B Council v M & Ors

This matter is listed in care proceedings brought by B Council in relation to three children: X, Y and Z.

In relation to X, it is a combined fact-finding and disposal hearing. In relation to Y and Z it is a fact-finding hearing. The difference arises because the local authority revised their plans for Y and Z shortly before this hearing in the light of video material which they had not (for a mixture of reasons) previously examined. The late change in plans meant more time and evidence was required before the respondents could properly deal in court with the revised plans.

Proceedings were issued on the 3 October 2024. This hearing started on the 17 July 2025. The oral evidence came to an end on the 31 July 2025. It took time for me to receive written closing submission because we were then in vacation. I eventually received closing submission in writing and allowed for replies (none in fact were received) by the 18 August. This judgment was sent out in draft on the 20 August 2025 and handed down, after corrections, on the 27 August.

Proceedings will inevitably continue for Y and Z beyond this judgment. Delay is inimical to all the children’s well-being. The disruption to these children’s lives is even longer than the dates just given would suggest. X has been voluntarily accommodated by the local authority since her mother handed her over to them on the 20 March 2024. Further, the moment when this local authority became involved in these children’s lives can be put at the 20 November 2023, when X made allegations at her school that her stepfather (who is the father of Y and Z) had been sexually abusing her.

This hearing has been primarily about whether the allegations made by X on that occasion, and other somewhat differing allegations made by her later, are true. It is agreed by all parties that X will be subject to a care order, regardless of my findings on that issue. It is not agreed that Y and Z should be so subject.

B Council has been represented by Ms Cheetham KC and Ms Bentley.

The children’s mother, M, has been represented by Miss Irving KC and Miss Taylor.

F has been represented by Ms Hughes KC and Mr Hunt.

G (X’s father) has been represented by Miss Morgan and Miss Bate.

X has been represented through her Guardian Ms Whittaker by Miss Bowcock KC and Mr Martin.

And, Y and Z have been represented through their Guardian, Ms Starkie, by Mr Jones KC and Miss Moody.

X is now 15 years old. Y is 11 and Z is 7.

M had a relationship with G, before meeting and then marrying F. She is 32 now, and G is 31, so both were young when X was born on the 15 October 2009. Their relationship quickly broke down.

In 2011 M, after a short relationship with Mr J, started a relationship with F. He too had been in a previous relationship. He is a few years older and is now 37. He is employed as a cleaner which involves working early mornings. She is not currently employed.

In December 2014 while living in C (which was within the remit of a different local authority, C Council) X was made subject to a Child in Need plan. She had reported that her dad slapped her and swung her upside down. It was thought for a period this was a reference to G, and it is said that M deflected the allegation that way, but in fact the dad X had in mind was F.

Y was born in May 2015.

In January 2016 (when she would have been 6) X’s school record shows that there was an incident between her and a male pupil when she was found with a blanket over them with her lying on top of him, kissing him.

In December 2016 X reported to her schoolteacher seeing G in bed with his girlfriend, and that he was making noises and swearing. G denies that this happened. This was an occasional visit. He has had very little involvement in X’s life.

In January 2017 C Council were again involved with X following issues with the family’s neighbours. It was reported by a social worker that there was a concern F was physically chastising her, and Y, who was then 2.

The family moved to B in October 2017 and X started at D Primary Academy. She subsequently moved on to secondary school at E High School.

Z was born in January 2018.

I have seen a number of unhappy video recordings from Mr and M’s house during 2020. Cameras, with microphones, had been put in parts of the house by the parents in about 2020. They tell me that they were to monitor the children, in particular X, who was behaving badly. They tell me that they were motion sensitive and so that when they follow a child that is an automatic function of the camera rather than indicating human control.

During 2023 X made a number of comments to her school, some of which I should record:

On the 20 November 2023, X made an allegation that on the 16November F sexually abused her, and he had been sexually abusing her since she was 10 years old. She had been suspended from school for bad behaviour on the 16th, and she says there was a period of time on that day when her mother was out shopping and F was at home and he abused her. She had a meeting at school on the 20 November 2023 with her mother, her head of year, S, and R, the safeguarding manager at her school, when she made the allegation of sexual abuse against F, first to her mother and then to S and R.

The police and the local authority become involved on that day. X was interviewed by the police, DC Carla Ellwood, and DC Adam Errington, with a social worker, Lauren Skyrme (and student social worker Harrit Ogden), school staff as above and her mother present. I have different records of that meeting. The police record I have is in an ABE1. That is a proforma document prepared as a set of questions for the witness, with blanks for the officer to fill in the response.

F was interviewed that day by the police, DC Carla Ellwood and DC Tony Pethick, and left the family home as a condition of police bail. X returned to her home. On the 22 November 2023 she said at school she might be pregnant. She was spoken to by R, and T of the school, in relation to this and it is recorded that she said that F had not put his penis in ‘that hole but in a different hole’. She said she had stomach pains.

X moved to her maternal grandparents on the 27 November 2023. She returned to her family home again on the 20 December 2023. This was difficult. The grandparents wanted to return her because of her behaviour. The mother did not want her back. The mother did – with the intervention of the police whom the mother had called – take X back.

On the night of the 23/24 January 2024 X was taken by ambulance to hospital. Her mother did not come with her. She had attempted to strangle herself.

On the 25 January 2024, the maternal grandparents collected X from hospital and took her back to their home.

Police bail expired in February 2024 and F returned to the family home. The police had decided to take no further action against him.

On the 20 March 2024, when the grandparents said they could cope with X no longer, she moved to a local authority residential unit, W Residential Unit. She was accommodated there pursuant to section 20 of the Children Act 1989. While she was there, she made various further allegations about her time at her family home and sexual abuse.

In May 2024, the police became re-involved. On the 4 May 2024 X made allegations to U (a member of staff at W Residential Unit) that Y forced her to engage in sexual activity with him threatening her with a knife. On the 5 May 2024 DC Ellwood, DC Pethick and Danielle Wilson (her social worker) visited X. She was uncommunicative. On the 7 May 2024 DC Carla Ellwood and DC Tony Pethick together again with Danielle Wilson and P interviewed her. This interview related to allegations that X had made against her brother, Y. After the police meeting there were further discussions between X, Danielle Wilson, and P.

There was another joint police/social work visit on the 9 May 2024. Present at this were DC Loftus and DC Mantovani, Danielle Wilson and P.

In June 2024 F was interviewed again. This time he gave a ‘no comment’ interview.

The Care Proceedings were issued by the local authority in October 2024.

In December 2024 there were two videoed ABE interviews, which I have watched and read. This is over a year since X first made her allegations. DC Loftus and Mantovani interviewed X. Rebecca Hughes was present as an intermediary.

The police have taken no further action in relation to the allegations made by X against F.

I shall not detail the case management of this case by the family courts, save to say:

X has remained at W Residential Unit and F has not returned to the family home (where Y and Z still live) save for periods when they are out at school. M and F continue in a relationship.

The local authority invites me to make findings of fact in relation to sexual harm caused by F to X, emotional harm caused by Mr and M to X; a failure of M to protect X; that Y and Z have suffered emotional harm; and that Y and Z have been placed at risk of sexual harm by F. They invite me to make final care orders in relation to X.

M says that she does not know whether the allegations made against F are true or untrue but she is of the view that X is not telling the truth about them. She says that X is an extremely difficult and troubled child. She says that X has lied about a lot of things, including an allegation that Y had sexually abused her, which X subsequently accepted was something initiated by her. She accepts emotional harm of X, by using cameras in the house to observe and manage her, which invaded her privacy in her bedroom. She accepts that she and F have denigrated X, shouted at her and humiliated her. She admits she cannot care for her. She admits she failed to protect X from emotional and psychological harm and failed to protect Y and Z from the emotional harm caused by the scapegoating of X. She accepts that Y and Z have suffered significant emotional and psychological harm. She accepts that the threshold for state intervention has been passed.

F denies that he has sexually abused X in any way. He accepts that he has caused emotional harm by coercive and controlling behaviour of X and says he is ‘deeply ashamed’ of his behaviour in the videos, and ‘deeply remorseful’ more generally in relation to how he has cared for X. He too accepts that the threshold has been passed.

F’s case is that X is a troubled child, who has episodes of poor mental health. Points are made that: (i) the sexual allegations are uncorroborated; (ii) X alleges an exchange of photographs, messages, and pornographic searches which are not found on his phone; (iii) that her allegations are vague, lacking in experiential detail, and inconsistent; (iv) she had a mental health breakdown, hears voices in her head, refers to dreams and hallucinations; (v) she makes false allegations against others and (vi) she is preoccupied with sexual encounters with Y.

G at the beginning of the case only really put his case in relation to a potential Re W application, namely whether X should give oral evidence. It is possible to gather from that position statement that he acknowledges he has largely been absent from X’s life, but his counsel does note that X has been consistent in her allegations against F.

Neither Miss Bowcock or Mr Jones prepared opening position statements on behalf of the children, other than on the Re W application. I did however get assistance from Mr Jones at the beginning of the hearing by way of an account of the relevant law.

The general allegation is that F has systematically sexually abused X on multiple occasions from when she was 10 years old until 16 November 2023. That is broken down into 9 categories of types of abuse. I shall not record them here, that is not because I do not have them in mind, but because it will be necessary for me to work back to them having considered the specific allegations of what he is said to have done on particular occasions. Those specific allegations are as follows (as set out in the threshold document compiled by the local authority):

There were two preliminary matters before me when this case was opened on the 17 July, the first whether I should hear oral evidence from X (the Re W application) and the second whether I should hear oral evidence from Professor Billington, a chartered psychologist who had carried out a psychological assessment of X.

The first was resolved straightforwardly. Notwithstanding that according to Ms Whittaker, X was prepared to come and give oral evidence if that was sought, F who had made the application to put live questions to her, decided to withdraw that application. His position was he did not thereby agree to the truth of what she said but felt it unnecessary to put her through the trauma of giving live evidence. No other party wanted to put questions to her, and so I allowed him to withdraw that application. I subsequently heard that she was relieved not to have to give live evidence.

It was F’s counsel who wanted Professor Billington to attend to give oral evidence. When it was explained to me that the question that Ms Hughes wanted to put to him was the same as one that had already been put in writing I expressed some concern as to what would be achieved by his attendance and Ms Hughes did not press her application.

The parties reassessed the witness timetable, recently received material, and availability of witnesses in the light of these two developments, and the matter was put over to Monday the 21^st July.

I record my observations here of the live witnesses in the order I heard them. I do not intend to set out the entirety of their evidence but deal with the points that emerged that I consider noteworthy, and I will make some observations upon them. I do not indeed to analyse in this part of my judgment the factors for and against the factual issues on which I need to make findings. That shall follow.

R is a safeguarding manager at what was X’s secondary school E High School. She had prepared a statement in January 2025 (without a day of the month specified). In that statement she related that she had on the 16 January 2023 (some two years before) arranged a meeting with M, and the year head, S, which was to take place on the 20 November 2023, to discuss a referral from a teacher that other students had told that teacher that X was saying that her dad had made her pregnant. At the meeting on the 20^th, after being told of the importance of telling the truth and an acknowledgment by X that she had made things up in the past, X was left with M, who, then came out of the room to say that X was saying it was true and her stepfather ‘had been touching her’. The school staff went back into the room and X said, among other things, that F had put his penis next to but not inside her privates, on Thursday, when M was at Asda. At that stage R relates she left the meeting and called the police and the local authority.

We are told that a joint meeting was promptly arranged. M was not prepared to wait; she left and returned to school for the meeting after the police and social workers arrived. The meeting is not detailed in the statement, but a note of it appears elsewhere in my papers. X repeated her allegations at the meeting – subject to some differences which were made clear under cross examination.

It quickly became clear that R had very little specialist training in managing and dealing with allegations of sexual abuse. I do not consider that rendered her evidence worthless of itself, but it did mean that in relation to her records it is necessary to keep in mind that she was not a professional taking a careful note of all the points which might in the future be considered relevant (including questions put) but a largely untrained person doing the best that she could to record the essentials - as she then saw them to be.

My attention was drawn to a note that had been made on CPOMS (a school child protection and online monitoring system) on the 25 September 2023 that there were rumours among the pupils that X was pregnant and that her father had raped her. There was a meeting on the 26 September 2023 between R (with another) and X, in which it is recorded that X stated that ‘these rumours are not true [.] Nothing like that has ever happened to me.’ X said that she did not start this rumour, and said that the only rumour she started was one in year 8 about drinking sperm and she made that one up.

This was part of the context which explained why, when the school was faced with further rumours among students that X was raped by her stepfather it dealt with the situation by calling a meeting with her mother. They had already investigated rumours to this effect, and X had said to them that the rumours were untrue. Further, this explains why the meeting started not with an exploration with X as to whether the rumours were true, but an explanation of the importance of telling the truth. In short, the recent rumours were perceived as a repetition of the earlier rumours, which X had already said were not true.

Of course, I must take care to note that the mere fact that X had previously said these rumours were not true does not mean that she was not sexually abused by her stepfather – merely that she had previously denied that she was.

R had her attention drawn to differences between her accounts of what X had alleged her stepfather had done to her. In her handwritten note of the meeting she said, in essence, that when her mother went to Asda he touched me. In her account to the police, which followed that meeting, she said, that X alleged, he touched her private parts with his hand and then had got his penis out and touched her private parts with her penis but there was no penetration. In her statement R had written (in quotation marks, after saying X pointed to her ‘privates’) ‘he put his penis next to it but not inside’.

R could not explain why she had not recorded in her handwritten note that the touching was with F’s penis. She had no real answer to this. It does not seem to me that this is a matter of importance. The log of the phone call with the police is strong evidence of what R thought was said at the meeting. It was straight after the meeting with X. It was not suggested to R that there would have been any deliberate distortion.

I heard from Q. She was X’s school teacher. She had not prepared a statement but was called by the local authority at the request of the mother because she had given an account on CPOMS (child protection online monitoring system) of an incident when X made an allegation that another child had touched her on her shoulder without consent, but when pressed X had agreed that she had shoulder barged the other child. Q had reflected in her notes about the difficulties that might arise for X on not telling the truth, her ‘motivation for distorting the truth’, her craving for attention, and that Q thought that X was unhappy and was concerned about her mental health. She had also logged an incident in which X said she was concerned about being attacked on the way home by another child with a machete; and another occasion when she was distressed about being called gay.

Q did say that X would quickly admit that she had lied, when she had lied, but it was put to her that this was only when she was challenged in the lie, and Q agreed with that.

I heard from DC Ellwood. She was one of the police officers that visited X at school on the 20 November 2023. She had prepared a statement (wrongly headed in the name of DC Pethick) dated the 20 May 2025. She also interviewed F. She related that there was a review in (it appears) January and February 2024 in which it was concluded that it was not appropriate to conduct a further interview with X (which she had initially refused but was now prepared to give) because of inconsistencies in her account, and other accusations that she had made. She related in the statement that she was further involved in May 2024 given the allegations X had made at the care home. Further later in May she went to the family home and took F’s old phone which had been returned to him when no further action was taken on the earlier allegations.

There is a further statement from DC Ellwood (my copy is unsigned). This is of uncertain date in June 2025. She gives additional details in that, including that X did not go to the ‘Safe Centre’ where medical experts would have examined X for injuries because M did not provide the necessary consent; an incident on the 28 November 2023 where M made allegations about threats made by X; and other instances involving X making sexual allegations in relation to others.

There is a short third statement when DC Ellwood confirmed on the 14 July 2025 that she could not confirm the model of the mobile phone booked in but could confirm it had not been examined.

Just before she started her oral evidence it emerged that there was another investigation triggered by the events involved in this case. In May 2024 X had related to staff at W Residential Unit that she had been sexually assaulted by Y. This caused DC Ellwood to interview X as part of a short investigation into that assault. It was uncertain whether that triggered an ABE1 interview of her. There was none disclosed in the papers although there appeared to be reference to one. DC Ellwood said at the conclusion of her evidence that she would check whether that could be found. None has been produced to me and so I assume none has been found.

A number of notable points emerged during the oral evidence of DC Ellwood. I record them in no particular order:

I heard from U. She is a support worker at W Residential Unit. She had prepared a statement dated on an unspecified day in January 2025. She related that on the 4 May 2024 she took X to the cinema. On the way X related that she used to touch a dog inappropriately and she put two fingers insider her mother’s dog. She also related that her brother made her have sex with him.

In oral examination it emerged that she too had no specialist training in managing children who alleged sexual abuse. Her account was that X told her all these things whilst in the car, unprompted, and that when she got back she wrote up what X had said.

It was put to her that X made various false allegations in relation to staff at W Residential Unit, and U agreed with this. She was taken to some notes from W Residential Unit in which it is recorded that X had said ‘why does my brain tell me that I touched U’s bum, I know I didn’t’. X had been told by U to control what she said and reminded how inappropriate this was. U confirmed this had happened.

I heard from Lauren Skyrme. She is a social worker who attended E High School School on the 20 November 2023. She has prepared a short statement date 5 June 2025. That relates what happened at the interview.

She too had had no special training in ABE interviews. She struggled to remember the details of what had occurred at the meeting on the 20 November, save by reference to her notes. She was able however to correct one part of her notes. Where she had recorded that X had told her mum (about F’s sexual abuse) because he said it was a secret and if he went to prison he would hunt her down and kill her, she meant to say she had not told her mum about the abuse for that reason.

She did recall her subsequent visit to the family home and that she was positive about it and her meeting with Y and Z. She was cross examined about why the mother’s continuing relationship with F did not cause her greater concern for Y and Z. Her response, at first was that M was an adult and could make her own choice. This was challenged, as not meeting the children’s needs. She responded by saying that she was not concerned because M was following the safety plan and working really well with children’s services in an open way.

I heard from Georgia Felton. She is a social worker now, but at the time of her involvement in these proceedings she was a student social worker. She took X to a drop-in meeting at CASHER (child and adolescent support and help enhanced response) at the hospital in the 8 January 2024, while X was living at home. The note she took at the time (she could not remember better now) related that X talked about thinking of her sister as her girlfriend, putting her fingers in her dog’s bum, and how her stepfather used to make her touch his private parts and suck them.

Georgia Felton noted during her cross examination that X appeared calm as she gave her account, and that she was not prompted by questions. She also related that she knew X was struggling with her mental health.

I heard from L. He is the registered manager of W Residential Unit. He had prepared a statement dated the 16 May 2025. His statement was very short. It told me that there was a practice to record significant comments and conversations between young people and staff as soon as possible so as to keep an accurate record of them.

In oral evidence he told me that X was doing well in the accommodation now. In particular, he was pleased that she was attending school again (a different, specialist one) after a period when she did not attend school anywhere and was achieving well at her current school.

He told me that X had changed her key worker, because she had started to present with sexualised behaviour with her previous one. He related that she had made numerous false allegations against the staff and other young people at W Residential Unit, including allegations of violence (such as that he had manhandled her), fixations and crushes on them and allegations that another young person had sniffed her knickers while on the line, that somebody at her new school had been touching her, and that she had expressed that she wanted to have sex with a resident. He agreed that her behaviour had been very difficult such that he had to request additional support. Not only did his staff need specialist support but he agreed that they needed safeguarding from her allegations. He made the request for more support in August 2024 (X arrived in March). The support took many months to arrive. When it eventually came it was by way of extra staffing so X could have a 2:1 staff ratio. He was clear that such a ratio was not a good thing for X in the medium term and it only lasted for 2 weeks. By the end of the 2-week period he related that her behaviour began to become more manageable.

That was in large part, it appeared to me from his answers, because he and the other staff became better able to deal with her allegations. The allegations continued to be made, but when X was asked whether she wanted to pursue an allegation she would often withdraw it or laugh it off. L was therefore able to take the view that the complaints were not being maintained so were not of such significance as to trigger notification obligations he might have to the local authority and Ofsted.

One of the ways in which X displayed sexualised behaviour, he related, was by noisy and overt masturbation. In relation to this and other sexualised behaviour he agreed with the suggestion that she would usually say that ultimately her behaviour was not her fault but a consequence of F’s abuse of her.

L agreed that neither he or his team had had any particular advice as to how to manage X. He did explain how she had some sex and relationship education by way of some online instruction which she would access together with other members of staff who would help her consider what she was being told.

He did relate that X had expressed the view that not only was she pregnant but also that she had had children.

He related that there were at least three Xs: an infant, who would sometimes just crawl on the floor, an adolescent, and a mature person. How she would respond to a situation depended on which X was present.

He agreed that X did not have the maturity of her years and put her mental age at 8 years.

Further he related that there were occasions when she reported what appeared to be hallucinations, seeing F in her room, and that she had dreams of F, including dreams of having sex with him. In re-examination he agreed that she had said that F is often present in her thoughts.

I heard oral evidence from P she is X’s current key worker at W Residential Unit, and deputy manager of W Residential Unit. She had given a statement on the 30 January 2025. In that statement she related that after the police had come to speak to X on the 7 May 2024, about her allegations in relation to Y, X talked to her and her social worker, Danielle, about her allegations against her stepfather. P also related a conversation in August 2024 about masturbation, when X said she was masturbating, but on enquiry she did not know what masturbation meant. And she related a conversation she had in the car with X in September 2024 when X told her that she had intercourse with her brother, but she did not know what intercourse was. She then also talked about what her stepfather would make her do and how she, and he and her together, used to watch pornography.

P confirmed what L had said about the many untruthful and sexual allegations that X had made against members of the staff at W Residential Unit.

She confirmed that X used to represent that she had voices in her head, and that on two occasions she had said F was in her room, when he was not.

She was questioned as to whether she had told X that she believed her when she made her allegations against F, and shown a note of the social worker, Danielle Wilson, which recorded that she (Danielle Wilson) said they both (Danielle Wilson and P) believed her (X). P did not think that she had said that she had believed X. It is clear however from that note that even if she had just kept quiet it would appear to X that she too believed her.

I heard from Amanda Rothwell. She was a Family Friends Meeting Co-ordinator working for B Council. She had been asked to attend by M’s team. I did not note anything of importance in her evidence.

I heard from DI Fenton. He was DC Loftus senior officer and attended the trial because she could not. She had been the officer in charge of the investigation arising from the allegations made by X when in W Residential Unit. She had prepared a statement. There was little assistance he could give in answering questions on that statement.

His evidence, however, did provide information. He had reviewed that investigation and he had made the decision that notwithstanding that there was video recorded evidence from X the case should be closed with no further action taken. He produced for the court and the parties a copy of that decision. I note that he was undertaking a different analysis to that I am required to undertake, namely whether or not there was likely to be a successful prosecution and whether further actions could be taken to overcome current evidential challenges. He decided there were no further actions that could be taken and that he did not think there was a likelihood of a successful prosecution.

Mr Jones helpfully put to him a balance sheet of for and against factors, which was agreed and supplemented by DI Fenton. Without slavishly following Mr Jones’s words, the strengths of the case were:

He dealt with some of these points sensibly: namely that sexualised behaviour and distress and mental health problems might be seen as caused by abuse, but that it would be circular to rely on them as such without sufficient other evidence to prove the abuse. It could be argued, the other way, that her sexualised behaviour caused her to make the allegation and that her distress and poor mental health meant that her evidence was unreliable. Further he took into account the harm that continuing an investigation might cause to X.

A number of other points were made that I should note.

I heard from Libby Todd. She had not prepared a statement and was called by the local authority at the request of other parties. She had been X’s social worker from December 2023 to January 2024. Her position with B was her first one after qualification and it was a temporary one.

I learnt the following from her:

I heard from DC Mantovani. She had attended X in W Residential Unit with DC Loftus and others to take a second ABE1 from X in May 2024. She had been present in the video ABE interviews. She had prepared one substantial statement in July 2025.

She gave evidence about the process of X giving the evidence which was recorded in that ABE1. Some of the words in the ABE1 (which was completed by DC Mantovani) were her summary, and recollection of X’s words, taken from her notes. Some (recorded at the bottom of the form) were transcripts of what X had written on cards. There were some, usually small, differences between the social worker’s record and DC Mantovani’s. What however did emerge, which was not apparent from the notes or the ABE1, was that the process of gathering the allegations from X was interspersed with substantial chats about other matters. It appeared to DC Mantovani that chatting on something else was a coping method of X. What would happen is that X would get worked up and then distract herself by talking about something else – such as what was on the television – before returning to another allegation. These off-topic chats are not recorded in the notes at all.

Further, she related that the ABE1 interview was terminated when X became extremely distressed, such that she was clawing at her toenails till they bled. She agreed with counsel that her evidence would not be reliable in that state but made the point that the predominant reason for stopping the interview was the immediate welfare of X.

I heard from F. He had prepared four statements, each referred to as responses to threshold but with further narrative. He has also given two police interviews which I have read: the first dated the 20 November 2023, and the second dated the 4 June 2024. The first interview shows him endeavouring to answer the police questions. The second has a prepared statement and is then a no comment interview.

The case that he presents in writing is that he recognises that he has behaved badly to X. She has been extremely difficult. He denies the allegations as to sexual abuse – in every particular. He points out that X has made false allegations against others. His first police interview does appear to be an attempt to answer the allegations put to him. He does not in that appear to try to deflect the police questions. I do note that he gave that interview without a solicitor, and that was a deliberate decision on his part.

I remind myself that in the cognitive assessment of him by Dr Quinn, which is in my papers, I am told that F’s verbal comprehension and visual speed of processing are within the borderline rage. His working memory skills are low average and his perceptual reasoning skills are average. He, I am told, has an element of learning need with a particular weakness for verbal information and issues with concentration and memory. As a consequence, an intermediary was present during his evidence and paused questions from time to time, to require them to be reworded. Breaks were taken at her suggestion and otherwise during the course of the evidence.

I bear in mind that the intermediary could not hope to overcome problems with F’s memory, or his other learning needs – merely mitigate their impact on his evidence.

F was very nervous when he gave his evidence. He did, after a while, make some critical comments back to Ms Cheetham (who was his principal examiner) but nonetheless his nervousness must have affected his ability to give good evidence. I do not consider that the fact that F was scared helps me one way or another in forming a view as to whether F is telling the truth.

I do further remind myself that there are many reasons to lie, such as to support a fundamentally good case, and that a lie on one point does not mean a lie on others.

F made it very clear that he did not like X. He said she annoyed him because of the stuff she did, her moaning, and her screaming which he said can go on for hours. He would, while they were living together try and keep away from her. He was pleased not to have to deal with her again. As for Y and Z, he thought they were put at risk by contact with her, but he was prepared to agree to contact because he was prepared to recognise it was not all about him.

He was asked about the cameras that were around the house and the videos that were recorded on them and were part of the papers in this case. He said that he agreed that his behaviour on the videos was bad and that he was harsh to the children. He was asked about a time when he struck Y on the back. He said he thought that was the only time he hit him and that he could not remember doing it. This struck me as an implausible answer, if he could not remember doing it then, how many other times had he struck him which he could not remember?

He explained that there was a camera which was really a baby monitor in the front room, the landing, X’s room and Y and Z’s room. He said that the video would be relayed to his and M’s phone and it was to help him keep an eye on the children – particularly X causing difficulties with the others.

This arrangement was subsequently replaced with ring cameras, which had one on the front door, one on the landing, one in the front room and one in Y and Z’s room.

He said the camera in X’s bedroom had been removed when she changed school, and confirmed that was when she was 11. He was asked whether it was inappropriate to have left the camera in her room recording her changing up until she changed school. He was reluctant to agree to that. He was asked whether he watched her changing. He said he did not sit and watch her change but he had seen her change on the camera. He did not answer these questions in a straightforward manner.

He said too that he had pushed X. Again he said that he only did it once, but when pressed said he could not remember. He was clear that he had not apologised to her for pushing her.

He had been asked about X’s sexualised behaviour and he had said that she masturbated a lot. He was asked in what way and he said she would hump her teddy or a pillow, or use a toothbrush. He was asked whether he had set up a camera in her room to watch her masturbate. He denied that.

He was asked what he would do when he heard the children cry on the camera (or more strictly, the attached microphone) he said that he was often not watching the stream so he would not know, but he would leave X, because she always cried.

He made the point that the cameras were motion sensitive so they followed the moving child without his intervention.

He accepted that he had separately filmed X on his mobile phone on one occasion, telling her that he was going to show the video to her class. He said that he did that because she would not stop crying and he wanted her to be quiet. He lost his temper and had no intention of showing the video to her school class.

He accepted that he called X, ‘Retard’ and ‘Dickhead’. He said, when asked to reflect on this, that he thought it would make her feel lonely. He was asked about two changes of X’s surname: one from G to F and another later taking away the name F. He said he was behind these name changes. When she was about to start high school he thought she would not want to be called G, and would want to be included in the family. And later, after she made accusations against him, he did not want her to carry his name.

He was cross-examined about some of the many pornographic searches which a forensic expert, Evidence Matters, had retrieved from his phone, and in particular one search of ‘Teen 18, Small Tits, Blowjob, babe, Pussy, Hot, Ass, Tits, Young, Sexy, Big Dick, Fucked, Teems, 18, Butt’ of the 27 April 2024. He said that this was not of children, because it was of 18-year-olds. Further he suggested that this was probably just an option that he had clicked on from a website. I agree with that latter point: he is not likely to have typed these words altogether as one search term.

He was cross examined about the apparent download of the ‘Shein’ app on his phone on the 21 January 2024. This is notable because he had said in his police interview of the 20 November 2023 that he did not shop on it, and it was from there that X said he had bought her sexy underwear. He said that he did not think he had downloaded it and thought it had appeared automatically, perhaps by way of an update. I raised with him whether that was at all likely but he repeated that he did not think he had deliberately downloaded it.

A series of allegations were put to him in relation to his previous relationship including that he was said to have dressed in ladies’ clothes and underwear. He denied the allegations.

He was cross-examined about his use of DJ as a pseudonym. He said he did have an email in that name and a Facebook page in that name, but that was because his former partner, K, had hacked his old email in his name and deleted all the messages on it.

He denied that when he phoned X in the mornings he would ask her what sexual things she would do for him. These phone calls were just to check that she was getting to school. He said a colleague would vouch for him, who had overheard the calls. I record here that there was a statement before me from a work colleague, V, dated the 11 July 2025, which did confirm that account. No one sought to cross examine her, and I therefore accept that account.

He was asked about his birthday in 2022 in the H pub. It was after this that X said when he returned somewhat drunk he asked her to masturbate him under a blanket cleaning up his semen with a cleaning cloth. He agreed that the meal in the pub happened as X had related. He thought he probably had a bit to drink. He denied that the masturbation happened, and said he probably went to sleep if he was a bit drunk.

He was asked about whether on the 6 February 2023 he tried to have sex with X after she had been taken to the doctors. He said he certainly did not. He did not think he was left alone with her while M went to Asda. He denied that he closed the curtains and locked the door.

He was asked about what happened in November 2023. He denied that there was any sexual encounter between him and X.

Strikingly he was unable to answer clearly when he was first aware of allegations that he had sexually abused X. At first he said it was when he was arrested. Then he said it was on the day that he was arrested and he could not remember when. This was odd. It would appear that an allegation such as this would have been dramatic and memorable.

The meeting with M on the 20^th was arranged, in large part, because of the rumours that the school were aware of (and considered untrue) that he had raped X and got her pregnant. M knew of that it appeared from R’s evidence from when R arranged the meeting. She might have said something to F before the meeting. He did not think so, indeed he observed, she would not have left him with X and gone to Asda on the 16^th if she had been told of such a rumour - though he did not remember her going to Asda.

We do know however that at the second meeting on the 20^th, the one with the police, M reported that F was really angry that X had made these allegations. If that is right, and if she had not mentioned the rumours following R arranging the meeting, then she must have told him between the meetings. As will be seen below M gave evidence that the rumours were discussed (as one would expect) over the preceding weekend. It is clear that F was not being truthful on this point. It does not seem at all likely, even bearing in mind that he has difficulty with his memory, that he would forget when he heard of an allegation that he had sexually abused X.

F was asked about interest he had shown in where X was now living. He said that this was because he was told by M that it was a mansion-like place. He said he asked for a photo of it to show a friend.

He was asked about his involvement in the household when he was not living there, and he said he was able to keep an eye on things through the cameras.

He was asked about how Y and Z must have felt when they observed him treating X badly, and he agreed that it must have been very upsetting for them.

I heard from Sarah McLaren; she was a student social worker in 2024 when she was allocated to work with X. She replaced Georgia Felton. She provided a statement dated 2 June 2025. That related a conversation she had with X in September 2024 when X related that every night she dreamt about F having a sexual encounter with her.

In her oral evidence she said that she had limited guidance in dealing with a child who alleged that they had suffered sexual abuse, but that it was clear to her that her role was not investigative. She was just to make a note of anything she was told. She was pressed as to what had happened when on 12 February 2024 the police had said they were taking no further action in relation to F and the police bail came to an end. She recalled that she had discussed the situation with her manager who had told her that she should tell M that F should not move back into the family home. She agreed that there should be a note of that communication and agreed that there did not appear to be one. She was taken to a later visit that she had made to the home on the 16 February 2024, when F was present. She commented on it being ‘lovely to see both children’ (Y and Z) in their home and does not comment negatively on F being there. She was unable to explain this anomaly. It was pointed out to her that prior to the lifting of police bail the mother had told the school on the 9 February that the social worker had told her that F must still not return to the home, until they say he can. It does appear that this is an area where there was a lack of consistent and insistent messaging from the local authority to M.

I heard from M and read her three statements which were all marked as a response to threshold document, and a fourth document with a similar heading, but drafted by counsel albeit with a declaration of truth from her attached to it.

The following points arose:

I head from DC Pethwick. It had been noticed that there was an error in a statement he had prepared. He acknowledged that error and explained how it had occurred and that it was he who was at fault in relation to it. Other than that there was no material evidence provided by him in his oral evidence.

I heard from Danielle Wilson. She was X’s social worker from 19 February 2024. She has prepared a statement but it appeared that the version of it that was in the court bundle was a draft. The one that I was meant to have received was provided to me separately and was dated 16 June 2025.

The following notable points emerged from her oral evidence:

I did not hear from X for the reasons set out above, but I saw and read her two ABE interviews. Those interviews were on the 12 and 17 December 2024. Her evidence in the interviews was delivered in general in a calm manner and with a matter-of-fact tone. The questions are open, and they do elicit from her, by and large, a free narrative. X has not of course been cross examined on the narrative that she has given. I bear in mind that the account given is a child’s account but there are a number of points that I should draw attention to, not least because it is important that I hear X’s voice in these proceedings, notwithstanding the decision that she need not be called to give live evidence.

I draw the following from her first ABE interview on the 12 December:

I draw the following from her second interview on the 17 December 2024:

I do note that there is not in the ABE interviews any reference to the 16 November alleged incident which triggered the first round of enquiry. There are similarities between the incident, which the local authority say occurred in February 2023 because of the GP records, and what it is alleged happened in November 2023, in particular the alleged trip to Asda by M, but X says she is off school in February because of a trip to the GP, and makes clear that she felt unwell when she came downstairs in the ABE interview. This did not happen in November. She was suspended from school that day.

Further, there are not accounts in the ABE interviews of sexy lingerie, which features elsewhere in her allegations, or of ‘putting it in another hole’ which features elsewhere.

I do need to bear in mind that X was only 15 at the time of the interviews and she has learning difficulties. I do need to bear in mind that differences in the accounts given may not indicate that there was not sexual abuse being perpetrated on her. I do see in these accounts moments of banal reality – ‘sperming’ in a cleaning cloth, the chairs from Tescos, the dog watching – and moments which sound just like pornography – he ‘bent me over’. I am troubled by the presence of Z during some of these incidents: it does strike me as an improbable extra risk for F to take. I am troubled by the occasions when X says she has told the school about events which the school records do not confirm.

I had before me a psychological assessment of X by Professor Billington. He is a chartered psychologist. He records, in a report dated the 14 April 2025, that X is ‘a highly complex and exceptionally vulnerable young person’ who has suffered from multiple adverse childhood experiences. She is, he reports, sufficiently intelligent to have been aware of her social differences from others. ‘She will have developed a view of herself as someone who has no-one upon whom to rely who can alleviate her distress and isolation. Her confusions and thought processes seem driven by a constant battle between poor impulse control (dysregulation) and perseveration (i.e. fixation on an idea/person).’

She was diagnosed with ADHD at a young age but the extent to which her attentional issues have been affected by the medication she has been prescribed is not known. Her functioning is driven by two imperatives:

Her usual (as an adolescent) sexual inquisitiveness would have been distorted in the event of unwanted/inappropriate sexual experiences.

She is tormented by sexualised thoughts and acts.

She retains a sense of care and kindness for others.

Following tests he concluded that she had mild learning difficulties. He concludes that ‘her cognitive and emotional functioning can present at very different levels, from being age-appropriate to presenting as immature (…) and even to infantile regression (not observed).’ He makes an observation that X is capable of giving evidence but that it would be ‘difficult to assess the exact status of her evidence (i.e. due to her idiosyncratic thought process)’. He also says that though she might derive some benefit from giving evidence the benefit would depend upon her being believed.

He was asked the following question in relation to this, and responded as set out below:

It is clear from this that the expert psychologist’s answer to the question, ‘Is it difficult to assess whether she is being truthful?’, is not straight forward. She is unusual: she can be driven by a particular thought or motivation which can exclude all others, but, her words could often be honest, indeed cuttingly so. I do note that I need to treat this evidence with care. Professor Billington cannot take over my role as assessing whether X is telling the truth. I do however need to bear his evidence as to her unusual nature in my mind when considering her evidence.

F had a mobile smart phone which he handed over to the police in November 2023 when they first interviewed him. It is clear from the way events unfolded that F would have had opportunity before handing that phone over to delete data from it. In any event, the police did nothing with that phone but returned it to him when they took no further action on X’s complaint in February 2024.

F bought another smart phone after handing his phone over in November 2023. Data was transferred to this, subsequently I am told, from another hand set in February 2024. I assume that to be his old phone when it was returned.

When he got his old phone back it is his account that he intended to give his old phone to Y and so he factory reset it, which wiped the data on it. (The factory reset is on the 23 February 2024, the transfer of data to the new phone is on 17 February 2024).

The police took the new phone and the old phone from him in June 2024. This time they downloaded data from it and the images on it were manually examined as to images only. The police concluded that there were no indecent images of children and no indecent images of X on it.

In the run up to this hearing there has been analysis of the data on the phone by a forensic expert, Evidence Matters. That has produced three things that have been relied on before me:

It must of course be possible that data has been deliberately deleted from the phones, but, as has been put by Mr Jones, absence of evidence is not evidence. I do further note that much of what has been preserved on the phones is harmful to F. That begs the question as to why would he, if he were minded to delete data, not have deleted more? He could have done so by not transferring old data to his new phone.

Further, as to the video evidence, the evidence of the parties gives rise to the following point. On F’s evidence there was a camera in the front room. Why, in relation to the incident on the 16 November 2023, which M was told about by X on the 20 November 2023 did she not take the step of looking at the camera footage? It would have been stored for a period of time automatically I was told. Her response was that there was not at that time a camera in the front room. She said there was one subsequently, and indeed there had been one before, albeit of a different sort.

This at the very least is an oddity. I do however reflect that it would also be odd if F were sexually abusing X to have cameras around the house. Even turning off the camera whilst he abused X would then throw up evidence of the abuse if the time the camera was off coincided with the time X alleged the abuse took place.

I have been referred to and read the comprehensive analysis of the law set out by MacDonald J in Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27, which I have been told has been endorsed in the Court of Appeal. I shall not repeat it here. That was a case with more complexity than this one. Here, for instance, I am concerned only with the alleged sexual abuse of X. I will however note some points from it which have relevance to this case:

I was referred by Miss Irving to paragraph 577 and 578 of that same judgment. That passage cautions me as to how I should consider the evidence of children. I have read it all but set out below some subparagraphs of particular relevance to considering the evidence of X.

I was further referred in closing to paragraph 65 of the judgment of Cobb LJ in Re H (Children)(Findings of Fact) [2025] EWCA Civ 993, which was reported while this case was being heard:

Further counsel remind me, with reference to this case, of (i) the importance of a careful and thorough analysis of the reliability of evidence obtained through flawed practices; (ii) the need to evaluate allegations which have been retracted or shown to be false on other allegations on the credibility of other allegations, and the need to provide a clear and reasoned structure for distinctions drawn, and (iii) structuring a judgment to deal with chapters of time rather than by witnesses.

Miss Cheetham reminded me that it is important to remember that a failure to adhere to good practice, particularly ABE Guidance, in taking accounts from children does not require me to disregard the evidence and draws my attention to the case of Re J (A Child) [2014] EWCA 875 in which the Court of Appeal considered a case where there was no ABE interview at all. That case refers to another Court of Appel case Re B (Allegation of Sexual Abuse: Child’s Evidence) [2006] EWCA Civ 773. In Re B Hughes LJ says this [40] ‘some failures to follow the guidelines will reduce, but by no means eliminate, the value of the evidence. Others may reduce the value almost to vanishing point….[42] In every case the judge cannot avoid the task of weighing up the evidence, warts and all, and deciding whether or not is has any value or none. Everything will depend on the facts of the case…’

The local authority B Council represented by Ms Cheetham and Ms Bentley, submit to me that although there have been breaches of ABE Guidance nonetheless on a proper analysis of the evidence the burden of proof is discharged and the court can find that X has suffered sexual abuse and the perpetrator is F.

The mother, M represented by Miss Irving and Miss Taylor, agreed with Mr Jones, whose submissions had been read by them in advance, that it is not possible to make findings of sexual abuse against F, she confirmed that she accepted that the threshold for state interventions had been crossed, and drew my attention to those findings pertinent to Y and Z that she did accept and those she did not.

The position of, F, as advanced by Ms Hughes and Mr Hunt is that none of the allegations of sexual abuse are made out. They rely on three broad points: the processes by which the allegations were obtained from X were so flawed that I cannot rely on them; that X cannot be relied upon – she is deeply troubled in part by the emotional harm that Mr and M have inflicted upon her; and, the wider canvas does not support the allegations.

The father, G accepts the finding sought which concerns him directly, namely that he has withdrawn from X and plays no part in her life. He does draw my attention to the context of that, including his account of the breakdown of his relationship with X – and, what he tells me is a false allegation, that she saw him having sex – and that he attended all of this hearing. I am not in this judgment going to detail why his relationship with X broke down. I am told on behalf of G that he considers X’s account of the sexual abuse allegations compelling in her ABE interviews and my attention is drawn to details, such as the blanket, and I am reminded that she has not wavered in her position even though she wants to return to her mother. I am told that there has been a ‘fragmented and inadequate’ response to the allegations by the police and social services and that is the cause of the apparent inconsistencies in X’s account. G clearly supports the making of a care order and regrets that he is not in a position to care for X.

The guardian for X, Dawn Whittaker, through Miss Bowcock and Mr Martin submits that the local authority has not been able to prove that F has sexually abused X. They tell me this is a ‘not proved’ case. They tell me that the threshold has been met in respect of all three children, with significant cruelty to X. They invite a final care order in respect of X.

The guardian for Y and Z, Ms Starkie, through Mr Jones and Miss Moody say in summary, that I should make the threshold findings that are not in dispute and that I should not make findings in terms of the allegations against F as to sexual abuse of X. This is far from an endorsement of F: his behaviour towards her is described as ‘vile and emotionally abusive’. What is submitted is that the court ‘is not able to and should not go as far as to make a finding that X’s allegations are lies. The Court should simply find the allegations of sexual abuse are not proved’.

Mr Jones and Miss Moody provide a helpful analysis of factors pointing one way and factors pointing another, as to the issue of sexual abuse by F, which I shall return to below when I set out my own thoughts.

It is not straightforward to determine the best method to analyse the arguments for and against each of the findings sought. I am conscious of the suggestion from the Court of Appeal that I use ‘chapters of time’, however, the dates of the particular allegations (save for two that are undated) are between September 2022 and November 2023. I am faced, I find, in essence with one chapter on which I am asked to make findings, and the evidence for and against each allegation or finding sought is to be found in broadly the same places. In particular the evidence for is found in the allegations made by X, centrally in the ABE interviews but also elsewhere in particular as Miss Cheetham highlights the ABE1 in November 2023, and the evidence against is to be found in the denial by F.

There are multiple arguments as to the weight that I should attach to this evidence. These incline different ways. I am presented with a forceful argument by Miss Cheetham in her closing submissions, which requires proper consideration.

I therefore conclude that the appropriate way for me to consider these allegations is to consider Miss Cheetham’s arguments (not word by word but as to the substance) and then, as Mr Jones has done, consider matters in a collective, general way, setting out the factors for and against making the findings sought. I do note that this will inevitably result in some repetition.

First, and to put the subsequent arguments into context, I note that Ms Cheetham highlights from the allegations made by X in November 2023 (the first account) the following core allegations. She has done so by using the evidence of the various people present – R, DC Ellwood and the social worker Lauren Skyrme.

I can see that coming as they do before any risk of contamination or solidification of X’s account, regard must be had to these allegations. I will need to factor that into my thinking about the case.

I turn now to Ms Cheetham’s analysis.

Amount and quality of detail: X does often give detail. Ms Cheetham reminds me that the blanket over Z is her ‘Waldo’ blanket; that the beach chairs were from Tesco; that the doctor had told her to drink Lucozade. I see that this is a point with some force but I bear in mind McDonald J’s caution on this point. It could readily be said, for example, that whether or not the doctor recommends Lucozade is irrelevant to whether after X was taken to the doctor (which it is agreed she was) she was sexually abused.

Description of grooming: X says F would call her ‘babe’, and ‘princess’, would kiss her, and to buy her lingerie. These are said to be plausible descriptions of grooming. I can see that they might be. There appears, however, to be no corroborative evidence of the grooming-type behaviour to which X refers. Indeed, all the video evidence that I have shows F at best ignoring her, and on many occasions being verbally and emotionally abusive to her. I accept that it may just not be recorded, and it is possible that it occurred. I discuss Shein underwear further below.

It is said that the use of cameras in the house, making X telephone F when she gets to school, and scapegoating her constitute grooming by isolation. I can see that filming X, particularly while she changes is something I should consider. The telephoning when she gets to school I reject as evidence of grooming for reasons already given. The scapegoating in the house is likely to isolate her. It is unpleasant but it would take a jump to find that is part of planned grooming.

Threats and coercion: I am reminded that X says that F said he would track her down if she told anyone of the sexual abuse, and this is linked by Ms Cheetham to F persuading M to tell him the address of W Residential Unit and send him photographs. I consider that his response in oral evidence, namely that he asked to be sent the photographs because he was told X was living in a mansion, likely to be true. It fits with the account offered by M to F as to the supposedly comfortable circumstances of X in hospital. It is not pleasant but it is not evidence that he did try and track X down.

Maintaining the allegations. I will consider further below, when considering Ms Cheetham’s submissions on X’s credibility, the argument Ms Cheetham raises that the allegations are more plausible because X is aware that she cannot return home if she maintains them.

Abuse began when X was 10 years old. Ms Cheetham says that X has been consistent in this allegation from the time of the November 2023 allegations onwards. She is right. X does repeat this allegation throughout.

Abuse following a birthday visit to the H pub. This is not part of the November 2023 allegations. It is to be found in the ABE interview and I have discussed it above in describing it when I consider that interview. It is right that the birthday visit to the pub did happen. What is in question is the allegation of abuse after. I acknowledge that there is a free-flowing narrative and that there is ‘idiosyncratic’ detail in the account. I do not accept that the basic scenario – masturbation under a blanket –could not derive from pornography. Ms Cheetham highlights that X describes F trying not to make a noise because Z is sitting nearby as a convincing detail. That is over balanced by the implausibility of encouraging X to masturbate him, and asking whether she wants to be his girlfriend, when Z is sitting next to them on the sofa, awake and on her iPad.

Abuse on a day when she had fainted and had been taken to the doctors. This again is not part of the November 2023 allegation but is in the ABE interview. Again it is discussed above. It again appears clear that the trip to the GP did happen. I refer to the comments that I made above about the account in the ABE interview. Ms Cheetham does respond to Miss Hughes’ point that this was a conflation with the November account by asserting it is a different incident. She says that X is referring to sexual abuse generally when she says that she has told the school about it, and she helpfully makes the point that in her second ABE interview X responds to a direct question as to when she told the school that ‘I actually can’t remember. …I think I was in year 9.’

Shein underwear. Miss Cheetham tells me that X’s reference to F buying her underwear from Shein is pertinent because underwear is a particular sexual predilection of F. She argues that this can be seen from the social services file from C showing that his former partner said he dressed up in ladies’ underwear particularly the former partner’s mother’s underwear. I consider it is a large jump, if it be the case that this is true, to say that this would lend extra weight to X’ allegation that she bought him underwear. I note that this allegation was not fully put to F (the allegation as to the partner’s mother’s underwear was put to M after his evidence), and at best is an allegation from his former partner. It was an allegation I am told by Miss Hughes that he denied at the time. It is not possible for me to attach weight to it now. Miss Cheetham further says that underwear is a predilection of F based on the clip of his search history. There are searches for such things as ‘sexy lingerie babes porn’ and ‘satin play porn’. I have already said that I consider that it is most likely, as F has said, that he clicked on pre-existing links (or indeed pictures) on his web searches. I consider that pornography and underwear are so linked that really this allegation goes no further than an allegation that he looked at pornography on his phone. I do consider that I should note on the other side of this point that the police records do show that they looked for sexy underwear for X when they first visited the home in November 2023 and did not find any (obviously it could have been removed or destroyed), that there was no evidence of any internet order for Shein underwear for X despite it being an online store, and there was reference to a Shein bikini being bought for X by M, in leopard print (albeit black and white).

Credibility:(i) X. Ms Cheetham makes four points here.

First, that M has consistently undermined X’s evidence by saying she is a liar. I accept that I must put that from my mind in weighing the evidence of X. M’s may be asserting that X is a liar because of her allegiance to F. Insofar as M’s assertion that X is a liar initially shaped the response of the police and the local authority, I must take care that their initial response does not affect my thinking.

Second, Ms Cheetham says that Ms Hughes elected not to pursue a re W application so we cannot attach weight to Ms Hughes’s arguments:

The third point is that if I properly consider Professor Billington’s comments about X telling the truth I would be unlikely to consider that her account of sexual abuse is likely to fall into the category of things that she would intentionally conceal or on which she would mislead. Ms Cheetham gives three reasons for this: consistency in maintaining the allegations despite personal cost to X; desire to protect her siblings; and openness as to confusion as to why F abused her. I think there is some force in the first point, not in the others (logically, if she is lying she might say she is doing so to protect her siblings, and she might be obliged to acknowledge confusion). However the first reason is easily neutralised: it may be, as was said by M, that this has gone too far and X can’t back down; it may be that she knows M is refusing to have her back home at any rate, as Mr Jones suggests; it may be just too awful to return to her mother if F is there.

Fourthly she says that I should pay attention to Professor Billington’s observation that the professionals at W Residential Unit have been able to improve her functioning. This I see as a point of some weight, but I will need to weigh it against arguments that their support of her has been in part by way of comments which consolidate the allegation of sexual abuse by F.

M: It is said in broad terms that during her oral evidence the mother’s sole aim was to protect F. That I accept in large measure as being true. It does not mean all her evidence is wrong. It is said that she mounted a campaign to get X out of the house so F could return. I consider this to be correct. It is said that M should only have contacted the police if a criminal offence had been committed. I consider, given the evidence that I have heard, M could reasonably understand that the social workers were telling her to contact the police if she had difficulty with X. I do consider that there are occasions when there are inconsistencies in M’s evidence given on different occasions. I do consider she has determined long ago that X is lying and she should stand by F. Her rejection of X must have been awful for X.

F: It is said in broad terms that he can function much better than he presented during these proceedings. He has used his allegedly impaired intellectual functioning as a mask to provide as little information as possible. I am in no position to go behind the expert assessment of him that has been made in these proceedings. I do note that he often resorted to ‘I can’t remember’ as an answer. I do think he found that easier than trying helpfully to engage with the process, in part this is no doubt due to his memory, in part I agree that he was trying to block questions. Ms Cheetham says that when F was in the box there was a marked difference from the position he had taken in writing, namely that he felt shame and remorse about the way he had treated X. Orally he was much less apologetic and shifted the blame on to X. She was annoying, he said; she was always crying, he said. I agree with Ms Cheetham on this. It was unattractive testimony.

I remind myself that I should not determine this case merely on the view I form of the witnesses in the box.

General Balancing exercise:

The factors supporting the conclusion that I should make the findings sought of sexual abuse are as follows:

As to the factors against:

I balance these factors and find of particular weight (i) that X has made many allegations against many others that are not considered to be true; (ii) latterly the allegations against F have been treated very differently to other allegations – she has been praised and supported when making allegations against F, so that the fact she continues to maintain them does not lend them greater weight; (iii) her damaged mental health makes it difficult for me to prefer X’s account over that of F, even bearing in mind that I considered that in a number of respects he was not a truthful witness. Of particular weight, but leading the other way, is (iv) the ‘core’ of the allegations were made in November 2023 before any ‘contamination’ could have occurred. In relation to the November 2023 allegations however I take note of the fact that the abuse of 16November 2023, during the time X was suspended, does not feature in the ABE interviews, other than possibly by confusion with an incident said to take place when she is not well and is off school having visited the doctor.

I have to decide this case on the evidence before me, and I have to do so unaffected by the fact that these are child protection proceedings, and in an unsentimental way.

I remind myself that the burden is on the Local Authority to prove their case and while it is clear that their case has weight, I conclude that on the balance of probabilities they have not done so. I do consider that this is a not proved case.

A number of the parties before me have made serious criticisms of the way in which B Council have dealt with X’s allegations and the needs of all three children. I remind myself that I am hearing a case in which I have to determine care proceedings for three children and not conducting an enquiry into the local authority’s conduct. It is not therefore appropriate for me to present any settled view as to their conduct. It is however obvious that the court’s evaluation of the Local Authority’s case has been made more difficult by:

Miss Bowcock for X’s Guardian, Dawn Whitaker, submits that it was a safeguarding issue for X to be with her mother - who was entirely unsupportive - from December 2023 till her admission to hospital in January 2024 following her suicide attempt. On what I have seen (with its limitations) that is a well-founded submission. She says that it is more than regrettable that F was back in the family home with Y and Z and the local authority know of this from February 2024 till October 2024, when care proceedings were brought by them on the basis he had sexually abused X. Again, on what I have seen that appears a well-founded submission. I do urge the local authority to consider how they let what has happened in the case unfold and what steps they might take to stop similar situations arising.

Ms Cheetham makes significant criticism of the police investigation. Again I have not been conducting an enquiry into the police’s conduct and so I will not record any settled conclusions. Ms Cheetham tells me in closing that although ABE guidelines do say that consent by a person with parental responsibility is normally required for a child to be interviewed it might have been possible to get X to give her own consent or make an application to obtain that consent. Neither route was pursued when they should have been. I agree that the time taken to obtain the ABE interview has made this process much harder. She further says that the failure to ‘interrogate’ F’s phone when first seized is ‘inexplicable’. That too seems to me something that the police might want to consider.

I refer in this section of my judgment to the composite document ‘Final Threshold and Parent Responses’ prepared by Ms Bentley.

I do not make findings in the general or particular terms of Sexual Harm to X, in paragraphs 8 through to paragraph 14 inclusive. That is for the reasons considered above.

In relation to emotional harm I do consider that:

I have no hesitation in making the care order sought for X. As of 20 March 2024 when she became a looked after child the threshold is made out. Given her rejection by M she will need the local authority to care for her.

I acknowledge that my decision on the allegation as to whether or not X has been sexually abused and my reasons for my finding will require care in their presentation to her and I am grateful to those who will have to undertake that work.

I have been through the findings sought in relation to Y and Z. As agreed between the parties the threshold is met for them as of the 3 October 2024 when care proceedings were issued.

Mr Jones indicated to me that there had already been discussion as to the appropriate directions that will need to be given to prepare for a welfare determination for them. I ask if these can be promptly agreed and a draft order submitted for my approval, or, if not, there be liaison with my clerk to fix a directions hearing (which I anticipate will be difficult to accommodate) such that the days listed in October (15 and 16) can be best utilised. Subject to argument I shall assume that the interim care orders will continue by consent until that hearing.

I would ask that a final care order for X be prepared.