Medway Council v M & Ors (The Children Act 1989, Re) [2026] EWFC 39 (B)

[2026] EWFC 39 (B)Case No ME24C50084
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT MEDWAY
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
Before
HHJ CLIVE THOMAS
Between
MEDWAY COUNCIL Applicant.ApplicantM & Ors (The Children Act 1989, Re)DefendantMEDWAY COUNCIL Applicant.Date 2026-01-30

C1, C2, C3 & C4

[1]The court is concerned with the welfare of four children, C1 C1 a girl aged 14, C2 C2 a boy who is nearly 12, C3 a girl aged 10 and C4 C4 a girl aged 6. M and F are the parents of all of the children. This judgment follows a fact finding hearing that commenced on the 27th January 2026. All page numbers in this judgment refer to the electronic Master Bundle. There is also a supplemental bundle, which will be identified with the initials SB followed by the page number.[2]The precipitating event which led to these proceedings occurred on the 28th February 2024 when the parents were arrested for taking, making or distributing indecent photographs of children. Upon attending the parents’ home the police were so concerned by its unclean and unsafe presentation that the parents were also arrested for child neglect.[3]Following the parents’ arrest the children were made subject to a police protection order and a subsequent section 20 agreement. All the children in March 2024 were placed with the same foster carers where they have remained throughout these proceedings.[4]Following their arrest 5 devices were seized from the home and have been subject to a report from Steven Smith of Evidence Matters. The relevant devices were a mobile phone believed to belong to F, a phone believed to belong to M and a PC computer found in the living room. I have set out below what was found on each device.a. The mobile phone believed to belong to F. There were 3 extreme pornographic videos, (canine and equine zoophilia), 23 zoophilia images and 1 image showing sexual activity with a corpse. The videos appeared to come from a WhatsApp group called the “The Gentlemen’s Club” and were received in February, March and November 2023.b. The mobile phone believed to belong to M. This contained child pornography, (17 Category A videos, 2 category A photos, 6 category B videos, 3 category C videos and 1 category 1 image).c. The PC: Amongst other things, what was extracted from this device were 6 unique prohibited videos of children, 1, 403 unique prohibited images of children, 2 extreme pornographic videos, and 2, 835 unique extreme pornographic images.[5]On the 25th June 2025 the parents were charged, the criminal trial is listed for some time in September 2028. The mother has been charged with 2 counts, child cruelty/neglect to which she has entered a not guilty plea and making indecent photographs x 3 to which she has entered a guilty plea. F has been charged with 3 offences of child cruelty/neglect, possession of prohibited images of children and possession of images with a person performing an act of intercourse with a live unknown animal. F has entered not guilty pleas for all of these offences. The parents were also charged with an additional offence of causing the children to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned or exposed in a manner likely to cause them unnecessary suffering or injury to health. The parents’ pleas to this offence are not known.[6]The allegations against the parents are set out in the composite schedule of allegations. There have been a number of iterations of this document. The final document is not in the bundle but was emailed to me shortly before the trial. The allegations can be broken down into non-sexual and sexual allegations. I have set out below a summary of those allegations that are admitted and those that are denied/not admitted. Admitted. i. Both parents admit that home was not in a safe and hygienic state and the children suffered and were at risk of suffering neglect and emotional/physical harm. ii. Both admit on the 28th February 2024 the home conditions were extremely poor. M contends that the toilet was usable and there was no animal waste on the floor. iii. Both admit the garden was unsafe with cans, rubbish and mess. F alleges this was caused by a neighbour. iv. Both accept that the dogs were in cages under the stairs living in their own dirt without access to food or water. F contends the dogs were at certain times in cages but the cages were always clean. v. M accepts C2, C3, and C4 C4 were unclean, unkempt with dirty clothes and attended school without socks but avers “that is how the children presented but difficult to manage with sensory issues”. F denies in part and avers the children’s sensory issues caused socks to be a particular difficulty and that it was difficult to get them to school in socks. F also avers that the children’s clothes were washed and clean. F relies upon a note of a meeting at the school on the 5th February 2024 where a Miss B asserts F said that at times the children’s hair was unkempt, and their uniforms were creased and unironed, (1786). vi. M accepts C4 often looked dishevelled. F denies and relies on the note above. vii. M accepts on the 28th February 2024 C2 was unkempt, in a dirty school shirt which was grey rather than white and he had messy hair. F denies these allegations and contends that C2 preferred to have his hair dishevelled and his shirt was discoloured but was clean . viii. M accepts C2 and C1 do the majority of the cooking and at times C3 has been expected to cook unsupervised by an adult. F accepts that C2 and C1 cooked on limited occasions but were not forced to cook. ix. M accepts the children are expected to do their own washing. x. M accepts that as a “matter of fact” on the 8th March 2024 C1 had thoughts of self harm and that she felt guilty as she had not been able to do enough around the home to prevent her and her siblings being removed. xi. Both accept C1’s emotional health is poor and that she suffers with suicidal ideation. xii. M admits that between the 1st and 25th October she received and viewed child pornography but denies that she received sexual gratification from viewing the images. xiii. M accepts that she has sexualised C3 by making these comments: “I cant ever look at her like I did before” “I had the filthiest dream about her. I woke up grinding against my mattress” “It sits on my fucking lap every morning to give me a cuddle”and On 20 October 2023 the Mother sent a photo of C3’s knickers to an unnamed male, and engaged in a sexual conversation with him; xiv. M accepts that she used C3 to devise sexual fantasies which she has shared with another person, including fantasies about sexually abusing C3, at times when C3 was present in the room. xv. M accepts that all the children are placed at risk of harm by virtue of her sexual interest in children including but not limited to sexualising the children’s friends, sexualising children as young as 7 , sexualising children in the usual course of daily life and sexualising the children’s clothing. xvi. M accepts that the images of children were found on her phone and were sent to her by an unnamed male and that this demonstrated a lack of sexual boundaries by her possessing these images.[7]At the commencement of the trial the following 15 pleaded allegations were denied/not admitted and thus required a determination. I am of course not required to slavishly follow the findings sought by the local authority provided that any findings made are securely founded in the evidence and the parties have had an opportunity to respond to those allegations. The sexual allegations against F were in essence that he viewed the prohibited image/videos of children on his computer. Not admitted. i. Whether on the 28th February 2024 the toilet was unusable and there was animal waste on the floor. ii. Whether the state of the garden was caused by the neighbours. iii. Whether the dog cages were clean. iv. Whether C2, C3 and C4 were unclean, unkempt with dirty clothes and attending school without socks. v. Whether C4 was often dishevelled. vi. Whether C2 and C1 did the majority of the cooking and C3 had been expected to cook unsupervised. vii. Whether the children were expected to clean the home. viii. Whether the children were expected to do their own washing ix. Whether F• Strangled C2 and threw him against a wall,• Would get really angry with C2 twice a week,• Lined the children up and smacked them,• On or before 1st January 2024 grabbed and lifted C4 by the arm and then dropped her and threw a bag at her whilst she was screaming. x. Whether M was sexually gratified from viewing the video’s/ images of child pornography. xi. Whether the children have seen photographs of F holding the M on a lead. xii. Whether F intentionally downloaded any videos/images on pornographic websites including zoophilia. xiii. Whether F downloaded any images of children. xiv. Whether the F lacked any or any appropriate sexual boundaries by possessing the images. xv. Whether the F was aware or ought to have been aware and turned a blind eye to the sexual risk posed by M. The Law.[8]The burden of proof rests upon the local authority , the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. In Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC Baroness Hale said this: “ the standard of proof in finding the facts necessary to establish the threshold under section 31(2) or the welfare considerations in section 1 of the 1989 Act is the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less. Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts”.[9]Findings of fact must be based on evidence, which can include inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence. Findings of fact must not be based on suspicion or speculation, (Munby LJ in Re A (A child) (Fact Finding Hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12).[10]The court must reach a conclusion in respect of each separate allegation but it must take care not to compartmentalise its analysis. The court must consider the entire canvas of the evidence, and each piece of evidence must be considered in the context of the other evidence, (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss in ReT [2004] EWCA Civ 558, [2004] 2 FLR 83).[11]When considering the wide canvas of the evidence the following observations of Lord Nicholls’ in Re C4 and R (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] 1 FLR 80 should be kept in mind:
"The range of facts which may properly be taken into account is infinite. Facts including the history of members of the family, the state of relationships within a family, proposed changes within the membership family, parental attitudes, and omissions which might not reasonably have been expected, just as much as actual physical assaults. They include threats, and abnormal behaviour by a child, and unsatisfactory parental responses to complaints or allegations. And facts, which are minor or even trivial if considered in isolation, taken together may suffice to satisfy the court of the likelihood of future harm. The court will attach to all the relevant facts the appropriate weight when coming to an overall conclusion on the crucial issue."
[12]If the court finds an allegation not proven it does not follow that the allegation is false unless the court makes a specific finding that the facts did not happen. The court may consider that at the welfare stage it may be helpful to make a finding that a particular matter was not proved because the court was satisfied that as a matter of fact it did not happen. This differs from a finding that a fact was not proved and “therefore in law is deemed not to have happened, because the party making the assertion failed to establish it to the relevant standard of proof”, (Re A (A Child)(No 2)[2011] EWCA Civ 12).[13]The court can make findings of fact that have not been sought by the local authority. In Re G and B (Fact-Finding Hearing) [2009] EWCA Civ 10; Wall LJ said this in paragraph 15 :
“a judge … is not required slavishly to adhere to a schedule of proposed findings placed before her by a local authority”
. Wall LJ held that it would be “absurd” for the court to ignore new issues that emerge in the oral evidence. If the court seeks to make findings of fact that have not been sought by the local authority it must be satisfied of two things. Firstly, that the additional findings are “securely founded in the evidence” and secondly that “the fairness of the fact finding process is not compromised”, (Re G and B (Fact-Finding Hearing) [2009] EWCA Civ 10).[14]If there is a lack of an evidential basis for the court to make the additional finding the court will not need to consider the issue of fairness. An elementary feature of a fair hearing is that an adverse finding cannot be made against a party unless three conditions have been satisfied. The party must have knowledge of the allegation, they must know the substance of the evidence supporting the allegation and they must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegation, ( “Newey LJ in Re B (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 2127). Baker LJ in In Re A, B and C (Fact-Finding: Gonorrhoea) [2023] EWCA Civ 437, put it in these terms:
“It is axiomatic that a party against whom findings are sought in care proceedings is entitled to notice of the findings sought, the evidence on which they are based, and a fair opportunity to rebut them.”
[15]In Re B (Allegation of Sexual Abuse: Child's Evidence) [2006] EWCA Civ 773 Hughes LJ said this:“34. … Painful past experience has taught that the greatest care needs to be taken if the risk of obtaining unreliable evidence is to be minimised. Children are often poor historians. They are likely to view interviewers as authority figures. Many are suggestible. Many more wish to please. They do not express themselves clearly or in adult terms, so that what they say can easily be misinterpreted if the listeners are not scrupulous to avoid jumping to conclusions. They may not have understood what was said or done to them or in their presence.[16]If the court is being presented with the evidence of a child who has not been called to give oral evidence the court must when weighing up the child’s evidence remind itself that this evidence was not subject to cross examination, (Re W [2010] I FLR 1485).[17]Hearsay evidence is admissible in family proceedings , (Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993. The issue for the court is the weight that it should attach to hearsay evidence, (Re W (Fact Finding: Hearsay Evidence) [2014] 2 FLR 703).The court must treat hearsay evidence anxiously and consider carefully the extent to which it can properly be relied upon, (R v B County Council ex parte P {1991] 1 WLR 221). If the local authority is relying on hearsay evidence contained in social work notes/chronologies it may have “insuperable, difficulties if a parent not merely puts the matter in issue but goes into the witness-box to deny it, (Sir James Munby in Re A ( A Child)[2015] EWFC 11).[18]The proper approach to an individual witness’ evidence was described by King LJ in Re A (A Child) (Fact Finding) [2020] EWCA Civ 1230, [2021] 1 FLR 815: [40] I do not seek in any way to undermine the importance of oral evidence in family cases, or the long-held view that judges at first instance have a significant advantage over the judges on appeal in having seen and heard the witnesses give evidence and be subjected to cross-examination (Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] WL 477307, [1999] 2 FLR 763 at 784). As Baker J said in in Gloucestershire CC v RH and others at [42], it is essential that the judge forms a view as to the credibility of each of the witnesses, to which end oral evidence will be of great importance in enabling the court to discover what occurred, and in assessing the reliability of the witness. [41] The court must, however, be mindful of the fallibility of memory and the pressures of giving evidence. The relative significance of oral and contemporaneous evidence will vary from case to case. What is important, as was highlighted in Kogan, is that the court assesses all the evidence in a manner suited to the case before it and does not inappropriately elevate one kind of evidence over another. [42] In the present case, the mother was giving evidence about an incident which had lasted only a few seconds seven years before, in circumstances where her recollection was taking place in the aftermath of unimaginably traumatic events. Those features alone would highlight the need for this critical evidence to be assessed in its proper place, alongside contemporaneous documentary evidence, and any evidence upon which undoubted, or probable, reliance could be placed.[19]The court should guard itself against making assessments of witnesses solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box. If the court attempts to determine whether a witness is telling the truth solely by their presentation in the witness box, the court risks making judgments that at best lack any rational basis and at worst reflect conscious or unconscious biases and prejudices. The only reliable approach is to focus on the content of the witnesses evidence and consider whether his oral evidence is consistent with other evidence that he has given, the evidence of others and with known or probable facts, (Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ Macur LJ see also Re J ( A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 875. Jackson LJ).[20]I have set out below my findings. Poor home conditions.[21]The mother’s evidence that the toilet was usable may be correct in the sense that it was capable of being flushed. I also accept M’s evidence that there was no “animal waste” on the floor. Not one of the police officers who attended the family home on the 28th February 2024 reported that there was any animal waste on the floor. PC Hales says that the floors were muddy but he does not refer to animal waste. Doing the best I can from the photographs that have been provided I am unable to see any animal waste. It would however be difficult to ascertain if there was any animal waste from perusing these photographs as there is so much filth and clutter on the floors. The one photograph of the garden reveals that it, like the interior of the home, was in a very poor condition. I do not accept F’s pleaded position that the state of the garden was caused by the next door neighbour. It is clear that the garden could not have been in such a mess as a consequence of the actions of a neighbour. In addition the appalling state of the garden simply replicates the conditions within the interior of the home.[22]In his oral evidence F said that the neighbours had thrown crisp packets rubbish and cans. At first blush F’s contention throws real doubt upon his credibility as a witness as he appears to be minimising his role by seeking to cast blame upon others. However, I accept to some extent the submissions of Miss Cook who invited the court to judge F as a man that sees the world in black and white terms and is particularly concerned with precision when it comes to the use of words. In fact F’s pleaded denial as to causation is in part a direct response to the pleaded case that the “garden is unsafe with cans, rubbish and mess”. It seems to me that my assessment of F need not be a binary one. I do accept to some extent that F’s rather rigid adherence to the precise point put to him is a reflection of his personality yet I also find that he has a tendency to minimise his role in the events that led to these proceedings whilst at the same time he has shown himself to be capable of making quite candid admissions.[23]I accept the hearsay evidence of PC Hebden who described the dogs as living in their own dirt. I appreciate that I must approach hearsay evidence with caution as it has not be tested by cross examination. However, I am satisfied that this is established on the balance of probabilities on the basis that the unspeakable conditions that the parents allowed their children to live in during this period leads me to conclude that the parents would treat these canines in the same manner. I note that in his recent response to threshold F answers the allegation about the dogs absent any rebuttal to the assertion that they were living in their own dirt. This is a man who I have found places great store on the accuracy of vocabulary. If this was outside the family context one could argue that such a failure to address the allegation as to living in their own dirt amounts to an admission on F’s part.[24]Miss Cook questions if such a finding falls within the scope of child protection. In my judgment it does as any future psychiatric/psychological assessment of these parents and subsequent risk assessment may draw upon how M and F treated all creatures that were in their care. I cannot tell from the photographs if the cages were clean or dirty. I accept F’s evidence that there was no food or water in the dogs cages but that does not support a finding that they had no access to food or water. Children’s hygiene needs neglected.[25]I find that the children’s basic hygiene was not maintained and/or that they did not have access to clean and appropriate clothing causing them to suffer and be at risk of suffering neglect, emotional harm in particular. There are two reasons why I make this finding. Firstly, the admission as to the status of the home in my view would support such a finding. I also accept the hearsay evidence contained within the bundle as set out below:• On the 28th February 2024 PC Hales reported that C2’s white shirt was discoloured grey, he had messy hair, his trousers appeared to be too small and his uniform in general appeared very dirty and needed a good clean (1099). PC Hales reported that C3’s jumper was too big for her, the sleeves were black and dirty compared to the rest of the jumper and her hair was long and appeared messy. PC Hales noted that C4’s hair appeared a bit messy, her face had a few marks of dirt and her uniform was dirty in places. PC Hales also attended at C1’s school where he noted that she appeared very clean and presentable and that her hair was long but appeared kept well (1100).• On the 28th February 2024 the duty social worker Miss AA described C3 as being unkempt and wearing an oversized cardigan. Miss AA also visited C2 at his school on the 28th February 2024 where she observed him to be unkempt , that he was wearing a school shirt that was greyish in colour as opposed to white and he seemed to have messy hair.• In the initial SWET authored by TT dated the 29th February 2024 there is a reference on page 315 of concerns shared by the designated safeguarding lead and Headteacher of the younger children’s school Miss RJ. During a strategy discussion it was raised that C2, C3 and C4 presented as unkempt with their clothes often looking dirty or having arrived at school with no socks on. Miss RJ is reported to have said that C4 often looks dishevelled, but C2 was getting to an age where he was starting to look after himself a bit more. In the SWET it was noted that C4 was unkempt when initially seen on the 28th February 2024 and when seen on the 5th March 2024, (post removal from the parents care), she was noted as being more clean and tidy (319).[26]I accept that on the 5th February 2024 a Miss BB from the younger children’s school described the children as being at times unkempt and their uniform was creased an un-ironed. This observation when placed in the balance with the above matters does not cause me to depart from the view that I have arrived at. I make no direct finding as to whether the children attending at school absent any socks was attributable to their sensory issues as maintained by the parents. Within the context of the above the absence of socks adds nothing. Children made to undertake excessive chores.[27]I make a general finding that all of the children were required by the parents to undertake excessive chores and thus I make positive findings in respect of the sub allegations contained in paragraph 3. I do not accept the F’s contention that the children were not forced to undertake household chores and that which was expected of them was age appropriate. I accept the following hearsay evidence contained within the initial SWET.• C2 reported to the duty social worker AA on the 28th February 2024 that his mother sometimes would cook but mostly it’s the children who make their own dinner often cooking pizza or chicken. C2 also said that his parents cooked roast dinners, but his father is often tired from work. C2 reported that his favourite dinner that his father makes was spaghetti and hot dogs with no sauce, (318). The allocated social worker says that when she saw C2 on the 14th March 2024 he said that it was he and C1 who were cooking most of the time and that his father would not cook unless the kitchen was clean. C2 said that he wanted his father to cook more and do more around the house.• A Miss B from Medway Community Health reported at the strategy discussion held on the 28th February 2024 that in July 2023 a school nurse questionnaire was completed for C1 where it was noted that C1 takes on the role of carer within the home, as she helps with housework and takes care of her younger siblings, (316). C1 reported that the parents would tell her to clean her room before she leaves for school or when she arrives home and reports that the reason why her parents asked her to do this is due to them being tired and F working often, (317).• The allocated social worker refers to her seeing C1 at the foster carer’s home on the 14th March 2024. C1 informed the social worker that she was less tired as there were less chores to undertake at her new home (317). On page 318 it is said that on the same date C1 reported that she was looking forward to spending time with her friends as she had not been able to do that often when she was at home.• C1 spoke of doing the cooking in the home, that her mother had chronic fatigue and her father worked a lot. C1 is reported to have said that she often enjoyed making pasta and chicken nuggets (316).• The allocated social worker TT saw C3 alone on the 14th March 2024 at the foster home. C3 said that her foster carers home was different from her parents’ home because it was clean and the food was good. C3 is said to have said that she had not had to prepare food for anyone as she used to at her parents’ house. C3 reported that she was having to make dinner for her family only when food could be prepared using the microwave and that she would prepare pizza and lasagna and help C4 when she wanted to use the microwave (319).[28]I also find that F’s reported comments at the meeting with Miss B at the children’s school on the 5th February 2024 reveals the unacceptable expectations that he had of his children’s responsibility to keep their home in a habitable condition. The note on page 1786 reads as follows: “Dad went onto state that he doesn't know what to do anymore, and is at the end of the rope with them all. SB asked if they would accept the Early Help (EH) referral and support and dad stated there was no point in them coming in again. He stated that when EH come in, the children do what they should be doing, do their chores, help around the house, and as soon as EH leave it goes back to them doing absolutely nothing. He stated that he had been asking the children for weeks to pick up the bags that are all over the kitchen floor, and they are still there. He stated they just don't listen, and don't do what they should be doing. SB asked dad to reconsider, to try and get things better at home for them all, but dad said they wouldn't be accepting the help, and whatever the outcome on them saying no, they would then face. Dad stated that C1 who started at Secondary School in September and previously came to W Primary, and C2 are registered as carers for mum. All children have their chores to do to help support both mum and dad at home. They are not doing this and the only one out of the 4 children who is, is C2. Dad stated that this is the real issue at home, they just won't do what they are expected to do”.[29]I appreciate that during this period F was working 7 days a week and M had issues with her health and mobility. However, those factors cannot in my judgment justify the neglectful conditions that M and F allowed their children to live in. F physically harming the children.[30]To F’s credit he admitted in evidence that he and his wife did smack the children with the exception of C4 (albeit rarely as a last resort and only when the children were doing something dangerous) and that he would lose his temper and shout. In her oral evidence M said that F probably shouted once a week. I thus find that F did struggle to manage his emotions particularly anger which has resulted in the children being physically harmed by him. That finding is secured based upon F and M’s evidence. I also agree to some extent with Miss Cook that F has been candid in this respect which serves to enhance his credibility.[31]It is pleaded that on unknown dates F has strangled C2 and thrown him against a wall. F’s initial response to this allegation was that he had restrained him at times when C2 was being violent but has never strangled him. In his most recent response to this allegation F has added that he has put his hands on his collar and it was done to restrain him not to punish him. In her oral evidence M said that she did not remember seeing F restraining C2 in that manner.[32]There is a school report dated the 21st September 2021 where the following is reported: “C2 had been spoken to regarding his behaviour earlier in the morning. He had kicked another child shortly after coming into school (9am) and could not explain why he had done this. C2 was visibly angry and did not communicate freely as he normally would. C2 then bit the same pupil at lunch time. I spoke with C2, who again was unable to explain any reason for his action other than to say they were playing and he was angry. I asked C2 again about the issue earlier in the day and why he was angry. He then said he was angry before he came to school. I asked why this was and he said, 'Dad makes me angry when he hurts me'. I repeated this back to C2 who nodded. I asked how he hurts him and he said, ' When dad grabs my neck and pushes me against the wall'. C2 gesture using both hands motioning a circle with his hands. C2 had no marks or bruising on his neck. He said that mum had seen this and she 'didn't say much' about it. C2 said that both C3 and C1 had seen this happen and that it happens 3-4 times a week. C2 told me dad got angry with him when he was horrible to his sisters (punching, biting, pulling hair etc) and when he would not put his socks on. C2 said that he does not like seems in his socks, and that the seamless socks are too big and annoy him. I spoke with C1 (C2 older sister) who explained that C2 is 'always fighting with C3' and that he hurts her. She said that he pulls their hair, hits and punches her. C1 said that he sometimes hurts her, but not often. C1 said that mum and dad try and stop the fighting, however she was unable to say how they do this. C1 confirmed that C2 doesn't like to put his socks on and dad sometimes gets to the shouting point. She said dad wears seamless socks too. C1 said that it is not often that they argue, but sometime dad did get angry and smack them on the bum. I asked if dad had ever placed his hands on C2's neck, and C1 confirmed that she had seen dad 'grab on his neck' when he was really angry. C1 said that her dad could be quite scary when he was really angry. She said that when he did this, C2 'was more scared than hurt' and that 'C2 goes off upset and mum trys to calm dad down'. C1 said dad gets really angry when C2 hurts others”.[33]In the child and family assessment dated the 21st September 2021 it was recorded that “staff at the school spoke to his sibling, C1 and C3, and the girls reported that, there are always arguments about socks, “dad only does it when angry and saw him grab him round the neck today”. The school reported that the girl were “very matter of fact about it but she agreed it happens twice a week”, (659).On the 5th August 2024 there is a social services note that says that C1 “mentioned that she remembered a time when dad held C2 by the throat and pinned him up against the wall”, (879).[34]In his oral evidence F said that on one occasion he had pinned C2 up against the wall “my hand was not on the his neck but on the top of his chest…it was not anywhere near choking”. F explained that C2 was very angry and that he was taking it out on his sisters.[35]On balance I find this allegation proven. I am very mindful that C2’s allegations to the schoolteacher is hearsay evidence and that it comes after his poor behaviour noted at school and thus could be an attempt by him to justify his conduct . I also note that no marks were seen on C2’s neck. The allegation does not appear to have been made as a consequence of the teacher asking a leading question however, C1’s corroborating statement flows from such a question. I am not satisfied that C1’s repetition of this allegation in August 2024 undermines the cogency of what she was reporting on the basis that with time memories fade. In my judgment the repetition of the allegation serves to illustrate that it was a one off event that had some impact on C1.[36]I accept the evidence of M who described F when angry as akin to a frustrated toddler and the evidence of both parents that F would get angry and had laid hands on his children. I am also concerned that F only provided his detailed evidence as to placing his hand on C2’s collar in his oral evidence. F’s witness statement is brief, was filed late and does not contain this evidence. In addition F only makes the admission as to placing his hand on C2’s collar in his very late response to the schedule of allegations. Even factoring in F’s rather rigid thinking these are matters that in my judgment undermine his credibility.[37]I find that F would get really angry with C2 at least twice a week. This chimes with F’s admissions as to losing his temper and is supported by the note set out above. When it was put to F that the girls had made this report F did not proffer a denial he simply said “I don’t know…potentially yes it was a long time ago I cannot remember”. I am satisfied that F did on an occasion line up the children and smack them as reported above. I have not felt it necessary in this case to give myself a Lucas direction. I am not of the view that F has lied to the court I find rather that he tends to minimise the role that he has played in the events that led to the removal of his children.[38]F in his oral evidence accepted that he had held C4 by the arm and pulled her from one side of the car to the other and that when she exited the car she fell to the ground as that is what she tended to do. I approach the evidence of the anonymous referrer who reported that F grabbed H, that her feet did not touch the ground, that he dropped her on the floor, that C4 was screaming and F threw C4’s lunch and school bag at her with obvious caution (777). I do not accept Miss Cook’s submission that the caller’s reference to the parents being “moody and miserable”, (778) and a further reference to them being “spiteful and dirty” as being indicative that this caller had some sort of issue with these parents. The evidential basis for this does not exist and in any event it takes me no further as I must consider this evidence with anxious anxiety (caution?). The detail about F throwing the school and lunch bag has a degree of authenticity to it. I make the finding as pleaded as it does not depart in large measure from F’s admissions which in my judgment are always tempered with a desire to minimise his role. A man angry and frustrated with his child and using his physicality in response tallies with the totality of the evidence on this issue. Whether or not M was sexually gratified from viewing the video’s/images of child pornography.[39]The above allegation as pleaded does not refer to M being sexually gratified during the conversations with the unknown male where she introduces C3 and another child as part of the sexual conversation. I am not satisfied that the evidence supports a finding that M was sexually gratified from viewing the videos/ images of child pornography. M’s evidence is that she clicked on these images and immediately closed them down. M has made a number of significant admissions in this case and I note that a vast majority of those admissions were made in the early days of these proceedings. In my judgment M is a broken person who deeply regrets her conduct and now has to live with the consequences of what she has inflicted upon her children. There is no scaffolding evidence to suggest that M has a sexual interest in children outside the conversations with the unknown male. There is an absence of any history of viewing such images on the internet and an absence of any evidence that M has an interest in paedophilia save for the conversations with this unknown male.[40]Whilst not pleaded it is open to me to find that M was sexually gratified during the conversations with the unknown male. I find that M was an active participant in these conversations. However, it is not in my judgment my place to determine if that active participation equates to her deriving sexual gratification from the dialogue. M in her oral evidence claimed that when she was referring to C3 or any other child she was actually thinking of herself. I cannot determine if this is true or false and for me to do so would amount to speculation absent any appropriate expert evidence. Whether the children have seen photographs of F holding M on a lead .[41]I do not make this finding which in my judgment does not take matters very far. Risk of sexual harm from F.[42]I accept that the computer belonged to F that it was not password protected and thus anybody in theory could have had access to it. I accept the evidence of F that the children did not use the computer, and I accept the evidence of the parents that M only used that computer in the presence of F when she was helping him with his accounts. Thus for all intents and purposes the only user of this device was F. F has admitted browsing the extreme pornographic sites including those displaying images of zoophilia. The issue is whether or not F also viewed child pornography. I have considered carefully the evidence of the digital forensic expert Mr Smith and in particular his evidence as it relates to F’s computer and I accept his evidence.[43]Mr Smith “extracted” from this computer 6 prohibited videos of children, (12 if you include the duplicates) and 1, 403 prohibited images of children, (not including the duplicates). None of the child abuse imagery was stored on the computer (474 paragraph 6.4).[44]The 6 prohibited videos were all located within “Libraries\Pictures\Filth\hentai\Tram Pararam Site Rip December 2010 animations”. F accepted that he had created this folder and that he stored private material involving him and his wife. Mr Smith was unable to identify how the imagery became to be on the computer and “did not identify any file activity on [the computer] to suggest that these video files had been accessed by a user”, (paragraph 6.18). The 6 duplicate videos were recovered from unallocated areas of the disk but how and when these duplicates came to be on the computer was not available, (paragraph 6.19).[45]In terms of the prohibited images Mr Smith says these were located within the archive file “Jab XXX.rar” located in “Libraries\Pictures\Filth\hentai\ JabXXX”. Mr Smith said that if the user had not unpacked the archive file they may not be aware of the contents of the archive file. However, in the same folder was another folder “Jab XXX” which contained the unpacked archive contents. Mr Smith did not identify how the archive file became to be on the computer, ( 6.20). In paragraph 6.22 Mr Smith says that he did not identify any file activity to suggest that the “JabbXXX” files had been accessed by a user.[46]Mr Smith located 1, 233 prohibited images of children within the sub folders of “Libraries\Pictures\Filth\hentai\Tram Pararam Site Rip December 2010 animations”. Mr Smith could not identify how the imagery came to be on the device and he did not identify any file activity to suggest that the Tram Pararam files had been accessed by a user. In terms of internet searches Mr Smith did not identify any history relating to child pornography, (paragraphs7.1 and7.2 ).[47]In his oral evidence Mr Smith opined that there was no child abuse imagery stored on this computer. Mr Smith could not say how the child pornography had got onto the computer or if anyone had viewed the pornography and that he could not say if anything untoward had been accessed on this computer. Mr Smith confirmed that there were no messages relating to child abuse imagery or other illegal imagery.[48]F in cross examination denied downloading or transferring the prohibited images of children and when asked how they were written into the file he replied that he had no idea and if he speculated maybe they were there as a consequence of him using the web sharing platform or a ‘torrent bit’. F repeated this belief when I asked the same question but also said that they could have been there as a consequence of a virus. F also informed me that he had virus software on his computer. F denied that he knew the images were on his computer as he had unpacked the archive contents and denied that he had created the file on his computer to store prohibited images of children. F said that he had on occasions looked at M’s phone and that he had not seen any video images of children. When asked what he would have done F replied that he would have reported it to the police.[49]The local authority and the guardian urge the court to make a finding that F did view the child pornography that was identified by Mr Smith. In considering this allegation I am mindful that F was in reality the only person who accessed the computer, that at one time the images/videos were on his computer, that it is not possible to say how they came to be on his computer and it is not possible to say if he viewed the images/video. Ms Rahman for the Guardian submitted that the fact that at one time the prohibited material was on the computer is sufficient for the court to make such a finding. Miss Porter in addition submitted that the fact that F’s credibility was questionable, that he had admitted to viewing the extreme pornography including zoophilia and the fact that he created the Tram folder supports a finding that F viewed this material. I am unable to make such a finding on the balance of probabilities. There is an absence of any evidence that F has a sexual interest in children. It would be a huge evidential leap for the court to conclude that because of F’s interest in extreme pornography he is interested in child pornography. The mere once presence of this material on F’s computer when the expert cannot determine how it came to be on the computer and the lack of any evidence that this material had been viewed serves only to widen the evidential gap. F was aware or ought to have been aware and turned a blind eye of the risk the M posed of the harm, including the sexual harm, posed to the children.[50]In her oral evidence M informed Miss Cook that she “greatly regretted” not telling F about her conversations with the unknown male. When I asked M to elaborate she said “ I didn’t understand the things in my head….he would not have thought that I was a monster…I was an idiot for not telling him…I know that he would have been kind and loving and understanding ….but at that point I thought he would have thought I was a horrible monster and would have wanted a divorce”.[51]In his oral evidence F was asked by Miss Porter if he was worried that M may pose a sexual risk to all the children ,but particularly C1 and C3 as pleaded by the local authority. F replied, “in my opinion I don’t think that I could answer this accurately there are more appropriate people who can answer that”. F said that he was upset by the content of the messages and that the first time that he was aware of these communications was when he was at the police station. F said that he had not looked at all of the messages but just those as set out in the schedule. F said that he had not asked M as to the detail of what she said to the unknown male and that he knew “enough to get the idea….I have not asked for detail as to what was said”. Miss Porter asked F why he had not asked more questions to which F replied, “how does that benefit me or help her?” Miss Porter suggested that this would allow F to understand the situation around his children to which F replied, “ I have enough to understand I don’t’ need every syllable”. Miss Porter asked F if he had asked M before or after her arrest if she had a sexual interest in children. F’s response was that he had not asked her before her arrest as there was no indication that M had such an interest and he had not asked her after her arrest as he believed M when she said that she did not have such a sexual interest. Miss Porter asked F why he believed M was having these sort of conversations with this unknown male F replied, “she was abused as a child….I feel like she was trying to understand her own abuse…the male is pushing her towards certain aspects I feel like she was groomed quite viciously”.[52]I do not find that F knew or ought to have been aware and turned a blind eye of the risk that M posed to the children. The only evidence that M may have had such an interest are the communications with the unknown male. There was an absence of evidence therefore to alert F to any risk. The communication with the unknown male as Mr Storey submitted came out of a clear blue sky. I cannot see how F’s reluctance to ask more questions or to read all of the documentation equates to him “turning a blind eye”. F’s response post the information becoming available to him is not surprising as individuals respond to these sort of events in different ways. I accept M’s evidence that she did not tell her husband as she deeply regrets her conduct and was ashamed to do so.[53]That is my judgment. HHJ Thomas 30th January 2026.