any rule relating to the law of hearsay (see the Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993). The weight to be attached to a piece of hearsay evidence is a question for the court to decide (Re W (Fact Finding: Hearsay Evidence) [2014] 2 FLR 703). Within this context, a serious unsworn allegation may be accepted by the court provided it is evaluated against testimony on oath (Re H (Change of Care Plan) [1998] 1 FLR 193). It is very important to bear in mind at all times that the court is required to treat hearsay evidence anxiously and consider carefully the extent to which it can properly be relied upon (see R v B County Council ex parte P [1991] 1 WLR 221).260. In this case, these principles are thrown into particularly sharp relief in circumstances where none of the children who have made allegations of sexual abuse have given oral evidence at this hearing and been cross-examined on behalf of those against whom they level those allegations. Mr Bagchi and Ms Bains, citing the American jurist John Henry Wigmore, who observed that "Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth", remind the court that oral evidence given under cross-examination reflects the long-established common-law consensus that the best way of assessing the reliability of evidence is by confronting the witness (see Carmarthenshire County Council v Y & Others [2017] EWFC 36 at [8] per Mostyn J). Within this context, I remind myself that the Court of Appeal has made clear that where the evidence of a child stands only as hearsay, the court weighing up the evidence must consider the fact that it was not subject to cross-examination (Re W [2010] 1 FLR 1485). I make clear that I have done so.261. In circumstances where, in this case, the allegations are comprised of hearsay evidence from children concerning (at least in respect of the children) events which are alleged to have occurred some years prior to the allegations being made, I also remind myself that a court considering the hearsay evidence of a child must consider not only what the child has said, but also the circumstances in which it was said (R v B County Council, ex parte P [1991] 1 FLR 470) and, again, that it has long been recognised that care must be taken not to focus attention on statements made by the child at the expense of other evidence (1997 Handbook of Best Practice in Children Act Cases).[29]Macdonald J refers to academic research about memory, serious case reviews and the consequential guidance in respect of evaluating children’s allegations and achieving best evidence from children, and the need for caution. At paragraph 6 of Re P: ‘More generally, human memory is not a single, simple system. What is remembered of an experience by a child or young person, will not be a complete picture akin to a photograph or CCTV recording, and will vary depending on the age at which the experience took place. What an adult may consider to be a key element of a remembered experience, and therefore key to assessing reliability of the memory, may not be significant from the child’s perspective. The psychological processes involved in encoding, storage and retrieval of memories are susceptible to internal and external influences. With all this context, children’s accounts can be affected by their level of functioning, their emotional state and the levels of suggestibility. It is possible for a child to ‘remember’ an event that has not in fact occurred, or it has not occurred precisely in the way remembered. The child’s recollection of past experience can be influenced by the process of questioning the child.’ 30. Between paragraphs 572 and 860 of Re P, Macdonald J sets out comprehensively the factors to take into consideration and a suggested approach to handling allegations of sexual abuse, initial contact with children alleging abuse, record keeping, social work intervention and assessment and ABE guidance, referring to the Cleveland and Orkney Enquiries, academic research and previous case law. At paragraph 577 (and repeated at 854), he took judicial notice of the following: 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 interviewer. 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 interviewed will have a profound effect on the accuracy of the child’s testimony.

Keeping an open mind

[31]Macdonald J identifies ‘the manifest dangers’ from adopting an approach that the child is to be believed. At paragraph 579, he refers to the Cleveland Enquiry which made plain that:
‘Throughout the phase of the initial assessment and preliminary decision-making, social workers should be conscious of the fact that the presumption that the 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 facts of abuse to them.’
[32]Within the same paragraph he highlights guidance from the Orkney Enquiry, that all those involved in investigating allegations of child sexual abuse must, ‘keep an open mind and not fall into the trap of confusing the taking of what a child says seriously with believing what the child has said. …. ‘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.’[33]Macdonald J then draws a number of threads together, and summarises considerations which the Court must have in mind when evaluating the evidence of a child who has made allegations of sexual abuse (at paragraphs 600-601): 600. Having regard to the matters set out in this section of the judgment, in evaluating the weight that can be attached to the allegations made by [named children] [...] and in summary, the court must consider the extent to which the following principles have been adhered to: i) Having regard to research into the manner in which a child registers, processes and recalls experiences from memory and the factors that may influence that recollection, and to long experience that emphasises the high level of caution that needs to be applied if the risk of obtaining unreliable evidence is to be minimised, very great care must be taken by adults when speaking to children who have made allegations of sexual abuse, and when analysing and assessing the weight to be given to statements by those children. ii) Adults speaking to children who have made allegations of sexual abuse must always be careful to keep an open mind with respect to the allegations made and to guard against the development of bias or preconceived ideas. The child should be listened to and taken seriously whilst care is taken not to prejudge the issue. iii) Adults speaking to a child who is alleging sexual abuse should not stop free recall of events. iv) Adults speaking to a child who is alleging sexual abuse should ask no more questions than are necessary in the circumstances to take immediate action. v) Where it is necessary to ask questions, adults speaking to a child who is alleging sexual abuse should, as far as possible in the circumstances, ask only open-ended or specific closed questions, rather than forced-choice, leading or multiple questions. 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. 601. It is important to emphasise that in evaluating the extent to which those charged with, or finding themselves receiving allegations from children, have complied with these principles the court does not expect perfection and it would be unrealistic to do so. As Mr Vater and Mr Watson remind the court, complete adherence to ‘guidelines’ does not mean that an allegation is true; wholesale failure to adhere to ‘guidelines’ does not mean that an allegation is false. In the paper provided to the court by Mr Bagchi and Ms Bains, Children’s Suggestibility Research: Things to know before interviewing a child (Anuario de Psicología Jurídica 25 (2015) 3-12) Ceci and his co-authors make clear that it is important not to discount a child’s testimony merely because that child has been exposed to suggestive questioning. The Court must consider a whole range of factors.

Failure to protect

[34]In Re L-W (children) [2019] EWCA Civ 159 Lady Justice King said (at paragraph 64): 64. Any Court conducting a Finding of Fact Hearing should be alert to the danger of such a serious finding becoming 'a bolt on' to the central issue of perpetration or of falling into the trap of assuming too easily that, if a person was living in the same household as the perpetrator, such a finding is almost inevitable. As Aikens LJ observed in Re J, "nearly all parents will be imperfect in some way or another". Many households operate under considerable stress and men go to prison for serious crimes, including crimes of violence, and are allowed to return home by their long-suffering partners upon their release. That does not mean that for that reason alone, that parent has failed to protect her children in allowing her errant partner home, unless, by reason of one of the facts connected with his offending, or some other relevant behaviour on his part, those children are put at risk of suffering significant harm.[35]I take from this that any finding that a non-perpetrating parent failed to protect their children from harm, must be made with care. An approach akin to that set out in Re A above is required; to spell out the acts or omissions of the parents that constitute a failure to protect, the significant harm (or risk thereof) that has been caused as a result of those acts or omissions, and that this constitutes a standard of parenting that is below what might reasonably be expected.

The evidence

[36]I have read all the documents in the bundle and paid particular consideration to those which I have been directed to read with more attention, or to which I have been referred during the oral evidence. I heard oral evidence from the following witnesses: - Ms M, head of [Girl A]’s year at [School X], and deputy designated safeguarding lead; - Ms S, former Vice Principal at [School X]; - Ms F, Principal of [School X]; - Detective Constable W, Thames Valley Police; - Ms U, civil officer, Thames Valley Police; - Ms A, social worker; - The intervenor; - The mother; - The father[37]Both parents were ably assisted throughout the proceedings, and especially when giving evidence, by the court appointed interpreters, Ms S for the mother and Mr K for the father. I am most grateful to both for their expertise and hard work throughout, simultaneously translating from [parents’ language] to English, and seamlessly switching to English to [parents’ language] in the next breath.

Witnesses from [School X] and from Thames Valley police

[38]I am satisfied that the three witnesses from [Girl A]’s school and the two police officers all did their level best to assist the Court by giving their recollections of the conversations they had, without agenda. Their evidence was helpful to enable me to put together a timeline of what was said and when, and to sketch out in broad terms the conversations they had with [Girl A] and her friends.[39]Ms M and Ms S, who know [Girl A] and her friends, were also able to give helpful context, by describing the dynamics of their friendship groups and some of their interactions before and after the allegations were made.[40]The notes of the conversations that these witnesses had with [Girl A] about her allegations directly are important, and have been subject to particular scrutiny in this case, because they represent the only evidence of [Girl A]’s allegations.[41]However, caution is required when reviewing these notes, for the following reasons: - the various notes are plainly not a verbatim account of the interviews, and do not include everything that [Girl A] or others said; - The notes are summaries of what was said, and inevitably the person taking the note has put down those parts of what [Girl A] said that they consider to be the most significant; - The teachers uploaded their accounts onto the school ‘CPOMS’ system shortly after the conversations took place, having discussed together their memories and prompted one another to try and make as accurate a record as possible. The original handwritten notes were not kept; - The police notes are handwritten, with obvious gaps and shorthand. They give a flavour, but are not an accurate account of the interviews – which are not for the purposes of recording a detailed account, but are for the purposes of making an initial assessment; - Records exist in respect of these conversations, but [Girl A] and others are likely to have had conversations about the allegations which we do not have records of. Those conversations may have taken place on the phone, by text message or in person. I am looking at just a snapshot of interactions; - At the time they were talking to [Girl A], these adults did not (and should not have) had in mind that they were collecting evidence for future proceedings in the family or criminal jurisdiction. When an allegation of sexual abuse is made the adult may be asking questions to elicit the essential elements of an offence, but will also be considering things such as assessing the child’s physical and emotional well-being, whether it is safe for them to go home, will be wanting to reassure the child about the next steps, while formulating that plan in their minds as they are speaking to her, and considering who else needs to be contacted, or what other things need to be done.[42]As these are the only records we have of what [Girl A] said, I set out at length below each of the times that [Girl A] or others have mentioned the allegations.[43]On 28 March 2025, a child, C1, went to see the Principal, Ms F, after school (somewhere around 4.20 p.m.), to tell her that the previous evening, another girl, C6, had an altercation with [Girl A], and afterwards, C6 and C1 had spoken on the phone. C1 said that C6 told her that [Girl A] had been raped by her brother. Ms F made an entry on the school CPOMS system at 5.42 p.m., noting that C1 had ‘made a disclosure’ that [Girl A] was ‘allegedly raped’ by her brother. However, the note of the words used by C1 does not include the word rape. It is recorded that C1 said that C6 had told her that [Girl A]’s brother, ‘had been touching her when she was young - when she was about 5’, and that [Girl A], ‘did not know if she was a virgin because she would wake up and she would find her brother in her bed with her.’ There is some confusion with the identities of the children, but it appears that C1 reported that it was another child, C2, who told this to N.[44]Ms F immediately made a referral to Ms S. The next entry in the CPOMS records is at 5.22 p.m. on 28 March noting a conversation between C1, Ms S and Ms M. C1 is reported to have said that C6 told her [Girl A]’s brother was ‘inappropriately touching [Girl A] when she was 5 years old and when she woke up he was next to her’, ‘that [Girl A] was raped by her brother’, and that the family, ‘got the brother married to stop him touching [Girl A]’.[45]At 6.06 p.m. Ms F called the police and obtained a crime reference number.[46]The next entry on the CPOMS is at 6.13 p.m., reporting a conversation at 5.46 p.m. between Ms S, Ms M, and C2. C2 said that she never said to C6 that [Girl A] had been inappropriately touched or raped by her brother. C2 said that she and C6 were talking in [language anonymised], C6’s [language anonymised] was not good, and there had likely been a language misunderstanding. C2 is reported to have said only that [Girl A] had family problems and was going through a lot.[47]Within the same entry, there is a note of a conversation at 6.10 p.m. between Ms S, Ms M and [Girl A]. The note of [Girl A]’s conversation with Ms S and Ms M reads as follows:
‘I asked [Girl A] if she had been inappropriately touched by her brother at any time in her life. She said no. I asked [Girl A] if she had been raped by her brother. She said no. [Girl A] said she was really embarrassed being asked these questions and that they were not true. She said today her brother’s wife who was 7 months pregnant had gone to the hospital to have an enforced miscarriage. I told [Girl A] that the allegations were extremely serious and it was our job to ensure she was safe. [Girl A] said she was safe at home. I told [Girl A] that we may have to call the police and social services. [Girl A] asked me if they would contact her dad that weekend, I said that this was unlikely. I asked [Girl A] again if she was safe to go home and she said she was.’
[48]The police attended school on 2 April. Ms M stayed in the room while the police spoke to [Girl A], and later entered a note onto the CPOMS system as follows:
‘[Girl A] said the disclosure is false and that her brother has neither touched her inappropriately or raped her. [Girl A] was advised to either call 101 or use 101 online if ever she does feel unsafe at home. The police asked if the students who made the disclosure had written statements, and that they will be contacting Ms S – DSL After meeting with the police, [Girl A] said she does not believe [C1/C2] said anything of the sort to C6 as [C1/C2] is [Girl A]’s best friend.’
[49]I have not seen any statements from C1, C2, C6, and do not understand that such statements were obtained.[50]The handwritten notes from the police notebook do not contradict the CPOMS record, but include different details. They record a conversation that started at 11.39 a.m. and finished at 11.47 a.m. [Girl A] is noted to have said that home was fine, her parents’ relationship was ‘alright’, she didn’t really talk to them, her brothers and sisters were ok. She is noted to have said she was close with one younger sister and described her older sister as a ‘snitch.’ She said ‘we just watch TV and chill.’ She said she was the favourite child, her parents were normal, she and her siblings used to go the park. In response to the account from her friend, [Girl A] is reported to have said:
‘She told me I got touched and raped by my brother. I kept asking the girl who I am best friend with where it came from? There was a girl who said she wanted to get raped by her dad, so think it came from that girl.’
[51]She is noted to have said that ‘6-7 people know and people keep asking are you ok?’[52]On 16 May 2025 [Girl A] and another girl at school, C6, were caught fighting in the school corridor. [Girl A]’s later account to Ms M was noted as follows:
‘In the corridor going to first lesson C6 gave me a dirty look I asked why she was being so rude. She replied ‘why are you so obsessed with me’
. Words were exchanged and C6 threatened to slap me. I walked towards her and told her to slap me then so she did. She grabbed onto my hair and so I grabbed onto hers and we started hitting each other and then she screamed out, ‘at least my brother does not rape me’, so I went up to her again, we started fighting again.’[53][Girl A] was excluded from school between 16 and 21 May 2025 as a result of the fight. It is not clear what follow up, if any, there was on that day about the suggestion that [Girl A] had been raped by her brother.[54][Girl A] would have been back in school for a couple of days before the week long May half term holiday. Term then resumed on Monday 2 June 2025. On 3 June, at about 2.30 p.m. [Girl A] and four other girls were found in the girls’ toilets, when they should have been in a lesson. They were described by Ms M as ‘extremely rude’, ‘aggressive and argumentative’. They were taken to the pastoral office to reflect on their behaviour. While they were sitting there one of the girls (C4) came out and said to staff that she had something urgent to say. She is reported to have said that the rumours about [Girl A] and her brother were true.[55][Girl A] was then spoken to by Ms S and Ms M. The CPOMS record of the conversation reads as follows: ‘[Ms S] & [Ms M] spoke to [Girl A] who said that it was true about her brother. She disclosed that he sexually assaulted her. [Ms S] asked [Girl A] if she understood what rape was, [Girl A] said she did not. [Ms S] explained rape is when a man puts his penis into a woman’s vagina without her permission. [Girl A] said that this did not happen. [Girl A] said that he touched her down there – pointing towards her vagina. [Ms S] asked if he touched her breasts, [Girl A] said yes [Ms S] asked if this was under her clothing, [Girl A] said yes [Ms S] asked if he touched her vagina, [Girl A] said yes [Ms S] asked if this was under her clothing, [Girl A] said yes [Ms S] asked if he put his fingers inside you, [Girl A] said she was not sure We asked how old she was when this happened, [Girl A] said 6 or 7 We asked when was the last time this happened, [Girl A] said when she was in Y8 – around 13 years old. She said he would come into her room and lay on top of her. [Girl A] said that she clearly told her brother no, that he had shown her porn videos and said, ‘that’s what I’m going to do to you’. [Girl A] described an occasion where her brother was laying on top of her and she screamed causing her parents to come into the room. They took her brother out of the room and spoke to him, and told [Girl A] not to seduce him and not to speak to anyone about it. [Girl A] said it has not happened since she was 13 but that her brother is weird. [Girl A] said she would lock her bedroom door at night because her brother still lives at home and that she still does this. [Girl A] said she did not want us to tell dad because he will literally kill her. We asked if she was safe to go home. Initially [Girl A] said yes, she then asked if she could stay at a friend’s house. We said she would need permission to stay at her friend’s house and that this would seem strange to her parents given that she has never stayed at a friend’s house before. [Girl A] was concerned that dad was waiting outside school and that we were going to tell him what she had said. We told [Girl A] we would not speak to dad that evening but could not promise her that at some point he might be made aware. We agreed to tell dad that she had been kept behind due to an ongoing argument between 2 groups of friends. [Ms M] rang dad at 4.30 p.m. dad was still in the car park so she walked [Girl A] to dad’s car. [Girl A] is really concerned because of the rumours going around school, that her sister will find out and tell dad – as previously her sister had told her dad when [Girl A] was talking to a boy. [Girl A] expressed her concern that her family will be split up if this came out which would bring shame on the family in the community. We spoke to C4 and C5 C4 was extremely upset and said she had known for a while and was encouraging [Girl A] to tell a staff member, but [Girl A] was concerned about her family being split up.[56]An arrangement was made for the police to attend school the following week, on 11 June 2025.[57]Ms S’s note on CPOMs entered at 6.09 p.m. records that Ms U and DC W from Thames Valley Police attended alongside [Ms A]. The note records that [Girl A] answered ‘all their questions, confirming that a sexual assault happened and her brother was the perpetrator’. It is noted that the police ‘did an honour based violence risk assessment.’ Ms S notes that [Girl A] said she would not support a criminal case against her brother because of his wife, who does not speak English, could not go back to [country name redacted], had recently had a miscarriage and was only 20 years old. The note goes on to say:
‘The police said they would have to speak to the other female children and make sure they are safe and have not been victims themselves [Girl A] was unhappy about this as she said they would tell dad. She repeatedly said that she was not safe to go home as dad would literally kill her if he found out she had been speaking about this in school. She said he threatened to kill her after her exclusion but was scared she would tell the school.’
[58][Girl A] is noted to have raised concerns about forced marriage and being tricked into going to [country name redacted] when she was of age which she was 16/17. The note reads, ‘[Girl A] said she is not allowed out, has no phone or laptop and has to wear what she is told to wear.’ She is reported to have said that her parents ‘support the [political party name redacted].’ The note continues, ‘[Girl A] was asked if she had brought dishonour on the family. She said I don’t believe that but my family does.’[59]The note then records that there were discussions between the police and children services about the best plan for [Girl A], it was agreed she would be put under police protection, and the local authority would find a temporary placement for her that evening. The parents were spoken to and told that [Girl A] would not be returning home.[60]DC W made a contemporaneous handwritten note of his and Ms U’s interview with [Girl A]. DC W is not trained in conducting ABE interviews of children, but was present in the capacity of note taker. He does have training in the investigation of rape and serious sexual offences. His handwritten note reads: when I was younger he touched me multiple times. First time I was 7 or 6. Stopped when I was 14. He touched me down there Under clothing. Clothes off. His as well. In my room. He’d tell me to help him clean Said he’d need to show me something This was in the UK. I don’t remember anything from my country. Came in [room ?] Brought up now? Best friend. Tell each other everything. I trusted her. She told other people and it’s spread. Got out of hand. Made feel anger. Still talking to this friend we are over [it] now She told other students How do you feel I don’t think about it much Have just talked about counselling he was naked were you naked? Yeah he touched me. I don’t remember much. Anything else? Not sure. There were parts when both our clothes were off Penetration? Has he put something inside you? I’m not sure What are your concerns about home? I don’t think you should talk to my sisters. It was my oldest brother, he’s married. Arranged. She’s from [country name redacted]. She is 20. We are worried that this is happening to them. I don’t think it’s happening to them What would you like to happen I’m not sure. What if we spoke to your brother Not a good idea. I think he’d probably kill me. We have honour killings in my country. Mum doesn’t speak English. I cant talk to mum. I don’t think she likes me. She’s told me to stay away from her other sons. She’s fair with my sisters. She doesn’t work. I have relatives in [location redacted], family in [country names redacted]. I don’t plan on ever going. In an ideal world where would you like to be? If I stay in that family they’re not going to like me. They don’t respect me. I’m not comfortable that you’ve got younger sisters and they may not be safe. Parents will find out. Mum is [?] with other family at school When you finish school, what do you do at home? I’m not allowed out, don’t have phone, not allowed at weekends Before they know about it I was allowed out What happened to brother when they found out? They shouted at him. I didn’t think they did much because it happened again The marriage happened to stop it It happened last time in [town name redacted] with the housing [?] I wouldn’t prefer to go home with dad Use mum’s laptop/sisters laptop to do homework, brothers have phones Wants to know before police talk to sister as she wouldn’t want to go home after.[61]DC W accepted in cross-examination that he had not noted all the questions and answers down, including the question that he accepted he had asked himself, about whether or not [Girl A] had ‘brought dishonour on the family’. It seems clear that there were some directive questions, for example, ‘penetration’, but also many of the answers above do seem likely to have been given in response to a prompt – clothes on or clothes off, when did it start and stop – in a similar way that [Girl A] was asked questions by Ms S in the earlier interview.[62]The next thing that happened was that [Girl A] was taken into police protection, followed by these proceedings being issued. [Girl A] remained in the care of the local authority.[63][Girl A] had made it clear in June that she did not wish to give an interview to the police, concerned that her older brother should not be at risk of prosecution. She had further conversations about that with her social worker, guardian, then her own solicitor. At one point an appointment was made for a private video recorded interview, but [Girl A] declined to attend.

Ms A, children’s social worker

[64]30 September 2025 Ms A had a WhatsApp video call with [Girl A] (although [Girl A]’s camera was off). In a subsequent statement, Ms A said she, ‘started a conversation with [Girl A] asking her to let me know more about her allegations and how she can support her allegations. I reminded [Girl A] that she has not attended police VRI and now she has refused to take part in the private VRI arranged through Triangle, so this will cause difficulties in evidencing her allegations. The conversation was meant to help [Girl A] think her options through and what it could mean for her.’[65]Ms A notes that [Girl A] said her allegations against her brother were ‘100% true, and that both her two sisters and [older son G] had witnessed the abuse. [Girl A] is recorded to say that she would do the VRI if this would help in the decision for her to be able to remain in care, but she does not want her brother to go to jail, so if her statements could be used to support that, she would not do the VRI.[66]Ms A goes on to record [Girl A] saying that she had been told by her parents to lie to everyone and say that she made up allegations against her brother because she wanted to have freedom, and her parents were strict, that [Girl A] should also say that she was talking to an older man and her brother had told her to stop talking to the older man, and this should be given as the reason for making up her allegations. [Girl A] said only her parents knew she had been talking to a boy for a year.[67]Ms A recorded that from the time [Girl A] returned home on 1 December 2025, she has sought to retract her allegations, and that she said she had made the allegations because she felt left out, wanted to socialise, wanted a mobile phone and to go out with her friends. On 2 December, in the presence of her family, Ms A reports that [Girl A] said, ‘I am taking back my words, and nobody is pressurising me.’ At a further meeting at home on 13 January 2026, [Girl A] spoke with Ms A alone, and is reported to have said, ‘it did not happen, I wanted to fit in with my friends’.[68]Ms A has evidently built a strong and trusting relationship with [Girl A], who feels understood and supported by her. Ms A has a clear working hypothesis, that [Girl A]’s report of sexual abuse in June 2025 was based on a true account of her experiences, and that her unwillingness to follow up with a formal interview or statement, and subsequent retraction are due to the pressure she experienced from her family. This is the case the local authority presents to the Court, as it is entitled to do. It is a matter for me to weigh up each piece of evidence in the context of the evidence as a whole, and consider whether or not the case has been proved to the standard of a balance of probabilities. The only difficulty with Ms A’s evidence, was perhaps a tendency to fit all the facts to her hypothesis, and to disregard those matters which did not fit so neatly.[69]She was asked in cross-examination whether, given that [Girl A] had retracted her allegations and said they were untrue, she had ever had cause to consider that [Girl A] had indeed not told the truth.[70]At first she said, ‘I would wonder why she would make such a significant accusation against her sibling with clear description of everything – I wonder why she would do that … why would [Girl A] make such a descriptive thing – describe how things happen to her.’ She was asked again whether she had ever had cause to doubt whether [Girl A] was telling the truth, and she responded, ‘she is a girl that will tell you how she feels – I think most part of conversations have been truthful’. She went on to say, ‘[Girl A] has told me how her views are not valued – her family were feeling embarrassed – hence they told [Girl A] to say nothing happened.’ She went on to say that [Girl A] had been consistent throughout, that her voice was important and ‘given what she has told us – we want to believe [Girl A].’[71]On any view it cannot be said that [Girl A] has been consistent throughout. She started with a denial, then made her allegations, before now making a firm retraction. In her most recent case note of 20 March, Ms A did not mention that [Girl A] told her not just that she did not want to pursue the allegations, but that they were untrue. I understand that Ms A considers it more likely than not that [Girl A]’s retraction has come about due to pressure from the family, however, it is still incumbent upon her to put all relevant information before the Court, not just the information that fits with her hypothesis.[72][Girl A]’s phone use has been a consistent theme throughout proceedings. Her parents had expressed concern to the police that she was vulnerable to grooming. They provided a snapchat username and asked the police to investigate, but this was not followed up. In foster care [Girl A] was insisting on using her phone late into the night, did not accept the boundaries the foster carers were seeking to put in place around this, and this ended up being a major reason for breakdown of the placement. Ms A was asked whether she had tried to impose rules around [Girl A]’s phone, or asked [Girl A] whether she could look at what was on the phone, and she replied that [Girl A] had not wanted her to see, and so she had not pursued it.[73][Girl A] is represented by her solicitor Miss Young, who instructs Miss Darian. Miss Young and Miss Darian have gone to considerable efforts to build a trusting relationship with [Girl A], and to obtain her instructions throughout these proceedings. They have steered a difficult course with skill, bringing their experience and integrity to bear. Ultimately, the clear instruction given to them by [Girl A] set out in Miss Darian’s position statement, is that none of the allegations of sexual assault that she made against her brother are true.

The intervenor

[74]The intervenor represented himself at the hearing. There is no question that the proceedings have taken a toll upon him. He has evidently felt at times bewildered, frustrated and angered by the process. Nonetheless, he has done his best to participate. He strongly denies that he has ever sexually abused [Girl A], any of his siblings, or any person. In his oral evidence he stressed that he had been a good student throughout school, now worked hard to support his wife, and wished to live his life free from the stress of the proceedings, and to return to enjoy a normal life, of work, cricket and family.[75]He was fulsome in his praise for his parents who he said had given everything to their family, and had done nothing but work hard and devote themselves to the education and betterment of their children.[76]He expressed frustration that there had been little investigation of his good character, that his siblings or wife had not been spoken to. By contrast, he queried why no attempts had been made to follow up the allegations that he and his father had made about [Girl A] being in contact with an older man on the internet, and about her behaviour at school. He said that [Girl A] had been spoilt, did not appreciate how hard their father worked. He said that contrary to what [Girl A] said, she had been given a lot of freedom, she did have a phone, had friends both in and out of school, and on Snapchat. He said [Girl A]’s behaviour had not been good, long before the allegations, she had been missing classes, not doing her homework and talking to older men on the phone.[77]He expressed sorrow that he had not seen any of his younger siblings since last June, due to the Court order in place.[78]The evidence given by him, his mother and father about whether or not he had in fact seen his two younger brothers [Boy E] and [Boy F], evolved during the course of the hearing. The boys had reported to teachers at school (separately) that they had seen their older brother at their father’s shop, and been to his house to play Lego and hide and seek with his wife. During the course of the hearing a narrative developed that there had perhaps been a chance meeting at another brother’s shop, but that then developed further and it was suggested that the boys had likely just seen their older brother in the shop through the car window. The boys had also reported that the family was planning to move to the north east, which is accepted to be true. It is not clear why they should be mistaken about going to their older brother’s house. He only moved there with his wife after the protective orders were put in place.[79][The intervenor]’s evidence about the circumstances in which he moved out of the family home were also somewhat vague. He described to me that when he was studying for his A-levels it was difficult for his father to drop him and school and get back to work, so it was agreed that he and his brother [older son G] would stay closer to their school, live independently and pay rent.[80]He denied that his marriage had been arranged for him by his parents, but said to the contrary, it had been organised at his own request. He said he had known his wife from the time they were children in [country name redacted], their families had remained in contact, he had maintained contact with her, and asked his mother if she could arrange for them to be married. He said they became engaged in 2022 and were married in September 2024 in [country name redacted]. Shortly thereafter, his wife came to join him in the UK.

The mother

[81]The mother is evidently very proud of her big happy family. She said all the children got on well, there were the normal fallings out, but she and her husband would encourage them to patch up any disputes and not leave them with friction. She said she has tried her best as a mother to raise her children with love, keep them happy, take care of them, take them to and from school on time, and protect them from harm.[82]She said when she first found out about the allegations from [Girl A] she was totally surprised, felt dizzy, and didn’t know how to respond. Nothing like this had ever happened in her own household. She does not believe [Girl A]’s allegations are true. She has wondered whether [Girl A] was pressurised by school or her friends.[83]Shortly after [Girl A] was taken into care, the mother asked her daughter to write to [Girl A]. The letter told [Girl A] that everyone missed her, that her parents could not sleep and were crying all night, were really upset. The letter reads, ‘for the sake of your own future, we hope you won’t tell anyone either, you know people can make up rumours so don’t tell anyone about this, or people may talk bad about you.’ The letter expresses strong hopes that [Girl A] will return home and that in the meantime, she will contact her mother.[84]In evidence, the mother said her aim was not to silence [Girl A], but to reassure her that she did not need to feel shame, she did not need to worry people were talking about her.[85][Girl A] responded with a text message that said she was very unhappy to be away from her family and wanted to come back, but was ‘really scared how my mum and dad will react and you know exactly why I feel that way. I just want you guys to know I didn’t voluntarily go and tell the police. Remember [older daughter H] when I told you I accidently told my best friend about what happen. She went and told her friend and then her friend spread it. And then one of her friend told the school and then they told police. I didn’t want this to happen. I also everyone especially my mum.’[86]A consistent theme from [Girl A]’s conversations with her social worker, seen also in her interactions with the police and teachers at school, is that she feels isolated from her family, and that they do feel she has brought shame upon the family. She loves her family deeply, but feels blamed by them. Ms A gave evidence about an incident on New Year’s Eve 2025:
‘.. her parents came to her room and started shouting, asking her to come downstairs. Her mother then took her phone and smashed it outside because she was using her phone and not engaging with the family activities for the new year. [Girl A] said that while her mother was taking her phone, [older daughter H] slapped her, and [Girl B] pulled her hair because [Girl A] had upset their parents> [Girl A] explained that she also pulled [Girl B]’s hair because [Girl B] had pulled hers earlier. [Girl A] said [Girl B] told her, ‘you are not my sister’, which upset her. [Girl A] said she does not want to stay at home because her parents shouted at her, and [Girl B] hit her. She also said, ‘no one cares about my mental health’. ‘They care about me being at home so that they are not embarrassed.’
She emphasised that it is not just about the phone but about everything that has happened. She said her family thinks everything is her fault. [Girl A] said, ‘I’m not staying here. I don’t belong here’, referring to [Girl B]’s comments that [Girl A] is not her sister. [Girl A] said that when the police attended, her father said he was embarrassed to call her his daughter.’[87]The mother accepted that she had smashed [Girl A]’s phone because she was angry that [Girl A] was not joining in with them, but remained in her room on her phone when everyone was happy. But she says that she then gave [Girl A] her own phone, said come and enjoy the party, but [Girl A] then used her phone to call the police.[88]The mother’s evidence about her two younger sons seeing [the intervenor] shifted in her oral evidence so as to align with what he said, and her husband later aligned himself with that version of events.[89]Similarly, when questioned about a police attendance at the house in October 2024 in response to a call from in connection with an allegation that the father was seeking to force their daughter [older daughter H] to marry, she adopted her son’s suggestion that this was ‘a joke’ that got out of hand. The contemporaneous transcript taken from police body cams paints quite a different picture; that the father had been pressing this issue for weeks, she was concerned that he and her son [ would come to blows, and she thought it would be a good idea for the father to be away from the household for two to four weeks.[90]So, while I was left in no doubt of the mother’s love for all of her children, including [Girl A], and her devotion to her family, I was not always persuaded that she was giving me reliable evidence. I consider that her loyalty to her family, and desire to portray the best picture to the Court may have led her to minimise or gloss over some events.

The intervenor

[91][The intervenor] told me that he brought his family to England because he wanted his children to have a better life and a better education. Although the family has moved around a lot, and lived in fifteen different properties, he has done all he can to support his children in their education, driving to take and collect the children from school. He is proud of his family and loves all his children.[92]He gave evidence that the first time he learned of [Girl A]’s allegations was following her removal from the family home in June 2025. He told me he was completely shocked and flabbergasted by the allegations, and could not conceive how she could have made such a claim. He said that if he had come upon his son lying on top of his daughter as alleged, he would not give him love or allow him to stay in the house.[93]He told me that when they were at home the evening after [Girl A] had been removed into care, they looked at her phone and found messages between her and an older man on Snapchat. He took a video of her phone, scrolling through the messages. The video was made on 13 June 2025.[94]As mentioned above, the father’s evidence about how his two youngest sons may or may not have come into contact with [the intervenor] shifted and changed following [the intervenor]’s and his wife’s evidence.[95][Older daughter H] is reported to have recalled that [the intervenor] was once sleepwalking, came into their bedroom, and bashed his head on the wardrobe when they were living in [town A]. The father was taken to the note about this, and instantly remembered this was at ‘3 o’clock midnight’ and they heard a scream from their son, and found that he had bashed his head against the doorway, but did not go into the room. This was not a convincing memory, even less so because it appeared only to come to mind in response to reading of [older daughter H]’s recollection. Previously he had suggested that [the intervenor] once came into the girls’ room because he was frightened of thunder.[96]The father’s evidence about the date of [the intervenor] engagement and marriage was somewhat muddled, and overlapped with some recollections about [older daughter H] being invited to go to [country name redacted] for the wedding, offered as an explanation for the evidence around the father seeking to arrange a marriage for her against her will. The dates did not add up, because those conversations are noted to have happened in the weeks leading up to the police being called to the house in October 2024, whereas [the intervenor] was married in [country name redacted] in August 2024.[97]In these ways, while I was left in no doubt of his sincerity when he spoke of his love for all his children, I was not persuaded that he was a reliable witness of fact in all matters about which he gave evidence.

Threshold allegations

[98]The local authority uploaded a revised schedule of findings to the bundle on the first day of trial, but the parties were unaware of its existence until day three, and have not responded to it. I am using as my reference point the schedule filed with the Court on 16 December 2025, to which the parents and the intervenor have been able to respond.

Sexual harm

[1][Girl A] has suffered and is at risk of suffering sexual harm perpetrated by her older brother [the intervenor] (19 years of age). [Girl A] would have suffered emotional and mental distress as a result of the touching. In particular: -a. [the intervenor] repeatedly sexually assaulted [Girl A] from when she was 6 or 7 years old until the age of 13. During that time, [the intervenor] repeatedly came into her room and lay on top of her. He repeatedly touched her vagina and breasts under her clothing. [Girl A] repeatedly told her brother “no” but he persisted with the assaults.b. On at least one occasion, [the intervenor] showed [Girl A] pornographic videos and said that what was depicted in the videos was what he was going to do to her.c. [Girl A] has consistently made allegations of sexual abuse to multiple professionals/individuals. On 11 June 2025, [Girl A] was taken into police protection[2]All the children are at risk of suffering sexual harm perpetrated by their older brother [the intervenor] and emotional harm by being exposed to the sexual harm that [Girl A] has suffered. All the children were in family home when some/all the incidents of sexual assault took place.[99]In order to find the allegations proved, I must be satisfied that it is more likely than not that the events described above did actually happen, not that they might have happened, or that it is plausible they might have happened.[100]The local authority has taken reports of sexual abuse made by [Girl A] seriously, and says that weighing all the evidence in the balance, that standard of proof is met.[101]Miss Mitchell on behalf of the local authority has taken me carefully through all the evidence that points towards a conclusion that [Girl A] has been sexually abused. I am grateful to Miss Howard, representing the guardian, who diligently tested the evidence and highlighted areas of uncertainty and inconsistency.[102]The evidence that [Girl A] has been sexually abused comes primarily from the account that she gave to teachers and again to the police on 3 and 11 June 2025 respectively. I have set out all the notes that relate to the account above. In response to questions she said that she had been touched by her brother both over and under clothes from around the age of five or six until she was thirteen or fourteen. There was one element of free recall to her account, when she described her parents coming into her room and finding her brother lying on top of her, that they were blaming of her and told her not to seduce her brother. [Girl A] chose not to participate in a video recorded interview to give further detail to her account. However, she did maintain she had spoken the truth to her social worker on 30 September, and in her message to her family in June 2025, her words focused around concern about how her allegations had become public knowledge, through her best friend breaking her confidence, but she was clear discussions had been about ‘what happened’. In September, she said her allegations were 100% true, but the reason she did not wish to pursue them was because she did not want her brother to be prosecuted.[103][Girl A] did later retract her allegations fully, but only after spending three months back at the family home. Her account of being subject to significant pressure to withdraw her allegation and return to the family fold is convincing. It is clear that there were significant tensions at home during that period. [Girl A] felt blamed and isolated by her family, her family were concerned about the impact upon her of having lived away from home with greater freedom, and it is clear that they have also been concerned upon the impact upon her and their family as a whole of being associated with claims of sexual abuse.[104]This may be borne out of a wish to protect an abuser within the family. I must caution myself however, that evidence from the parents of a strong desire for the allegations not to be spoken about either at home or in the community does not necessarily mean that they know the allegations to be true. Mention of the allegations themselves, or knowledge of involvement of children’s services in the family’s life could well be sufficient in the context of this family’s religion, culture and community, to make the family the source of unwelcome attention and judgement.[105]There is some evidence to corroborate [Girl A]’s account of having been sexually abused in general. Notwithstanding that they later denied being the source of the rumour, [Girl A]’s school friends independently told teachers they understood her brother had sexually abused her from when she was young, that her parents had intervened to stop his behaviour, arranging for him to be married. Both [Girl A]’s parents and [the intervenor]were a bit sketchy around the circumstances in which he came to move out of home for a time when he was doing his A-levels, and somewhat vague around the timeline around his wedding, and the reasons that the only member of the immediate family to attend was the father. It would appear that the timeline might well be compatible with [Girl A]’s recollection of the abuse stopping when she was thirteen, her brother was nineteen, and his subsequent engagement to be married.[106]The parents’ and [the intervenor]’s evidence about whether there had ever been a time when [the intervenor]had been found in his sister’s bedroom was contradictory and unconvincing.[107]However, weighing in the balance against these matters, are a number of factors which undermine that general account. When considering the specific details that are alleged, I have not found that it has been proved to the standard of a balance of probabilities that [Girl A] was sexually abused over a course of six or seven years by her older brother. I have regard to the following matters:(i) There is no ‘first account’ from [Girl A]. The original account was a story apparently shared between friends, became the subject of gossip and rumour, but the friends when questioned denied that they had heard it from [Girl A];(ii) There are no statements from [Girl A]’s friends, only very brief notes of conversations, which do corroborate her allegations to a certain extent, but also give rise to a number of questions to which we don’t have the answers. There is some evidence that [Girl A] was caught up in friendship groups where the dynamics were not always positive. There was attention seeking behaviour. The allegations came to light at a time when [Girl A] and another girl had already been excluded from school for over a week. Within a very short time after their return to school, they found themselves once again in trouble, sitting together in the pastoral suite awaiting their fate. Whether based on truth or not, the allegation that ‘the rumours were true’ caused a significant diversion from the question of how to respond to the very rude and aggressive behaviour while missing lessons that had caused them to be there;(iii) [Girl A] reported that her siblings knew of the abuse. This information did not come in the account in June 2025, but [Girl A] is reported as telling her social worker in September 2025, that two sisters and [older son G] had seen the abuse. There is no evidence from these siblings to corroborate this;(iv) The initial conversations with teachers and then the police included some leading questions. Paragraph 2.5 of the ABE guidelines says that, ‘Any initial questioning should be intended to elicit a brief account of what is alleged to have taken place; a more detailed account should not be pursued at this stage but should be left until the formal interview takes place. Such a brief account should include where and when the alleged incident took place and who was involved or otherwise present.’ Instead the questions asked appear to have gone straight to details of alleged abuse (touched your vagina, over or under clothes, naked, penetration?) but not established the basics of who, what when?(v) Because the accounts were given in the course of pre-assessment rather than in a full interview setting, there is little or no description of what is said to have happened, and no description of events as experienced by [Girl A]. [Girl A] said that she had been ‘sexually assaulted’, was clear she had not been raped, but said she did not know what rape was. There was no exploration of what she understood sexual assault to be. The details of the assaults came in response to leading questions rather than free recall;(vi) This is not to criticise the teachers and police, who were not engaged in obtaining ‘best evidence’ from [Girl A], but were focused on a range of concerns. But the fact is that the evidence in support of the allegations is lacking. The notes are brief. Caution must be taken in attaching too much weight to the notes that they took, which are not verbatim records, and involved an element of subjectivity from the notetaker in capturing what was considered important and leaving out what was not;(vii) We have very limited information relating to [girl A’s] account. She was not interviewed, nor did she prepare a witness statement setting out the details of her allegations. That leaves a number of questions unanswered and her evidence untested. For example, if the abuse was said to have taken place repeatedly over the years, what sort of frequency are we talking about? Once a year, once a month, once a week? When and where did this occur, if, as seems to have been incontrovertibly the case, [Girl A] shared a bedroom with at least two of her sisters at any given time. How did she lock her door? Given the family lived in fifteen different properties – when does she say she locked the door and how? The parents’ evidence is that there were never any locks on the doors of any of the bedrooms in any of the properties they lived in. [Girl A]’s later account to the social worker suggested that her siblings and parents knew of the abuse. When did they discover this? How? What happened? If the parents arranged [the intervenor]’s marriage in response to the abuse, what was the triggering event that tipped them from inaction to action? If it was a single event of them finding him lying on top of her, what was it about what he was doing that made them understand this was sexual abuse? Who else was in the room at the time? Did the abuse start when [Girl A] was five or six or seven (there are different accounts), and stop when she was thirteen or fourteen?(viii) There is no context to the allegations of abuse. How did it start? How did [the intervenor] prevent her from speaking out before? Who did she tell and when? Why did she have no concern at all for any of her other sisters, particularly her younger sister [Girl D]? Her focus with regard to them was that they should not be told of her allegation for fear they might tell her father, not that they needed protection;(ix) [Girl A] is reported to have said that over six or seven years [the intervenor] repeatedly assaulted her, despite her saying ‘no’, continued to abuse her despite having been caught (not clear when), and maliciously showed her pornography, tormenting her with what he would do to her. These are allegations of significant and sustained abuse. There is no account from [Girl A] to describe how this behaviour started, why she was singled out, how her brother treated at other times, which might give context to the allegations of abuse. There is no evidence to suggest that any concerns have been raised about [the intervenor], whether at school at home, in the community, or now in his employment;(x) [Girl A] has not been consistent in her account. Most significantly, [Girl A] has unequivocally stated that her allegation is untrue, having previously maintained that it was ‘100% true’. When first asked about the allegation in March 2025, she said it was untrue. It is arguable that she has been more consistent about maintaining its lack of truth, than maintaining that it was true. The local authority’s case is plausible that the reason for her denials is direct and indirect pressure she experienced from her family both before and after the allegations came to light. However, there has been no opportunity to explore with her the reasons in evidence. In the light of all the evidence I have heard and read, it cannot be said that it is more likely than not that the reason for her switch from denial to assertion and back to denial must be pressure from her family, as opposed to any other explanation. In January and February 2026, she was very clear that she wanted to leave home and return to care, but she did not give as a reason that she was experiencing pressure in relation to the allegations. She has maintained regular contact with her family since;(xi) Because [Girl A]’s evidence has not been tested in court, or through the process of an ABE interview, we do not know whether or not she is a reliable witness. Some of the things she has said do not appear to be substantiated by the evidence. She is reported as having told the police that she was isolated at home, that her parents supported the [political party name redacted], that she had no phone, and was not allowed out. The information we have is that tensions arose because [Girl A] was keeping herself apart from the family, not that she was being isolated. There were tensions over her phone use, but apparently for good reason, she was in touch with an older man, which her parents were not happy about. However, it was [Girl A] rather than her other siblings who was entrusted with a phone. After her parents confiscated her phone, they relented and she was allowed to use her mother’s phone. There is no evidence to suggest that [Girl A] was restricted in what she wore, spending time with friends, or that she was isolated in the home. There is no evidence to suggest either of her parents have ever supported the [political party name redacted]; they strongly denied it, and their presence in the UK and obvious support for the education of all their children is not consistent with that position. [Girl A] has not had the opportunity to explain or defend these comments, but on the face of it, they read as a teenager perhaps over-dramatising fairly standard parental restrictions as excessive;(xii) I found that both the parents and [the intervenor] had a tendency to adopt one another’s evidence, and that in some areas their evidence was vague or even evasive and unclear. However, I have reminded myself that a) the burden does not rest upon any one of them to prove that the allegations are not true, b) the allegations themselves are not well particularised and therefore it may not be surprising to find them met by an element of guesswork or imprecision, and c) inconsistencies or untruths in themselves are not necessarily a basis for coming to the conclusion that the witness is concealing a more sinister truth. The Court can only draw inferences where justified on the evidence.[108]No single one of these factors on its own necessarily undermines the local authority’s case, but standing back and looking at all the evidence, I find that the weight of the evidence leads me away from finding the local authority’s case to be proved.

Conclusions in respect of allegation 1

[109]For the reasons given above, allegations 1(a) and 1(b) are not proved to the standard of a balance of probabilities.[110]Allegation 1(c) is that [Girl A] has consistently made allegations of sexual abuse to multiple professionals/individuals. This allegation is not properly particularised; which professionals/individuals? Having regard to the whole of the evidence, I do not find it proved that [Girl A] has consistently made allegations of sexual abuse to multiple professionals/individuals. Further, it is pleaded that [Girl A] was taken into police protection on 11 June 2025. This is a statement of fact, but not an allegation of harm relevant to threshold. I will consider further the question of police protection below.[111]Allegation 2, that all the children are at risk of suffering sexual harm perpetrated by their older brother [the intervenor] and emotional harm by being exposed to the sexual harm that [Girl A] has suffered, is not proved to the standard of a balance of probabilities. The local authority has not proved that all the children were in family home when some/all the incidents of sexual assault took place.

Failure to protect

[3]The parents were aware that [the intervenor] sexually assaulted [Girl A] and failed to protect her or prioritise her needs. This would have caused her and her siblings emotional harm and put them at risk of sexual harm.a. On at least one occasion when [the intervenor] was laying on top of her, [Girl A] screamed and her parents entered the room, removed [the intervenor] and told [Girl A] not to seduce him and to not speak to anyone about what had happened.b. Despite the Mother and Father being aware of [the intervenor]’s sexual abuse of [Girl A] they permitted [the intervenor] to live in the family home placing [Girl A] and her siblings at continued risk of sexual and/or emotional harm. [Girl A] would lock her bedroom door at night in fear of the brother.c. The parents deny that [Girl A] has suffered harm and have pressured [Girl A] not to share her allegations. [Girl A] would have suffered mental pain and distress by not being supported by her parentsd. Having been told of the abuse she had suffered, her mother and father knew or ought to have known that [Girl A] required emotional support and that the police would need to have been notified. The mother and father failed to seek support for [Girl A] and failed to notify the police.e. By failing to obtain professional help and support for [Girl A], the mother and father failed to engage with or assist professionals in their attempts to safeguard [Girl A], thereby failing to prioritise [Girl A]’s needs to be kept safe over the needs of their son, [the intervenor][4][Girl A] has refused to have contact with her parents and did not want to return home. The parents have asked her to fabricate a story as to why she made up the allegation in that she was talking to an older man and her brother [the intervenor] told her to stop. They have pressured her to withdraw/conceal the allegations and have no insight into the emotional harm caused to [Girl A][5][Girl A] has suffered emotional harm by virtue of the breakdown in her parental relationship with her mother and father, evidenced above at paragraphs 3-4.[112]Having not been satisfied that the allegations of sexual abuse have been proved to the standard of a balance of probabilities, I do not find that [Girl A]’s parents were aware that [the intervenor]sexually assaulted [Girl A].[113]I did find the parents’ and [the intervenor]’s evidence about whether or not there was a time when he was found in [Girl A]’s room to be unconvincing. [older daughter H] had remembered an occasion when he was there, and this was the only element of [Girl A]’s recorded description of the alleged abuse which appeared to come unprompted, through her own recall. But what is described is her brother lying on top of her, which does not amount on its own to sexual abuse. So while I have come closest to finding that an event like this may well have occurred, ultimately, applying the standard of a balance of probabilities, I do not find that it was more likely than not that this occurred, nor that it amounted to sexual assault, nor that the parents entered the room, removed [the intervenor], nor told [Girl A] not to seduce him to not speak to anyone about what had happened.[114]Allegation 3b is not proved, because it is not established that either sexual abuse happened or the parents were aware of it. The local authority has not proved that [Girl A] had a lock on her bedroom door in any of the fifteen properties the family lived in, and that she would lock her bedroom door at night for fear of her brother.[115]The parents do not believe that [Girl A] has suffered sexual abuse. I have found that it has not been proved that she has been sexually abused. The parents were not required to believe her allegations in all the circumstances.[116]There is evidence that [Girl A] has been acutely conscious that making such allegations would be unwelcome and a source of difficulty for her. She has consistently expressed fear that her father should find out she had spoken to staff, or that her sister might find out from other pupils. I find that when writing the letter to [Girl A] shortly after she was removed into care, her mother was attempting to reassure her that nobody within their community knew of the allegations, and was encouraging her not to speak to anyone else about them. I find that in doing so she and the father were underlining their own familial and cultural values, and they did consider it best at that time that [Girl A] did not talk about the allegations. It is readily apparent that [Girl A] may well have been upset and distressed as a result, and that she may well have felt unsupported. However, this was a complex set of circumstances for any parent to face, with one child alleging sexual abuse by another sibling. I am not satisfied that it has been proved to a standard of a balance of probabilities that her parents actively put pressure on [Girl A] to withdraw her allegations. The local authority has not pleaded with any specificity when it was (noting that threshold relates to the time protective measures were taken) that [Girl A]’s parents pressured her. The letter was sent after she had been removed from their care. Allegation 3c is not proved to the standard of a balance of probabilities.[117]Allegations 3d and 3e are not sufficiently particularised. When were the parents told of the abuse? When were they supposed to have notified the police? What professional or emotional support should they have obtained? It has not been established that they prioritised their son over their daughter. The evidence is that on being informed that his daughter had been removed from his care due to an allegation of abuse against his eldest son, the father’s immediate response was that he would arrange for his son to move out so that [Girl A] could return home. Even though [Girl A] remained in foster care, [the intervenor]did move out immediately and the parents consented to protective orders being put in place. These allegations are not proved.[118]Because [Girl A] has not given evidence, the question of the pressure she has felt from her parents has not been explored. Having regard to all the evidence I have heard and read, I am not satisfied it has been proved to the standard of balance of probabilities that her parents asked her to fabricate a story about talking to an older man. In fact [Girl A] had been talking to an older man. It would appear that initially this was the uncle of a friend in [country name redacted], this led to her parents confiscating her phone, and later, following her removal from their care, they found that she had been communicating with another man who was older than her. The allegation is not sufficiently particularised; threshold findings relate to the situation as it pertained at the time protective measures were taken. The local authority has not particularised when, in or before June 2025, [Girl A]’s parents are said to have pressured her to withdraw or conceal the allegations, or in what way they lack insight into the emotional harm caused to [Girl A]. Allegation 4 is not proved.[119]Allegation 5 is not proved. [Girl A] has currently signed herself into being accommodated by the local authority and is said to be happy in her current placement. However, while this has evidently been an extraordinarily difficult time for her and for her whole family, there is no evidence that her relationship with her parents has broken down, nor that it had done at any time in or before June 2025. She continues to be in touch with them regularly by text message. Ms A gave evidence that in her opinion supervised contact would be preferable between [Girl A] and her parents, however, this is not something that [Girl A] considers necessary.

Forced marriage/honour-based abuse

[6]All the children are at significant risk of being taken out of the country and/or entering a forced marriage.a. The parents arranged the marriage of [the intervenor] over the phone as a way of preventing further sexual assaults on [Girl A].b. The Father intended to force the children’s older sister [] to marry her cousin in [country name redacted] against her will when she was 16. This led to a physical altercation between him and [the intervenor] where the Father was arrested prevented from returning to the home for 2 weeks. This evidences the fear, emotional harm and physical harm caused to the childrenc. [Girl A] is at a heightened risk of harm due to her allegations, pushing boundaries, missing episodes and the Father likely using forced marriage as a means of control[7][Girl A] is at significant risk of honour-based abuse perpetrated by her parents; including being ostracised, being harmed and/or killed, emotional control and control on her movements, who she socialises with and how she presents herself. This risk and the fear of it has caused [Girl A] significant emotional harm and puts her at risk of future sexual and physical harm.a. [Girl A] is regarded as having brought shame on the family by making allegations against [the intervenor].b. [Girl A] did not want to return home to her parents for fear of significant repercussions from her parents. This included being killed by her father for bringing shame on the family.c. The Mother and Father have isolated [Girl A] from the community and she does not have any contact with people outside her family network. [Girl A] has to wear what she is told and is not allowed a phone or laptop. She is at risk of being further ostracised due to the allegations she has made.[120]It has not been proved to the standard of a balance of probabilities that all the children (or any of them) are at significant risk of being taken out of the country and/or entering a forced marriage. Allegation 6 is not proved.[121]On balance, I accept the evidence of [the intervenor] that his marriage was arranged at his request, in accordance with cultural and religious custom, to his wife, whom he had known since childhood, and whose family was connected to his. As I have not found the allegations of sexual abuse proved, I do not find that the fact of his marriage or its timing was connected to any sexual assault on [Girl A]. Allegation 6a is not proved.[122]I have viewed the videos and read the transcripts of the body worn footage related to the police being called to the family home in October 2024, and the father’s subsequent interview with the police. [Older son G] speaks with confidence and a good deal of frustration about his father who he describes as stubborn, rigid and fixed on the idea that [older daughter H] should marry. [Older son G] is adamant that this is something that neither he, his siblings nor his mother would stand for, and that he would be prepared to come to blows with his father to prevent such a thing happening. They describe the father as having a temper, and of having laboured the idea of [older daughter H]’s marriage for some weeks. In his police interview the father describes how in his culture it is normal for offers of marriage to be made in respect of children of the age of his eldest children, and that such offers are taken seriously. He says that he had received such an offer for [older daughter H]. The police spoke with the mother, and she was also emphatic that she would not stand for any of her children to be subject to marriage against their will. She complained that the father did have a temper, and expressed her concern that he and [older son G], both strong and strong-minded, might have a fight about this, which she predicted would not go well for her husband.[123]I was told during the course of the hearing that the boys in the family had passports, but not the girls.[124]It is of concern to me that [the intervenor], the mother and father all minimised the evidence, and suggested that this was a misunderstanding that arose out of a ‘joke’. That was plainly not the case. When asked by the police, both the mother and [older son G] suggested that it would be better for all that the father stay away from the house for two to four weeks; the situation had plainly reached a critical point. The contemporaneous accounts note the father had ‘brought up the subject again’, and had been bringing it up every one to two weeks, although it was noted that he had taken no practical steps, and that he told the police he knew she could not be forced. The mother was interviewed with the assistance of an interpreter, was described as ‘very anti forced marriage’.[125]Nonetheless, having regard to all the evidence I have heard and read in respect of this issue, I am not persuaded that it has been established that the father intended to force [older daughter H] to marry against her will when she was sixteen. As Mr Crispin says in his submissions, there are a wide range of cultural practices in the UK. In some cultures parents take a role in arranging marriage for their children to an extent that may be regarded as overbearing by other cultures. Some parents nag their children about marriage, apply pressure, and interfere, in ways that might go well beyond irritation to offensive, oppressive and upsetting. But that does not equate to taking steps to force a child into marriage.[126]I am not satisfied to the standard of a balance of probabilities that it has been established that [Girl A] is at heightened risk of forced marriage.[127]Apart from DC W asking in the middle of the pre-interview assessment whether [Girl A] had brought dishonour on her family, and [Girl A] replying that she didn’t think so but her family did, there is no evidence that [Girl A] is at significant risk of honour based abuse from her parents. There is no evidence of a threat issued from her father, although I acknowledge that [Girl A] is reported to have said he would ‘literally’ kill her. There is no further evidence from [Girl A] about what was said, when, in what context. In all the circumstances, I am not satisfied that allegations 7a or 7b have been proved to the balance of probabilities.[128]Allegation 7c is not proved. There is a significant body of evidence to suggest that [Girl A] has a lot of contact with people outside her family network, both within the local [redacted] community, and with school friends, who she sees outside school, and also through use of social media and a phone that her parents did not appear to monitor or place any restrictions upon. [Girl A] was not restricted in what she wore, and Ms M noted that while [Girl A] wears a headscarf at school, she often wears it loosely. [Girl A] did have access to both a phone and laptop. She has not been ostracised by her family as a result of the allegations, although evidently the allegations and the fact of these proceedings and her separation from her family has caused significant strain on their relationship.[129]I have thus come to the end of the schedule, and for the reasons given, have concluded that none of the allegations is proved to the standard of a balance of probabilities.[130]That means that the local authority has not established that the threshold for making public law orders is crossed. It has not been established that [Girl A] has suffered significant harm in the care of her parents, nor that she is at risk of significant harm, as a consequence of the care that she has received from her parents. It has not been established that any of the other siblings has suffered significant harm or is at risk of significant harm as a consequence of the care they have received from their parents.[131]The Court does not have jurisdiction to make public law orders in respect of any of the children.

Some final observations

[132]I note that a failure to establish the core allegations, does not represent a failed or unsuccessful outcome to the proceedings. Per Baroness Hale in Re S-B [2010] 1 FLR 1161 at [19]:
‘We should no more expect every case which a local authority brings to court to result in an order than we should expect every prosecution brought by the CPS to result in a conviction. The standard of proof may be different, but the roles of the social workers and the prosecutors are similar. They bring to court those cases where there is a good case to answer. It is for the court to decide whether the case is made out. If every child protection case were to result in an order, it would mean either that local authorities were not bringing enough cases to court or that the courts were not subjecting those cases to a sufficiently rigorous scrutiny.’
[133]A failure to find a fact proved on the balance of probabilities does not equate to a finding that the allegation is false. I would like to make it clear that I have not made a finding that [Girl A] is lying. The central evidence in support of findings being made was [Girl A]’s account to teachers and the police, which she withdrew.

Use of Police Protection Order

[134][Girl A] was first removed from her family under police protection. Her parents were not told the reason that she had been removed and did not find out until the local authority had issued care proceedings some days later. As soon as he was told the reason, the father immediately suggested that [the intervenor] could move out so that [Girl A] could return home to her family.[135]The police derive their powers to take children under their protection from section 46 of the Children Act 1989; ‘Where a constable has reasonable cause to believe that a child would otherwise be likely to suffer significant harm, he may a) remove the child to suitable accommodation and keep him there.’ The constable is required as soon as reasonably practicable to inform the local authority of the steps that have been taken with respect to the child and the reasons for taking them. The police may remove a child from the care of their parents without notice, without giving reasons, for a period of up to 72 hours.[136]In Langley v Liverpool City Council [2005] EWCA Civ 1173 the Court discussed the difference between a local authority applying to the Court for removal of a child pursuant to an emergency protection order (EPO) pursuant to section 44 of the Children Act 1989 and the police exercising their powers under section 46. An EPO under section 44 is an order of the court, whereas police powers are exercised under section 46 with no order. At paragraph 38, Dyson LJ said:
‘In my judgment, the statutory scheme clearly accords primacy to section 44. Removal under section 44 is sanctioned by the court and it involves a more elaborate, sophisticated and complete process than removal under section 46. The primacy accorded to section 44 is further reinforced by section 46(7) and 47(3)(c). The significance of these provisions is that they show that it was contemplated by Parliament that an EPO may well not be in force when a removal is effected under section 46, and that removal under section 46 is but the first step in a process which may later include an application for an EPO’
It is also relevant to point out that children who require emergency protection and have to be removed are often already well known to the Social Services Department within whose area the children are ordinarily resident. It is obviously preferable for the removal of a child to be effected if possible by, or at least with the assistance of, social workers who are known to the child, rather than by uniformed police officers who will almost certainly be strangers to the child. Whether known to the child or not, a social worker has skills in dealing with the removal of children from their homes which the most sensitive police officer cannot be expected to match. I would therefore hold that (i) removal of children should usually be effected pursuant to an EPO, and (ii) section 46 should be invoked only where it is not practicable to execute an EPO. In deciding whether it is practicable to execute an EPO, the police must always have regards to the paramount need to protect children from significant harm.’[137]Lord Justice Dyson went on to refer to a Home Office Circular, which he cited with approval, and which advised:
‘Police protection powers should only be used when necessary, the principle being that wherever possible the decision to remove a child from a parent or carer should be made by a court. … All local authorities should have in place arrangements .. whereby out of hours applications for Emergency Protection Orders .. may be made speedily and without an excess of bureaucracy. Police protection powers should only be used when this is not possible.’
[138]The guidance from Langley was referred to and adopted with approval in A v East Sussex County Council and Chief Constable of Sussex Police[2010] EWCA Civ 743. A local authority that considers urgent action needs to be taken to remove a child can either obtain the parents’ agreement pursuant to section 20 of the Children Act, or apply to the Court for an EPO pursuant to section 44, or leave it to the police to take action pursuant to section 46.[139]At paragraph 9 of his judgment, Mr Justice Hedley noted, ‘it is of course incumbent upon the local authority where practicable to act in partnership with a parent and to devise a process (whether by supervision, retention in hospital or removal) which commands at least the acquiescence of the parent. That accords both with the spirt of the Act and with Convention requirements of proportionality.’[140]At paragraph 23 he said this:
‘It is essential to stress that even in an emergency it is desirable, where possible, to work in partnership with a parent. Parents can with careful and sympathetic explanation be brought to agree to regimes of supervision, or to the child remaining in hospital or even to voluntary accommodation under Part III of the Act for a brief period. Where parents have access to a solicitor (particularly where, as here, he or she is available), then the solicitor should be apprised of the local authority's concerns and proposals and then be invited (if the solicitor thinks it proper to do so) to give advice to the parent. Even where emergency powers are obtained under Section 44 or exercised under Section 46, least interventions are best. For example the police have power to prevent a removal from hospital. In the circumstances of this case it would have been surprising had the hospital if pressed refused to keep the child for an extra two days. The removal of the child to a known destination (e.g. a relative) is to be preferred to removal to a stranger. If, however, there is removal to a stranger, the parent should, in the absence of good reason (e.g. abusive or irrational behaviour) be informed of the fact and be allowed to pass relevant information to the carer and speedy arrangements be made for contact. If a court order has not been obtained or obtained ex parte, an inter partes hearing should be arranged as soon as possible. The learned judge described a hearing two days hence as 'creditable' but it should also be the norm. It goes without saying that where practicable an order of the court should be sought in preference to the use of Section 46 powers. In the context of this case, and assuming that it was practicable, more discussion between social worker and mother, involving her solicitor, may have led to some resolution. Even where the local authority decide to seek or exercise compulsive powers, it would have been helpful to have explored whether, pending an inter partes hearing, B could have remained in hospital. None of this is intended to cast doubt on the propriety of the learned judge's conclusions but only to suggest ways in which a job lawfully done might have been better done. The merits of such an approach are not only to cause the least disruption to the child and the least distress to the parent but to mitigate the inevitable hurt where, as here, it all turns out to have been probably unnecessary. Social workers in these situations are in a very difficult place. If they take no action and something goes wrong, inevitable and heavy criticism will follow. If they take action which ultimately turns out to have been unnecessary, they will have caused distress to an already distressed parent. On the other hand they are also invested with or have access to very draconian powers and it is vital that, if child protection is to command public respect and agreement, such powers must be exercised lawfully and proportionately and that the exercise of such powers should be the subject of public scrutiny. This litigation demonstrates that child protection only comes at a cost: to an innocent parent who is subject to it based on emergency assessment of risk and to public authorities who have had to account in a judicial setting for their exercise of power. It is, however, a cost that has inevitably to be exacted if the most vulnerable members of our society, dependent children, are to be protected by the state.’
[141]None of the parties has indicated an intention to bring a claim against the local authority or the police in respect of the use of the police protection order, nor was the use of a police protection order in this case canvassed at any length during the evidence. However, I invited submissions from the parties on the matter, as it has been my recent experience and that of some of my colleagues, that local authorities within this area appear to regard the use of police protection orders in this type of circumstance as something in their toolkit, to remove a child from the care of their parents without the need to notify the parents, without any discussion or consultation with them, and to afford time and space to the local authority to prepare for an application to be made to the Court for an emergency protection order or for care proceedings to be issued and interim care orders sought.[142]Having regard to the guidance I have set out above is instructive, and may serve as a reminder that in circumstances where the child is already known to the local authority and it is reasonably practicable to go to court to get an emergency protection order, this is not likely to be regarded as a valid use of police powers, and that it is incumbent upon local authorities to work in partnership with parents where possible.[143]I note that the guardian has considered the use of the police protection order in this case, and considers that in all the circumstances, it was not reasonably practicable for the local authority to apply to the Court for an emergency protection order on 11 June 2025. I stress that I do not make findings against the local authority in this case, and I do not suggest the use of the police’s powers of protection was unlawful. However, I do invite the local authority to reflect on this, in light of the guidance from case law, and given the following circumstances:(i) [Girl A]’s allegations had first been made on 3 June 2025 and the local authority and the police alerted that same day. The police did not exercise their powers of protection until 8 days later. Can it be said that it was not reasonably practicable for the local authority to apply for an emergency protection order in that time?(ii) When informed of the reason for [Girl A]’s removal, her father’s immediate response was to suggest that his son move out of the house and [Girl A] return. Was use of police protection to exclude [Girl A] from the house the most proportionate/least interventionist response?(iii) It was noted that there had been a risk assessment in respect to honour based violence and/or forced marriage, but it is not clear whether that assessment amounted to more than DC W’s question to [Girl A] about whether she was at risk of honour based violence. HHJ Joanna Vincent Family Court, Reading 9 April 2026