E (A Child) (Complex Fact-Finding: Allegations of Domestic Abuse and Alienating Behaviours), Re

I have before me a fact-finding hearing in a private law dispute which concerns the lives of three children but of which only one is the subject. They are C whose date of birth is omitted; D whose date of birth is omitted ; and E whose date of birth is omitted. E, sometimes referred to by a diminutive, is the subject child. Their parents are the Mother and the Father. They share parental responsibility.

On date omitted D died. She was 14 years old. She committed suicide. The grief experienced at the death of a child cannot ever truly be imagined and no words however carefully crafted by me will ever capture the enormity of the tragedy of her death. The grief of D’s parents and her family members and their friends who gave evidence before me was obvious, visceral and raw. It hung in the air throughout the hearing. I extend my heartfelt condolences to D’s siblings, her parents, to her extended family and all who are impacted by the ripples of her life and death.

This has been an exceptionally challenging case for all parties. This is a case in which there is acrimony and recrimination. That has on occasion spilled over into exchanges between the advocates. I have been presented with two competing narratives which span from 2006 until the present day. I have been asked by the mother to make findings against the father and by the father to make findings against the mother. At all times, I have reminded myself of my task. My task is to make findings of fact on the evidence before me and in accordance with the law.

The papers in this case are voluminous. The annotated chronology I have had placed before me alone runs to 275 pages. Its initial iteration was agreed by the father but not the mother. The final version is now annotated on behalf of the mother. The father in his closing submissions has prepared and submitted chronologies relevant, he says, to certain issues and witnesses. I received position statements and/or opening notes from all parties. The main bundle is 1876 pages long. I have a previous proceedings bundle which contains 764 pages. There are two supplementary bundles one of 126 pages and another of 1532 pages There is a disclosure bundle of 5736 pages. In addition, I have had access to a multi-media bundle. I confirm I have viewed and/or listened to each of the items therein at least once. The evidence in this case began on 9 October 2024 and ran in effect for four weeks. Further positions statements were received during the hearing. The advocates in this case asked for time to prepare closing submissions. The closing submissions were submitted on 20 December 2024, at the very end of term. Those on behalf of the father run to 737 pages. Those on behalf of the mother are 78 pages long and are supplemented by a note on the law. The submissions in closing on behalf of the Child’s Guardian are 141 pages. It was impossible to reconvene the court to facilitate oral submissions, in particular oral submissions in response to the written submissions. Thus, I permitted written submissions from all parties in response. Those on behalf of the father and the Guardian were received as directed on 13 January 2025. The submissions in reply on behalf of the mother were received on 20 January 2025. I confirm I have read them all.

The accredited media have attended this hearing. The BBC have been present throughout. Ms Tickle attended when she could. On 21 October 2024 Ms Tickle submitted a statement of case in which she asked for, amongst other things, to be able to report that an application had been made to disclose who had tipped off the press about the hearing on 12 January 2024. She wanted to able to quote from the application, as well as what has happened in court relating to it. Within her statement, she told me that she can do this without referring to the underlying facts of the case except in the most general terms. She asked me to publish a judgment about my decision on this application against the media, how it has played out, and how it has been dealt with. I shall do so, and it shall be handed down in advance of the next hearing. It is written separately from this. I am grateful for her patience and understanding that this fact-find had to take priority.

This is the judgment in the fact-find. It is intended to be read as a whole. I will make findings along the way. Later in this judgment I will address the law I have applied when carrying out my task. At this juncture it suffices to say that at all times I have had in mind that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of the alleging party and that the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.  I have stood back and considered the evidence as a whole.

On behalf of the mother, the following findings are sought:

Those on behalf of the father are as follows:

In the first week of this fact-finding, Counsel on behalf of the father began to explore in cross-examination of a witness why D had killed herself. That went beyond the respective schedules of allegations. I decided not to expand the scope of the hearing. To do so at such a late stage would have derailed it and these already protracted proceedings would have simply become more protracted. I considered then and do now that the allegations pleaded between the parties needed to be determined so that welfare decisions can be made for E. I have within this judgment determined those factual matters which I considered necessary to enable welfare decisions for E to be made on a proper factual basis.

In addition, I am conscious that there will be an inquest into D’s death. HM Coroner will determine the scope of that hearing. There is also to be a Serious Case Review which will look at the manner in which the statutory and crown agencies worked D’s case and whether any lessons can be learned for the future.

 The mother and father are both now 44 years old.  The relationship between the parents began in 2006. At the time both parents were in their mid-20s. The father had been discharged from the navy . It is the mother’s case that the father told her he had used prostitutes when in the navy. Within the proceedings before me objection was taken on behalf of the father about the proportionality, the necessity, and the relevance of this allegation. I agreed. I ruled that the allegation had no relevance to the issues I must determine, and I do not take it into account.

In April 2006 the mother underwent knee surgery. After discharge from hospital, she was cared for by the father.

In 2007 C was born.

The mother and father married in2008.

D was born in 2009. 

The mother alleges that in 2009 C came to her defense active when during an argument the father threw her into an armchair following an argument about him leaving. 

The mother’s sister, F, recalls an occasion on 1 May 2011 when she attended a birthday party with the mother at a friend’s house in London. It is her recollection that the mother became distressed because of the constant calling by the father demanding to know what she was doing. F says that this was the pattern of behaviour she observed during the parent’s marriage. She told the court in her witness statement that on 2 May 2011 the father rang her and asked if the mother was afraid of him. She says that she told him the mother was indeed afraid of him.

On 1 February 2012 the father started teaching at SCHOOL X. 

In 2013 the family moved home . The mother says that after this time the father would require sexual intercourse when the children were in the home. She tells the court that she would be mortified and riddled with anxiety in case the children walked in on them or overheard them. The father, she says, was unconcerned. As the children got older, the mother alleges that the father would make jokes with the children about his swimmers and her having the heat for him. He would, to her embarrassment, kiss her open mouthed in front of the children as they went their separate ways on School days. 

In the summer of 2013 the father went on a trip to Everest with his father-in-law. The father alleges the mother had an affair whilst he was away. The mother accepts that she was unfaithful whilst he was away but denies it was an affair. The mother alleges that the father on discovering messages on her phone threw a laptop at her, dragged her out of bed by her arms and down the stairs, threw her on the floor and attempted to strangle her causing a bruised lip and grazing to her arm.

Thereafter it is said that the father branded the mother a slut and a liar and accused her of having an affair with another man. It is said that he would verbally attack the mother in the car on the way to School and then behave as if nothing had happened. 

It is the mother’s case that by the time E was conceived the marriage was in difficulties. The mother says she would ask the father to use condoms, but he refused. E was not a planned pregnancy, and the mother contemplated an abortion but changed her mind. I am conscious that E may one day read this judgment and he should know that whilst there were difficulties in his parents’ marriage and abortion was considered, it did not proceed because he was loved and wanted.

In the summer of 2015 E was born.

 The mother reports referring herself to FMD in 2015 because she was suffering from anxiety attacks, low mood and low self-esteem. She tells the court that FMD discussed the concept of Controlling and Coercive Behaviours and abuse. However, I find that despite extensive documentary evidence in this case from many sources, no evidence has been disclosed to support this assertion on this date.

It is alleged by the mother and disputed by the father that in July 2016 during C’s ninth birthday party the father held D under water during a swimming party after he pulled her from an inflatable in the pool upon which she had been racing. It is said that he then took D to the male changing rooms where he smacked her. He then is said to have made D apologize to him in front of the mother and made D sit alone. 

On 13 September 2016 the School recorded a Child Protection Incident when D became extremely distressed recalling an incident at home where she had upset her parents and tried to kill herself. D explained that she had pulled out her hair and hurt herself on her arms. She said she gets like this when she wants to hurt people. She kept repeating that she doesn’t want to hurt people, but she feels like it and doesn’t want to feel that way. D’s parents were spoken to and the record states that both the father and the mother said that D had not tried to kill herself at home and confirmed that she had never pulled out her hair or hurt herself in any way. The parents told the School that D can be quite dramatic and overdramatise things. The teachers were satisfied that D, then aged 7, was not a risk to herself or others. I have not heard or read any evidence to undermine that assessment and I accept it.

The mother alleges and the father denies that in the October 2016 half term (F dates this as 2017), C had to intervene to protect her from his father’s anger when she tried to tell him how to gather up sheep and he accused her of interfering, shouted at her and became threatening. 

In 2017 the mother made an allegation of sexually inappropriate behaviour against the father, the exact nature of which has been removed pursuant to Table 1 of the President’s Practice Guidance on Transparency.

In 2017 there was CPD for the staff at School X raising awareness about different types of abuse and the importance of good mental health. The mother says that raised her awareness and how nuanced the abuse she and the children were suffering. The father had she said referenced her mental ill health as if it was a failing and had discouraged the children from showing emotion and distress, in particular from crying. 

In April 2017 the father used inappropriate language towards School X students during lessons.

There is an iMessage from F to the father dated 1 June 2017 in which she states her view that she, her partner, and their children have been treated by the father with disdain and animosity over the last few days. F asserts within that message that the father bullies his immediate family. 

 In July 2017, the mother was offered a new job at School Y’s School. 

The mother alleges that the father did not like sharing his family with hers and as a result purchased a boat so that they could sail on the beach near their home rather than the children attend the Sailing Club which was a club the maternal grandfather had signed C up for when C expressed an interest in sailing. It is alleged that in the summer of 2017 the father refused to take the children to the Sailing Club and the mother felt powerless to take them without his consent. The mother asked her own father to mediate but the mother says the father took umbrage and refused to speak to any of them, including the children for an entire weekend. 

On 11 October 2017 the mother first contacts EAL Counselling. She has her first session with H , her friend.

The mother’s last day as a teacher at School X was 22 December 2017. 

The mother alleges that since 2018 C and D have made negative comments about the family which she says are influenced by the father. It is said that since separation they cannot defend their mother to their father without being called turn coats and gave other examples which suggests the father is polarising the children.

In January 2018, the mother began work at School Y’.

In 2018 when C was 10 years old, the mother alleges that on the way to a hockey match C became incredible anxious and refused to play. The mother alleges that the father became enraged and threatened to pull the car over to smack him. The father is alleged to have told C to strap on a pair and stop being a fairy. C in his statement to the court details how he says his father would call him names and belittle him. He would, he says, call him a pussy or fanny. It was never in jest and was in anger when what he did was not good enough or when he challenged his father. In his witness statement dated 22 April 2024 the father admits that “I have accepted that I have at times used words to the effect of telling C to “man up”. Although I have meant this in good humour, I have reflected on this and can now see that it could have been insensitive, and I will not do it again.”

Between 30-31 January 2018 there are text messages between the father and G

 On 25 June 2018 the mother made an entry in her diary which recounted a disagreement between her and the father regarding C attending a sleep-over. She describes herself as not aggressive, but she states I did persist. The father is said to have raised his voice, told her to shut up, fuck off, and called her a knob. Sheexpressed outrage at being spoken to like that. The father is said to have walked off telling her to go and fuck herself. 

On 16 August 2018 the mother was diagnosed with a form of cancer . The mother alleges that despite being unable to walk or work, the father still made sexual demands of her. This paragraph has been edited to remove Graphic and identifying content.

 It is alleged by the mother that in September 2018 the father became enraged whilst driving and threatened to pull over the car and smack C. C has given his recollection of this in a witness statement which is before me. 

 In October 2018 the parents finally separated. They dispute the reasons for separation. The mother alleges that after her cancer diagnosis and recovery she realised that life was precious and blighted by misery as a result of the abuse experienced at the hands of the father. The father says the marriage ended because of the affair the father alleges the mother had with KK. C in his statement tells the court that after separation the narrative from his father was that the separation was all his mother’s fault. He says that his father would say she cheated on him and accused her of being crazy and mad. He says, in contrast, his mother remained silent. 

 On 2 October 2018 J sent the mother guidance on coercive and controlling behaviour. 

 On 8 October 2018 the mother had a cervical smear test. The results record intimate content removed

The mother alleges that in the immediate aftermath of separation whilst she and the children were living with the maternal grandparents, the father pushed himself into their home and verbally abused the maternal grandmother in front of the children whilst physically intimidating her. The mother tried to intervene. It is said that the father only left after the maternal grandfather threatened to call the police. 

In November 2018 D told the School that she was sad because her mother was cross with her father and in November and December 2018 D expressed sadness that her father might not join them for Christmas which she was spending with her mother and the maternal family. There is a recording in a letter from a teacher at SCHOOL X that on 4 December 2018 D felt able at that time to talk to her father about her feelings but not so much her mother. She told the teacher that her brother does not talk to her about it. 

There are text messages passing between the mother and father in December 2018 and January 2019 which have been disclosed. Those that have been disclosed appear amicable. The mother explains that she is finding it tough to cope with his needs and the father in one message states that he can accept the split but he won't pretend he does not want to make the marriage work.

In a message that the mother wrote to the father on 3 January 2019 she says:

 In 2019 when the father was staying with his parents and the children, the children told the mother that C was told to have a shower and when C retorted that he had already had a shower, the father manhandled him upstairs to have a shower. The father denies this event.

In early 2019 it is said that C and D told F that the father was living in the annex to their home and when the children were with him, the father would share a single bed with D and E despite a double bed being available to him. F says she raised this with the mother who confirmed it was true. F told her it was unacceptable, and the mother had to take action (the inference is to stop it, or she would).

In March 2019 the mother made a complaint to HR at School Y about a colleague who had sought to comfort her but had crossed a line and is said to have invaded her privacy.

On 14 April 2019 the mother sent the father a message in which she asks if he has had some female company. She tells him that it’s none of her business and she is not judging him but that she would rather know from him because she is hearing rumours.

There is a message from C to his father dated 18 April 2019 which sets out that he will not be able to go for a run with his father because his mother is all teary. There is another dated 15 June 2019 which tells the father that the mother has been reading his messages.

On 25 June 2019 the mother attended a medical review with a Consultant Psychiatrist . The mother explained that she had been subject to confrontational situations, emotional abuse, verbal abuse and physical abuse by the father. She told the Psychiatrist that she had had to face controlling behaviour from him going through her emails and phone records. She said she had not been allowed to do anything without his involvement. She had moved to another School because of her husband’s abusive acts. She had been forced to do certain sex acts at night, and he would wake her at night and shout at her. The mother is said to have described having difficult memories of sexual harassment and some flashbacks to the physical abuse. She was hyper alert having features of anxiety including palpitations and terrors. She was feeling like harming herself and cutting her hair to feel better. It is reported that during this session the mother was exhibiting clinical features of depression with suicidal thoughts, PTSD and anxiety. She was discharged from the service on 10 August 2019 to the care of her GP. She had improved her presentation on discharge. 

The same day, 25 June, the father sent a message to the mother telling her he has started to date people, and he would prefer to tell her himself. The mother wanted the names to which the reply was no one person but if anything gets serious, he will tell her.

The School X for the 26-27 June 2019 capture D being sick and tired the last couple of days and finding things at home difficult. D is reported to be concerned for both her parents and feels she cannot talk to them or her grandparents who she described as one-sided.

On 4 July 2019 the mother gave her consent to D speaking to the School counsellor.

On 9 July 2019 C left a voicemail for his father in which he stated

On 10 July 2019 the mother spoke to School X Head of Junior School to raise concerns that the father has a new relationship with a teacher in the junior School. The mother indicated in this conversation that she does not want that member of staff having contact with the children during the School day. In the same conversation she raised concerns about the father’s parenting and that the children are still sleeping in bunk beds with their father despite her raising concerns and asking him to purchase a sofa bed. The same day she wrote an email to the father and the School referencing that the father and the other member of staff had attended a children’s party together that weekend which had made D uncomfortable, as were other parents of children who attend the School. 

In a message sent by the mother to the father the same day, she wrote this:

On 11 July 2019 the mother’s former Solicitors advised that they are now instructed and sent a letter to the father.

On 16 July 2019 the mother walked into the sea in an admitted attempt to kill herself. The father alerted the mother’s sister-in-law who in turn contacted the police. The father and the mother’s brother searched for her. Thankfully the mother did not kill herself and she was supported by CRHT. The mother was referred to the Portal and describes her experiences during the marriage to the father which include sexual assault and rape.  

On 24 July 2019 the mother sent a message to the father asking who he has slept with as she cannot stand not knowing whether they could have been next to her in the pool that day. The father responds that it was just to make her jealous.

On 6 August 2019 CRHT referred the children to the local authority raising concerns which included concerns about the mother’s mental health and the allegations the mother makes against the father. 

By 9 August 2019 the crisis intervention team had reduced their visits to the mother to thrice a week. The mother was reported as being supported by her brother and parents. She was still depressed, looked tired but was not tearful.  The next day the mother’s involvement with the CRHT ended and she was referred back to her GP.

On 12 August 2019 the local authority indicated to the mother that children’s services felt that no involvement was required at that time.

The mother’s GP records capture that by 23 August 2019 the sertraline with which she had been prescribed had recently been increased and she was reported to be alert and much brighter.

In September-October 2019 there are text exchanges between the parents about arrangements for the children, issues concerning the family home and calls with the child. During this period a letter is sent to the mother’s headteacher.

On 2 September 2019 the parents agree a ‘settlement agreement’, mediated via K (maternal uncle), covering child arrangements and finances. The father is to have five nights per fortnight plus some additional afternoons/evenings and an equal split of School holidays. Additional specific provisions regarding new relationships were agreed.

On 4 September 2019 the mother writes to SCHOOL X recording her dismay that she is being forced into a situation where D must come into contact with the father’s new partner in School and expressing her view that she should never have been put in that position.

On 5/6 September 2019 pastoral support sessions for D and C were put into place. 

By 18 September 2019 the mother and father are talking about arrangements for Christmas. The mother wrote I know I will have to share Christmas. It is right thing to do for the children but I am sad that to save myself from destruction that our relationship was wreaking on me and you. I have had to sacrifice so much.

There is a School record of an event on 2 October 2019 when it is stated that D did not want to make eye contact which is said to be unusual for D. Eventually when she began to talk, she said she had had a very difficult weekend. She felt hurt by her mother who had taken her to meet her new boyfriend and his children for the first time. D is reported as saying that she felt particularly hurt when her mother asked if she could stay over with the boyfriend’s children and grandma so that her mother and the boyfriend could go back to their house for the night. She reported she had refused because she was just trying to dump me and C. At the time D is reported to have also said that she felt very upset because her mother and grandparents gang up on her father about contact. She cannot talk to her parents because she needs to be fine for them. 

On 5 October 2019 the mother sent an email to the father, her brother K and to Q (paternal uncle). Within it she writes about being unable to bear the pain of being without her babies.

 On 11 October 2019, D’s School sent an email to the mother suggesting that it is perhaps now time for D to rejoin the Spanish class taken by the father’s girlfriend. D was reported to be anxious about the lessons she is missing. The teacher L writes I feel that if we continue the current arrangement we are harming her.  The mother responded by email dated 13 October 2019. Within that email the mother agrees that D must be at the centre of the decision making but says she would like to discuss it with l first.

On 18 October 2019 the GP records for the mother state that the mother when seen that day was bright, alert and reactive. Her mood appeared to be stable.

On 25 October 2019 the mother sent lengthy messages to the father regarding his decision to issue proceedings and addressing allegations surrounding the kick to C and the sailing allegation. 

On 2 November 2019 the father via message suggests that E has a sleepover at M’s home.

On 3 November 2019 the mother in a message complains that the father has kept her children from her for a week.

On 3 November 2019 there is a message from the father to the mother admitting he did say that sex with her was boring.

On 6 November 2019 the mother asked to speak to L about ongoing concerns she had about D and C and E too.

On 11 November 2019 the mother went to see N with her sister. She described her relationship with the father as coercive and controlling and is worried about the impact on E and her other two children.

On 12 November 2019 there was an anonymous referral to the local authority expressing concern for the children and the mother. The concerns were around coercive and controlling behaviours and the children’s father. Despite the relationship ending there were concerns about continuing behaviours. 

On 12 November 2019 the mother met with staff at SCHOOL X to ensure when decisions were taken about the children attending there, D and C, the views of both parents were being considered not just the father because he worked there. 

On 15 November 2019 D reported in School that she felt ok-ish and then spent most of the session venting about her mother’s family being unkind about her father. She reported that her maternal grandmother calls her father evil in front of her and that she finds that distressing. D would like the adults in her life to stop arguing. 

On 17 November 2019 G provided an informal witness statement for the mother to use in the private law proceedings. 

On 20 November 2019 the mother made an allegation to the police via her IDVA that the father has been abusive towards her. The allegations include allegations of sexual abuse including rape. The police reviewed her diaries and considered there to be nothing of use within them.

 On 22 November 2019 the IDVA made a referral to the local authority based on the mother’s allegations.

On 25 November 2019 the father reports to the police that the mother has allegedly threatened to kill his new partner [name omitted] and cause problems for them and his partner’s children. Name omitted is the teacher at SCHOOL X. The Same day the mother emailed SCHOOL X setting out the arrangements she had put in place for D and C. 

There is a record of D crying in School on 25 November 2019. She described that her father had not brought her to School because her mother wanted her to see less of him. This made her sad. By email sent that day the School responded to the mother’s email and acknowledged the new arrangements. The School made mother aware within this email that this was definitely the most difficult day for D so far. The mother responded to that email and explained that both children were relaxed, happy and fully aware of the new arrangements for which she knew she would be demonised but feels the need to restrict contact to minimize the father’s manipulation of the children. 

At 00.02hrs on 26 November 2019 the mother emailed SCHOOL X and reported that D had told her that the father had taken her out of registration to tell her he was going into hospital but not why. The mother regarded this as an example of scaremongering and noted that the children had been subject to similar scaremongering when the paternal grandfather went into hospital when his heart had stopped and restarted, and the children had been told he might die. 

On 26 November 2019, the police reported that the mother had told them that she was afraid of further verbal assaults and taking the children away from her. She is afraid of The Father intimidating others and manipulating other family/friends, She feels that The Father has spent time with friends to share his version of events with them […] she stated she wanted justice and to protect her children from further emotional abuse from her ex-partner.

On 27 November 2019 E said in School that he did not know who was collecting him. Later at playtime he said I have to go home with daddy or he will be cross. When spoken to in a quiet area he said daddy would be cross if he did not spit it out which was a refrain he repeated as was he didn’t know who was picking him up. 

On 28 November 2019 C stated in a student support session that his father was planning to take his mother to court after Christmas because of the change in living arrangements and because the mother has arranged for reduced time for the father with C.

By 3 December 2019 it is clear from the contemporaneous documentary evidence that there were disputes between the parents about collection from School.

On 4 December 2019 the mother emailed School X about child arrangements and collection again. The emails include reports of the father’s road rage and verbal abuse in front of the children on the way to School and father allegedly attacking and abusing C. 

The mother was ABE interviewed on 4 December 2019. At the beginning the officer asks her – tell me what you are reporting to the police today. The mother answered – I am reporting a history of abuse within my marriage, sexual, emotional, coercive control and manipulation and some violence. The interview then became one long, articulate narrative until the officer says – You have given me a hell of a lot of information –before starting to ask questions of clarification.

On 5 December 2019 the Head and DSL of SCHOOL X made a referral to LADO based on the mother’s allegations. The same day SCHOOL X carried out their own risk assessment and determined that the father was a low risk.

On 9 December 2019 the mother made further allegations to the School in a four-page letter which the School sent on to LADO. The allegations within the letter are extensive and date back to when C and D were little.  The same day the MASH practice manager informed the local authority: We are increasingly concerned regarding the impact on the children, since they have been exposed to significant Domestic Abuse. The children’s emotional responses described by their mother is a real worry.

On 11 December 2019 the local authority determined that the family would benefit from early help key work service. 

From 12-13 December 2019 there are messages between the mother and the father, particularly dealing with the mother’s allegation that the father had organised a ‘date’ for D with a boy (the father’s case is that this was a playdate for one of D’s male friends) and further disputes around arrangements.

On 20 December 2019 a letter was sent from the mother’s then Solicitors to the father, proposing five nights per fortnight for the father and double-barreling the children’s surnames.

In January 2020 an anonymous letter was written to the mother’s employer (School Y’s). The mother alleges that it was written and sent by the paternal grandparents. It includes the phrase our grandchildren attend your School.

On 5 January the father is interviewed by the police. I have the transcript of that interview before me. The father attended the interview voluntarily. He chose not to have a legal representative present. He was interviewed under caution.

The mother’s second ABE interview was on 21 January 2020. It began with an open question- so tell me everything about you. That prompted a free, articulate, and detailed long narrative to begin with which is then broken up by questioning from the police officer.

On 30 January 2020, the mother was informed by School Y’s that she is at risk of redundancy.

In School on 30 January 2020 E is reported as saying that his father doesn’t like him coming to School because he loves him and misses him. He tells his teacher that he misses his daddy and doesn’t get to see him much - only a little bit.

By 24 February 2020, I find that E is expressing his confusion in School when he said: I went to London with mummy and Daddy but you can’t tell them I told you. Then I split in two and had one leg in daddy’s house and one leg in Mummy’s house. 

The School X record on 18 March 2020 that the children seem much more settled.

On 29 March 2020, D sends the father the following message on WhatsApp: You took your time reading my message tut tut tut naughty boy still love you though I have got to go now see you tomorrow love D xxx.

On 8 April 2020 C wrote the following message to his father:

On 25 May 2020, the police informed the mother and the father that they are taking no further action in respect of the allegations made by the mother, including of rape and sexual abuse (of the mother by the father).

On 10 July 2020 C wrote a message to the father. The following is an extract of the conversation:

30 July 2020 the mother had her final session with FMD. 

 On 24 September 2020 the father kicked C whilst playing with a NERF gun.

On 25 September 2020 the mother reported the incident to the police and the local authority. SCHOOL X interviewed C and following the interview informed the police. C indicated to the police that he did not want to give evidence against the father and the police declined to take further action.

 The local authority commenced a s.47 inquiry and a s.17 Child and Family Assessment was undertaken. The children were seen as part of that assessment. The report, which was finalised on 11 November 2020, captures their views as follows:

On 26 September 2020 the mother sent to the police a highly detailed email which ends in her pleading with the officer to help her protect the children.

On 28 September SCHOOL X undertook an internal investigation and conclude that the father poses no safeguarding risk to the pupils in his care.

On the morning of 30 September 2020 the father sent C a message saying he loves him, it was not his fault but his (the father’s). He had meant to kick him in jest but had not meant to give him a dead leg. He just wished he had used a pillow like C instead.  

On 30 September 2020 there was a joint police and social work visit to C in School. The record states that C looked well, he engaged in conversation with us. C described what had happened during the incident with dad and him. Him dad and his siblings were playing with nerf guns. Dad friend also present. Sister and C got dad with the nerf gun and then dad kicked C in the upper leg. C was not sure if the bruise he had was caused by this kick. C also said dad kicked him before in July 2020 before the summer holidays. C recalls telling his mum about this. C not sure if he wants to go dad tonight for contact. C going to have a think and talk to the headteacher. School will arrange with parents.

There was an email from R to the father on 30 September 2020.The mother disputes how R can say she saw the kick when she has previously stated in an email that she did not see it.  On 30 September 2020 the police closed their investigation into the kick. 

After this incident the mother withdrew the father’s contact with the children until the matter could be investigated.

On 8 October 2020 D was very upset when speaking to her head of year. She reported feeling very overwhelmed and emotional regarding her homelife. She reported that she was always in the middle and that her parents always say bad things about each other. She feels she has to choose between them and so simply does whatever C wants. She went on to say that she was worried about C and that he is angry a lot of the time – he gets really angry just like her dad does.  D reported that her father hurt C emotionally that morning. 

On 8 October 2020 the father made an application for a Child Arrangements Order and applied for shared care.  From one of the chronologies provided on behalf of the father, it is stated that the mother was not provided with the application until 12 December 2020.

In November 2020 the father met P. The children were not told of the relationship until the summer of 2021. The father says in his statement to the police after D’s death that he had agreed that he would tell the mother first if he started seeing someone new. He honoured that agreement and told the mother at the end of the School term. He thought the mother was alright with it. He says the mother did not honour her part of the agreement and told the children about the relationship before he could. The children and the mother cried. The father says that to him it felt like the mother had deliberately tried to sabotage the relationship.

On 5 November 2020 the mother emails the local authority the day before their report is due.

The s.17 assessment report which began on 25 September was finalized on 11 November 2020. It includes the following:

On 15 November 2020 the mother made a complaint to the police that the father had not returned the children to her at 6pm as agreed. The mother reported that during a telephone call with the children, the father interrupted and said he would not be bringing the children back in accordance with the interim contact arrangement and would be reverting back to his proposal of 50:50. The police advised the mother that this was a civil matter, and she should speak to her Solicitor.

On 19 November 2020 there was an Order made by Justices’ Clerk P Lane of the Court’s own motion (no hearing):

On 21 December 2020 the mother was provided with the father’s C100.

On Christmas day 2020 the mother called the children who were staying with the paternal uncle. They spoke to their mother in the garden. D became distressed by this, and the mother had to reassure her. There is CCTV recording of this in the Media bundle. It is harrowing to watch and listen to.

D alleges when speaking to CAMHS that she had attempted suicide when she was 12. If that is right, then it is sometime in 2021.

There are diary entries from D which are undated but include references to being in 2021 within which she talks about feeling dead, voices getting louder, has a scar from the night she told mum about the voices and wonders when she will reach breaking point. D’s diaries include the following:

In 2021 C is said to have told his aunt F in the presence of D that their father took then dinghy sailing in dangerous conditions without life jackets. C was said to be clearly shaken by the experience and he and D had, he said, been worried for E because they were good swimmers, but E was only little. They told her, she said, that they had tried to tell their father, but he refused to accept that the conditions were not suitable for sailing with three children.

On 22 January 2021 Ms DD of CAFCASS made a referral to the local authority because of the mother’s allegations.

The mother’s C1A and C7 dated 26 January 2021 alleged physical, psychological, sexual, emotional and financial abuse of herself and her children to date. 

On 28 January 2021 the CAFCASS safeguarding letter was filed (by DD) including recommendations to the Court that (i) the court should consider whether a fact finding hearing is required considering the concerns raised of physical harm to the children; (ii) CAFCASS completes a section 7 report; and (iii) any contact between the Applicant Father and the Children should be professionally supervised in a contact centre until the Respondent Mother's allegations have been fully assessed. 

On 4 February 2021 there was a FHDRA before Deputy District Judge Robinson. The DDJ made a spends time with order in the father’s favour for five nights per fortnight. He refused the mother permission to appeal that interim contact order. The recital to the order included:

The next day the father emailed School X to report what had happened at court. The email details that C could not sleep that night. He was said to be stressed out. His father tried to calm him but relayed that C started to cry and told his father that after the court hearing his mother had broken down in tears on him. His email states that he is worried about the mother’s mental ill health and the impact on the children. The father made a similar report to the local authority by telephone.

On 5 February 2021 the mother issued an application for permission to appeal the decision of the DDJ to order unsupervised staying contact. The same day there was a dispute between the parents about whether the father should have returned the children to the mother that morning.

On 10 February 2021 notice of hearing of the mother’s application for permission to appeal/stay was given.

On 12 February 2021, the local authority received an anonymous letter about the mother.

It is said that during half term February 2021 C confided in his mother that he was scared his father would hurt E and D like he had hurt him and he said he is unable to stop the physical play. 

On 3 March 2021 HHJ Ahmed refused the mother’s application for permission to appeal against the order of Deputy District Judge Robinson dated 4th February 2021.

On 3 March 2021 there is a letter from the NHS regarding the mother’s involvement with the Crisis Resolution and Home Treatment Team (CRHT). The letter outlines the father’s alleged abusive behaviour towards the mother, and the psychological impact that abuse had on the mother. The letter details how during the consultation the mother was exhibiting clinical features of depression with suicidal thoughts, PTSD and anxiety. 

On 5 March 2021 the LADO investigation into the mother ended.

On 11 March 2021, one of the father’s (unnamed) colleagues informed the Head of Junior School that the father ‘kept touching her’. The father was told not to have physical contact with colleagues ‘not least because of the Covid situation’. The father agreed. 

On 15 March 2021 there is a letter from School X which states:

Between 28- 30 March 2021, there are text messages between C and the father. The messages of 30 March 2021 read as follows:

On 14 April 2021, H (EAL counselling) refers D and C to CDA. The mother also completes a referral form for CDA.

On 20 April 2021, there is a letter from CAFCASS to Court, requesting an extension of time for the section 7 report.

On 28 April 2021, DJ Harper made an order (on the papers, without a hearing):

On 3 May 2021 C was assessed by CDA.

On 6 May 2021 District Judge Owen determined that a fact-finding hearing was not necessary or proportionate in this case notwithstanding the allegations made by the mother and continued the order made on 4 February 2021. 

On 10 May 2021 D was assessed by CDA. The assessment note contains the following:  Mum and Dad divorced 2 years ago. Dad wasn’t nice to mum physically and emotionally. D is reported within this document as feeling confused. She wants things to go back to the way they were when her parents were together but stated that she understands her mother’s position. She spends equal time with her parents but wants her father to understand how she feels. He is not the easiest person to talk to and she is sometimes scared of him. She feels angry but does not show it. She is concerned about C because he is angry about the situation. D stated that she used to hear her mother cry at home and would hear her parents’ fight. Her mother has anxiety and depression when married and cancer.  D reported that her parents are going to court before the summer holidays. Things are smooth and chill at her mother’s but her brother has been a bit mouthy and ok at dads but she has no friends there. According to D her communication is good with her mother and she can talk to her. D gets on with her brothers, older brother especially. There has been some conflict between the older brother, her father and grandmother which she is angry about. D was reporting no suicidal thoughts. D is recorded as saying that she sometimes thinks about not wanting to be around her family and to get away. She reported no self-harming behaviour.

On 20 May 2021, CDA offer D counselling, and she was placed on the waiting list.

On 30 June 2021 there is a CAFCASS report by Former Guardian. The same evening the mother sent Former Guardian a lengthy email. There is also a partial text between C and his mother on 30 June. The text is about the CAFCASS report.

C emailed a teacher at SCHOOL X on the evening of 30 June 2021, worried about the father’s reaction to reading his comments in the s.7 report. On the morning of 1 July 2021, C responds to his teacher, saying thanks miss I’m fine just a bit shaken. On the evening of the 30^th, the mother sends an email to SCHOOL X, asking if C had emailed SCHOOL X.

It is alleged by the mother that the children became emotionally withdrawn due to the father pressuring them about the court proceedings. It was, she says, making them feel increasingly anxious. According to their mother, they would feel unsafe and compromised by having to speak against their father and then go into his care.

At the start of the School holidays the father introduced the children to P. They would stay at her home with her children when they had contact with the father.

On 31 August 2021 the Youth Counselling Service email confirms that D was still on their waiting list but offered the Wellbeing group on a Thursday. The mother declined it on the basis that the children would be at contact with their father and would not speak openly in that environment because they would not feel safe.

On 2 September 2021, the father, C, and D got into an argument over the father's treatment of the turkey chicks within the father's care.

On 5 September 2021 the mother suspended contact between the children and their father.

On 6 September 2021, POA referral notes that the mother made contact regarding an incident where the father was angry with D about the care of turkey chicks. The mother reported: D my daughter then came on the phone asking me to come and get her because she needed me to have the turkey chicks that her father had hatched. She has been concerned that he is neglecting them and they have been dying one by one.

On 6 September 2021 the mother sent an email to the Deputy Safeguarding Lead at School Ys which caused the School to make a referral to POA. The details included the following: He (The Father) became incredibly angry and aggressive and got over the top of him and in Cs face angrily pointing a finger. D described C being driven to use bad language as a last resort to get his father to stop. C is a very quiet, respectful, polite young man and this is totally out of character. […] He is still being heavily groomed by his father. On return to me tonight he started back on his parroting of 'why can't I be with dad, it's not fair […] In spite of being very happy to be back in his home with me. […] D described in great distress how her 14-year-old brother completely broke down on this walk, believing himself to be a horrible person because of his father. C is not horrible, he is brave and kind and fair and thoughtful.' The referral details the children being exposed to level of anger and resulting fear of the father.

On 7 September 2021 the mother’s solicitor sent a letter to the father’s Solicitor advising that the mother would not be making the children available for contact tomorrow.

On 8 September 2021, the paternal grandmother collects E from School, as per the CAO. The mother had informed the School prior to this that she was suspending contact and that the father/his family should not be permitted to collect E.

On 9 September 2021, SCHOOL X held a meeting with the father due to further allegations from the mother. The LADO investigation concluded as this was a ‘private life concern’.

Again, on 9 September, the mother emailed the Schools, making further allegations against the father and paternal grandmother.

On 13 September 2021, the mother emailed SCHOOL X, making further allegations against the father and paternal grandmother, and raising concerns about the father’s relationship with his partner (teacher from SCHOOL X).

On 15 September 2021 there are text message between D and the father. The same day there are text. messages between C and the father:

On 15 September 2021, both parents and the paternal grandmother made contact with the local authority including regarding the mother refusing to allow the children to attend the wedding of a paternal family member.

On 16 September 2021 the social worker visited the children and the mother.

Also on the 16^th, the then social worker, sent a letter to CAFCASS which notes that the father had read the CAFCASS report issued earlier in the year and that there had been a backlash as a result of the children's views as expressed therein and that C and D disclosed they don't want to see him until he shouts less, he asks them less questions repeatedly, he 'watches us' less and until he's less angry. The letter concludes that "It was my assessment that it was not for children's services to impose a ban on the father 's contact with the children. There was no information to suggest immediate risk of harm to the children at contact." The letter then states that 50/50 care will not be appropriate in this situation as it is not just an arrangement about time spent but requires every decision to be made jointly which is clearly not going to be possible in this family, that a fact-finding hearing should take place and that the children would benefit from a Guardian. The decision was made not to proceed with a family assessment as "the children have not made any allegations of significant harm against The Father." The case was closed.

That evening the mother emailed the School to inform them that the social worker had spent time with the children and had advised that they are not at immediate risk of physical harm but that they would benefit from respite from contact with their father due to displaying as overwhelmed from the sustained emotional and psychological harm.

On 17 September 2021, SCHOOL X raised concerns from other parents regarding father’s discipline of students and teaching.

On 18 September 2021 the father’s brother Q was married. In his statement to the police following D’s death the father states that it was at this point that he found out about the SWIM video. The mother had sent him a message - while you were getting on with your life, this is what I was doing. The father states within this statement his view that the video was not only graphic in its re-enactment of a suicide attempt, it also implied that he had been the cause of the suicide by not supporting her mental health crisis. He noted D’s name in the credits and sent it to social services.

On 19 September 2021, SCHOOL X met with the father to discuss allegations made by other students/parents. A risk assessment concluded that he is a low risk of harm.

On 21 September 2021, there are text messages between C and the father and from the father to D.

Again, on the 21^st, there is an email from the father’s Solicitor to the mother’s Solicitor, forwarding on an email from a social worker and stating that contact must now resume. The day there are messages between the father and the mother, the father asking the mother to comply with the order and the mother stating that she would not be allowing contact and that the father should apply for an ‘emergency hearing’. The next day the mother emails the Schools, asserting that the LA has advised her to withhold contact. Within that email the mother makes it plain that she will not be making them available for contact because they are not safe, in her opinion, in their father’s care.

The next day (22^nd), there is a letter from the mother’s Solicitor to the father’s Solicitor which states, inter alia, that the mother will not be making them available for contact for at least the next few weeks to provide them with a critical period of respite. The mother’s detailed reasons for this are set out within the letter.

The same day (22^nd), there is an email from the father’s Solicitor to the mother’s Solicitor, stating, inter alia, that the father would be collecting E and C from School (along with D, if she so wished, given the mother’s assertion that she had started menstruation and wanted to be with the mother for this).

That day, both parents try to collect E from School (it is the father’s day). There was a stand-off until c.7.30pm at School when the School then released E to the father’s care. The father has direct contact with E - not with C and D. In the meantime, E had been cared for by his teachers who had played with him and fed him.

The same day, School Ys emailed a social worker. Within that email they record E has said that the father is not safe because he gets cross and mad at them (C and D) and shouts. He gets scary about me sometimes but its ok.

 On 23 September 2021 the mother emailed the Schools, police and the local authority. The email timed at 08.47 states that D is asking to do her Schoolwork online and informing the School that she will keep her at home. D is said to be asking her mother if it will take one of them killing themselves for their father to stop doing what he is doing. C has told her he is thinking of stabbing himself. The mother states within the email that they do not know about the attempt she made on her life two years previously.

The same day C told his teacher that he had contacted his father to ask for a hiatus in contact with all his siblings as they need a break.

On 24 September the local authority closed the case again. The assessing social worker recommended a Guardian be appointed for the children and contact to be organised in court with a fact-finding recommendation.

On 24 September 2021 the mother made a C100 application (for variation of the CAO and PSO to prevent the father collecting children from School) and second C1A. By that application she was seeking a continuation of the live with order; an order for indirect contact only between the father and the children (when requested by the children only), and a PSO preventing the father or paternal family from taking the children from School or elsewhere. The application made clear that the mother did not agree to supervised contact. She stated that C is liaising directly with Former Guardian to have his and his siblings’ voices heard.

On 27 September 2021, issued on 1 October 2021, the father made a C79 enforcement application and provided supporting documents.

The same day, the mother emails the Schools raising concerns about the father.

Two days later, on 29 September 2021, Former Guardian writes to the court to alert the court that there have been significant changes in the case and the present contact order has broken down.

The father says that at the end of September 2021 the mother said that if he moved out of P’s house whilst he had the children, they would want to come and visit more. The father did move out and C visited.

In October 2021 there are lengthy messages between the parents about arrangements for the children. The mother is asking the father to stop the court proceedings and to stop pursuing shared care. She asks him to trust her to facilitate the relationship between him and the children.

On 11 October 2021 a staff member reported to the deputy head of School and DDSL that she felt uncomfortable with how touchy the father was with the younger children in PE.

In or around 12-13 October 2021 the father bumps into D at the senior School when he is taking students to the toilet. The mother emails the School confirming that D was distressed by the encounter.

In October 2021 the mother discovered that D had been self-harming herself. In her statement the mother says that D had inflicted significant self-harm on her arms, legs and on one occasion her stomach. The commencement of the self-harming is said to coincide with the father allegedly accosting D between lessons at School in early October 2021 during a period when contact was suspended.

D was off School unwell until 15 October 2021.

On 17 October 2021, the mother and the father exchanged texts - the mother wanted the father to stop pursuing shared care and to stop court proceedings.

On 18 October 2021, the mother files her C7 acknowledgment to the father’s enforcement application.

On 19 October 2021, the father has disciplinary hearing at SCHOOL X due to concerns including that he had been observed by colleagues in close physical contact with pupils on a number of occasions. SCHOOL X has correspondence with LADO.

On 20 October 2021 the father was given a disciplinary written warning by SCHOOL X. It contained the following:

On 22 October 2021, CAFCASS reported to the Court – via Former Guardian - including updated wishes and feelings from the children. The report notes that D was clearly burdened by something, she struggled to smile at all through the meeting which was such a contrast to the last time I met her. D had a panic attack when she previously saw her father and both children also seemed to have lost trust in their father and are angry with how he has handled his new relationship. The report concludes that despite all of this, and despite the current situation being the children are no longer spending time with their father, both D and C say they want to spend time with him and that I hope that very quickly time between the children and father can be reestablished. The report goes on to recommend an interim child arrangements order for the Children to spend time with their father 4 day per fortnight. C can join this time if he wants and that the court should list the matter for a fact-finding hearing.

On 27 October 2021, CAFCASS wrote a letter to Court – via Former Guardian - raising further changes to D’s wishes and feelings (raised to Former Guardian by the mother, and then subsequently D contacting Former Guardian herself - D messaged Former Guardian to say she did not want to attend contact with her father for a very long time). Former Guardian gave recommendations for a 16.4 Guardian, a Fact-Finding Hearing, consideration of an expert assessment, and a reconsideration of interim contact.

On 28 October 2021 DDJ Robinson decided that the orders of 4 February and 6 May 2021 in relation to contact should remain in force. Because of paucity of time, the question of whether or not there should be a fact-finding and/or expert assessment was adjourned to another hearing.

On 31 October 2021 the mother emailed School Ys the new court order.

On 6 November 2021 the mother told the father that D was having nightmares about him. In response he wrote that he did not understand what he had done wrong to D and said it was breaking his heart.

On 9 November 2021 C told his School that the mother informed him of her suicide attempt. He says she told him this during the October half-term holiday. C was recorded by the School as being emotional about this.

On 15 November Former Guardian emailed the social worker. In that email she expressed her worry for the children’s emotional wellbeing and increasing concerns about the mother’s actions. She thought the father might withdraw his application due to the pressure he is feeling and the worries about D’s mental health. She states that this will leave the children without a relationship with their father and the paternal family which a few weeks ago they wanted. 

At about this time, whilst in School, E alleged that his grandad kicked him in his privates but then said he didn’t remember and shut down. When it was followed up in School he could not remember when it happened or which granddad it was. Later E told both his mother and father separately that it was a joke.  Further, during a one-to-one session E stated that his brother and father had had an argument again. E said he just wants everyone not to argue and be nice.

The father says that at the end of November 2021, C asked to go to P’s farmhouse if the father did not tell the mother.

On 2 December 2021 the mother posted on Instagram about how she is a survivor of abuse and how hard grief is to carry.

Between September–December 2021 D had no contact with her father. However, she stayed with him on Christmas Day.

Between 6 January 2022 and 3 July 2022, a series of messages and Gifs were exchanged between D and the father on WhatsApp.

On 18 January 2022 there is confirmation from CDA that Ms Dover would be D’s counsellor and that sessions would be via Zoom and start on 7 February 2022.

On 22 January 2022 the father sent D a WhatsApp message: Love u to my duckling. Please try and relax we can take it as slow as you want darling. I’m your daddy man no one else’s. Just for you forever. I love u to the moon and back xxxxx.

Between 27-29 January 2022 the father sent D a series of messages about a police dog he says that he found.

On 29 January 2022 the father emailed School Ys. In that email he states that it has been really hard for E over the last few years as he has been trying to get shared custody and he took the mother to court over a year ago. Since then, things had gotten harder - me and The Mother have basically gone at each other […] Things between me and The Mother are a lot better since Christmas and I said I will drop the court action as it’s breaking our two older children.

Between 2 and 6 February 2022 the father and D exchange messages about a picture of an animal that the father sent to D.

On 7 February 2022 D began work with Aimee Dover in a therapeutic capacity. The mother had concerns about D’s increasingly low moods and that she had started to self-harm. In the first session, D described the court case as very difficult and pressured. She did not want to upset either parent despite preferring to be with her mother. There was discussion about the father and the family trying to convince everyone the mother was mentally unstable, which she did not feel was the case. D felt it was difficult. Her father had lied about her mother to get custody. She expressed fear of her father, his sudden mood swings and anger. D was highly averse to spending any significant time with the father.

On 16 February 2022 D had a further session with Ms Dover. During the session it is recorded that D said about CAFCASS -Always trying to get us to talk but then never listening.

There was a further session for D with Ms Dover on 21 February 2022. During this session D described dissociation. She feels as though she can go to another place which contains distinct characters.

On 28 February 2022 D had a session with Aimee Dover. In relation to her father, it is recorded that D managed to stay with her father at the weekend but suffered 3 panic attacks. D reported that her father spoke about her mother being to blame for the divorce a number of times over the weekend which upset her. 

On 29 February 2022 Ms Dover rang the mother to discuss concerns about D’s self-harm and suicidal ideation.

In March 2022 the father completes an anger management course. In father’s SPECIALIST FAMILY SERVICEassessment, dated 2 March 2022, it notes:  The father said he does get angry on the hockey pitch and that this is the extent of his demonstration of anger. He felt that his examples of anger, were not the same as the other people attending the course. Despite this, The father said that the anger management course he attended has helped to reinforce some techniques he uses.

On 4 March 2022 the mother rang Aimee Dover to report that she has discovered that D had been self-harming on her arm.

On 7 March 2022 D has a session with Ms Dover. D expresses high levels of frustration and distress saying that her father continues to denigrate her mother wherever possible. She describes trying to ignore him as he does not like to be told off and might get angry. She describes feeling her father sees girls as lesser beings than boys and that he uses words such as girl and princess to address C when C is upset or cries. She feels panic when she remembers the way her father behaved towards her mother throughout her childhood. D states that she does not want to stay over at her father’s home.

On 14 March 2022, D had a further session with Ms Dover. D reported multiple panic attacks at her father’s house on the weekend. She relayed concerns about C and relayed a story about C and her father in which C was almost hit by a log. She describes feeling conflict - she feels bad for upsetting him but in the other part feels his presence is harmful. 

On 21 March 2022 D has a further session with Ms Dover. D was not open to deeper discussion but expressed that she found these sessions helpful.

On 24 March 2022 in response to a parent reporting to the School that D had cuts on her arm, the School spoke to D’s parents. Her father, in a telephone call, told the School that there had been a suicide awareness video on YouTube which the mother had made.

On 31 March 2022 D had another session with Aimee Dover. D discussed how her father had charmed her friends when he randomly turned up at her School before Christmas. She expressed being fed up with her father and feeling he will never change. Another note records that D spoke in depth about her father’s behaviour citing times when he got angry and hurt C.

The next session with Ms Dover was on 4 April 2022. D was said to be sad and despondent that her father had done so much to her, C, and the mother but would not take responsibility for it. She said she had learnt not to contradict him and to appease him. The notes state that D talked at length about her father physically and/or emotionally hurting her and C. She is said to have mentioned a couple of times her father being abusive to her mother, and C would try and step in to protect her and end up getting hurt himself. She cited two separate birthdays when her father was angry with her and one in which he held her under water for a long period of time. D thought the paternal grandmother witnessed this.

On 8 April 2022, concerns were raised within SCHOOL X that the father played alongside the children during a PE lesson. The father appeared to reject concerns, saying that playing alongside the children was an established part of coaching and was good practice. He wouldn’t accept that there was any more risk that stumbling and falling on a child/in any other context. The author of the document notes: I am concerned that The Father did not take the potential risks seriously enough. The father was told that the risks that he was taking in his conduct were unacceptably high, and that it would be impossible for the School to defend a situation where a 9-year-old child suffers injury from a tackle with you.

There was a further session with Aimee Dover on 11 April 2024. D expressed worry that her refusal to stay with her father is causing arguments between her parents. 

On 14 April 2022 notice was given of a DRA on 15 June 2022. 

On 22 April 2022 E shared in School that he hates School. In the same conversation he stated that he is very sad because his parents separated. They don’t live together anymore, and he wants them to. He says his family will never be happy again. Everyone is sad and gets angry, he said.

D had a session with Aimee Dover on 24 April 2022. D expressed frustration at her father and his constant nagging to see her. She reported not feeling safe with him. In this session D expressed how unfair it was that her mother had to continue to fight her father and his family, even though she is just trying to be a mother and a teacher. D is reported to have said that she is worried her father will continue to push for her brothers and they may be harmed by him. She is worried E will be dragged into the custody battle. D expressed guilt for not stopping her father from hurting her mother and her brothers. She wanted to be brave enough to do something. 

In May 2022 the children attend contact together. About an hour after drop-off, the mother receives a distressed call from C who explained that after the children had arrived at the small holding, D had had a panic attack and run off into the woods. C had gone with her, and D had begun self-harming. The mother collected D and brought her home. D is unable to communicate much about what had triggered her.

On 9 May 2022 D had another session with Aimee Dover. D had written a letter to her father to be read out in this session, but which was not to be sent to him. In that letter she set out how he was not aware of how his behaviour affected others; criticized his attitude to women who she said he regarded as possessions; and hurt people and put them down when they were upset. 

On 10 May 2022 the mother emailed SCHOOL X, including an assertion that D had self-harmed the week prior.

On 11 May 2022 SCHOOL X found D reading ‘13 reasons why’, a book referencing self-harm and suicide.

According to Aimee Dover the mother contacted her to report that D had suicidal ideations.

On 16 May 2022 D had another session with Aimee Dover. According to a record of that session, the mother had contacted her three days before to report that D was expressing suicidal ideation. D told Ms Dover that she feels too much.

On 25 May 2022 D had a session with Ms Dover during which D reported that her father and C had had a falling out.

There are emails between the mother and Ms Dover on 24-25 May 2022 and 1 June 2022. They include arranging a meeting between the mother and Aimee Dover on a weekend for a cup of something and either a walk or sit?! There was reference to the mother buying Aimee flowers. Aimee Dover echoes the mother’s allegations.

On 31 May 2022 D had another session with Ms Dover. The notes simply record that she spoke at length about feeling unsafe and uncomfortable at her father’s house. She expressed fear of being alone with him and feels trapped when with him. D says she feels safe with her mother who does not try to get her on side.

In June 2022 the father stopped paying C and D’s School fees without warning. The mother infers in her statement that this is because there was no contact with their father.

Between 3 and 5 June 2022 there are text messages between the father and D in which D expresses her love for her father and her father says not to worry about not staying over.  

On 5 June 2022, the mother emails Aimee Dover. The emails are around D’s allegations and allege that D has talked of self-harming, hanging herself and describing location of arteries in her arms and neck.

The same day, the father sent a message to the mother–intimate content removed from published judgnment. The father claims here he is introverted – it is the mother’s case that he is in fact giving her the ‘silent treatment’.

According to her mother’s statement dated January 2024 D told her mother in June 2022 that her father had been touching her without her consent in a way which made her feel uncomfortable. This had been happening since the divorce. D stated that the touching included rubbing and squeezing her thighs, rubbing her back under her top, putting his hand just under the band of her knickers and getting into bed with her to cuddle. She told her mother that when she moved his hand away and asked him to stop, he would usually stop when she asked but this didn’t stop him doing it again. The mother also reported that D told her that she had been raped but she did not remember when or where this happened only that it was before the parents’ separation and she did not recall who did it, only that the man was older and not a stranger.

On 6 June 2022 D told Aimee Dover that she had tried to go to her father’s but left after 30 minutes. D told Ms Dover that she found it difficult that her father had so many girlfriends and that she had witnessed him treating them badly. He has asked her on multiple occasions whether the mother still loves him, saying he still loves her. D is reported to have detailed the incident about an argument she had had with her father about the baby turkeys. She had been touched inappropriately by her father over the last three years. She reported that he had placed his hand on her thigh, would get into bed with her and put his hands inside of her pajamas. In the same session, D stated that she had been raped at a campsite when she was in year 4 or 5. In a different record made by Aimee Dover it is written: Client also disclosed a previous incident 4 years ago in which some older boys who she didn’t know tried to sexually assault her- touching and taking her clothes off.  This was the last session with CDA. Shortly thereafter D began seeing Ms Dover as part of her private practice. The record concluded that she told D that the disclosure of sexually inappropriate touching was a safeguarding issue and agreed that if she had not told her herself by 10pm, then Ms Dover will ring the mother.

Within her statement dated 1 September 2023 at 892-3 of the main bundle the mother sets out the conversation she had with D. After describing what D told her about the inappropriate touching it states that- She told me what had happened, she moved his hand away and asked him to stop. She explained that he would usually stop if she asked him to but that this would not stop him doing it again. She then told me “There is something else mum, something worse” She could not tell what it was or say the words. I asked if she would prefer to write it on a piece of paper. D wrote the word rape on the piece of paper. The mother exhibited that piece of paper to her statement. D said she did not remember when or where this happened (only that it was before The Father and I separated) or who did it (only that it was a man older than her who was not a stranger). She then became even more distressed saying “I’m not even a virgin, how creepy is that?”

That evening the mother wrote an email to Ms Dover which set out what D had told her whilst it was fresh in her mind. The email is at 930 of the main bundle. In relation to the allegation of rape in the email she writes this - Before she told me I had a feeling in the pit of my guts that it was something like this. But I did not expect it to be this bad. I asked her if it could have been her dad, but she blocked it out. She didn’t think so. I don’t know.

On 7 June 2022 the mother reported D’s allegation to the police. The police log records that the mother reported that she had been advised to make the report to the police following allegations her child had made during counselling and then to her. The allegations were in relation to the father. D had told her mother that her father had been touching her from around Year 5. D has described her father squeezing her thigh, putting his hand up her top and down the waistband of her knickers. D has said that her father will get into her bed and cuddle her at night. It is reported that the father will stop when D tells him to. D is reported to have also told her mother that something happened on a camping trip when she was younger than year 5. D could not tell her mother what it was, so she wrote it on a piece of paper. The word she wrote was rape. D is also reported to have said to her mother – quote omitted graphic content The police log records that D has not confirmed who it was that raped her - an older male - hasn't denied that it was [the father]. The mother is recorded as having told the police that when she divorced from the father it was due to violent incidents so although she does not want to believe it, she can see how it may have happened. In light of the allegations the mother raised concerns about E who at that time was seeing his father every Wednesday after School and stayed with his father for two days. The police advised that if there is a serious risk to a child under a court order, then the child should not go to his father. The mother raised concerns about the father collecting E from School the next day and the School saying they cannot do anything about it because of the court order. The police told the mother that they would speak to the School which they duly did.

In response a Strategy Discussion was held. There was to be a S47 enquiry followed by a full family Assessment. It was decided that the children are not to have contact with their father until there has been a full risk assessment.

Over 7-8 June 2022 the mother informs the School and LA about new allegations concerning D. There was correspondence between SCHOOL X and LADO regarding the inappropriate touching allegation. The father was suspended by SCHOOL X pending investigation by safeguarding agencies.

From 7-13 June 2022, there were text messages between the father and C, C saying that he loves the father in response to the father’s messages.

 On 8 June 2022 the mother made a C2 application and a third C1A. She sought to vary the CAO and wanted no contact (direct or indirect).

On 8 June 2022 there was a joint police and social work visit to D at home – DC T, TDC B and the duty social worker. The police log entry records a summary of what D said. D stated that the touching started not long after her parents split up about 3 years ago in the first half term holidays (February). It would take place at her father’s rented address […] usually when her brothers had gone to bed or whilst they were in another room watching the TV. The touching would be under her pyjama bottoms on her inner thighs. D would tell her father to stop, that she didn’t like it but he wouldn’t. There would also be times when her father would get into bed with her and cuddle her and continue to touch her inner thighs and it would make her feel uncomfortable. D would tell him she didn’t like it, then get out of bed and then go to the bathroom for long periods of time to stop the touching from continuing. In relation to the disclosure of rape, D said that when she was very young she went on a camping trip, she can’t remember where they were or who it was that did this to her but that it was one of her mum’s friends. D remembers there being lots of tents and she was in one tent that had two sections in it. This man came into her tent, took her clothes off, she didn’t know what to do as she didn’t understand and began touching her. D became upset at this point and no further questions were put to her on this issue. D confirmed she was happy to continue attending School X even though her father works there as their paths do not cross.

The same police log records that the mother was spoken to. She stated that there had been so many camping trips that they went on that it would be difficult to work out exactly which one D was referring to. The mother also mentioned that where they used to live backed onto a camping site and there could always be a chance D wandered onto it without anyone knowing.

The Duty Social Worker spoke to the father on the telephone. The father asserted that every time there is a court hearing coming up, the children are encouraged by the mother to make false allegations against him.

The same day Aimee Dover contacted the local authority.

On 11 June 2022 the mother emailed Ms Dover.

The next day, the mother texts the father, angry that he has brought court proceedings.

On 13 June 2022 D saw Aimee Dover again. D expresses anxiety over her disclosure saying that she does not like dealing with social service and other service figures. In relation to her father, she thinks he will deny or deflect because in her experience he does not take responsibility for his actions. Ms Dover rang the mother after the session to alert social services to D’s state of mind and the need to keep a close eye on her.

There was a Strategy Discussion on 14 June 2022. A further s47 investigation was begun. Within it, it is reported that the Guardian sensed that there was some 'tricky behaviour' from Mum over the last couple of years, like if Mum was in a bad place with Dad then the children wouldn’t want to see him, whereas if they were in a good place, then the children would want to see Dad. Mum is quite emotional, and she shares this with the children so they are exposed to it. Up until this point, Dad has been quite reflective and has presented as being focussed on what is best for the children, and wanting to work co-operatively with Mum. He's seemed quite on edge about Mum, not wanting to "rock the boat" or upset her/cause further arguments or destabilise the arrangements.

On 15 June 2022, DJ Owen made a final order. The children were to live with the mother. The previous order for contact between the children and the father was discharged, with the Court determining that there shall not be contact between the children and the father at this time. The father’s ‘spends time with’ application was dismissed and the father’s application for an adjournment was refused. The mother’s PSO application was dismissed. The parties were permitted to disclose the order to Schools, police and the local authority. The social work note of this hearing states that the court decided that due to D’s disclosures to her counsellor that SPECIALIST FAMILY SERVICEand the police complete investigations and risk assessments. Whilst this is being completed, the children were to continue to live with their mother. The court noted that irrespective of the above investigations / assessments D and C can decide independently their level of contact with their father.

I pause to note that the final order was made without any findings of fact having been made. The issue of whether or not there should be a fact-finding was successively adjourned and thus although the allegations grew, they were never determined before final orders were made. I acknowledge that I write this judgment with 20:20 hindsight. I have the benefit of having heard and read the evidence as well as time for reflection. I also do so having had the opportunity to remind myself of PD12J and in particular paragraph 16 of PD12J - the court should determine as soon as possible whether it is necessary to conduct a fact-finding hearing in relation to any disputed allegation of domestic abuse and the purpose of such a fact-find. In my judgment the children in this case would have benefitted from an early fact-find. The final order simply left the allegations hanging. Whilst D and C’s autonomy was respected, by leaving decisions to them, I find, the order unintentionally placed pressure upon them. E was left with a final order in relation to where he should live but no determination of his contact with his father. I find that was unsatisfactory.

On 16 June 2022 W was allocated as the children’s social worker. He conducted the S47 investigation which concluded on 3 July 2022.

On 16 June 2022 Mr W made a CIN visit to all three children. Having spoken to the children, he then spoke to the mother and recorded that The Mother shared her worries around D's mental health and described how D has been self-harming by cutting since October 2021. A few months ago D said she had tried to hang herself in the barn and recently when The Mother read D's diary, The Mother read mention of D hearing voices. The Mother has fed this back to D's counsellor. The Mother described how The Father was abusive in their relationship and how she referenced this abuse in a 27 page witness statement to court. Moving forward the mother intended to allow no contact between the father and the children.

On 19 June 2022 D sent the father a text wishing him happy Father’s Day.

On 20 June 2022 Mr W has a telephone call with Ms Dover in which she tells him that she is aware that D has been self-harming by cutting since October 2021 and that a few months ago D had tried to hang herself in a barn.

On 20 June 2022 D had another session with Ms Dover. Within this session D explained she made her disclosures because she just burst: When speaking about the rape […] she describes playing with C, who then ran off to get something. She then went to the tent with someone who must have been someone she knew. She describes the person removing her clothes and feeling freaked out and trying to leave. The person would not let her move or make noise. She believes it was penetrative sex. She stated that she was in a lot of pain and shock. She reflects that she did not tell her mother because she didn’t really understand what had occurred and was frightened of what might happen if anyone knew.

On 20 June 2022 there are emails between the mother and CAMHS including D being placed on the trauma intervention waiting list and exploring the possibility of the voices clinic and steps the mother should take to ensure D’s safety when in her care.

On 21 June 2022 Mr W and the father spoke on the phone. The father says he has tickled the children and rubbed their backs, but he poses no sexual risk to them at all.

On 23 June 2022, the mother confirms to police that D wishes to have an ABE interview.

On 27 June 2022 D had another session with Aimee Dover. In this session she told Ms Dover how she wanted her father to take responsibility for his actions but did not want to get him into major trouble. 

On 28 June 2022 the father sent Mr W a very lengthy email in which he set out his concerns about the mother.

On 29 June 2022 Mr W spoke to E at School. He described his parents in positive terms and then said I don’t get to see my dad […] My Mum and Dad need a rest from talking about which days I see him. He was clear he missed his father and wanted to see him soon. Mr W asked E if he knew what made his parents sad. E said that his mother expresses her sadness by crying a lot but that it’s okay to cry.

 On 30 June 2022 Mr W met with the father as part of the S47 enquiries. From it came the following:

There are messages between the mother and father about arrangements for the children, D’s allegations and her mental health.

A similar call was made to the mother during which the mother acknowledged D’s right to see her father but worried about the impact contact was having on her psychological wellbeing.

In July 2022 C, D and E made subject to CIN plans.

On 3 July 2022 the s.47 enquiries into D’s allegations conclude. The same day D sent a text to her father which reads Hey I hope your ok I love you.

On 4 July 2022 D was ABE interviewed. The interviewers were DC B and a senior social worker. The monitoring officer was DC V. The interview lasted for 55 minutes. At the beginning it was established that D knows the difference between truth and lies. The officer then says so when we were downstairs, I explained to you about the fact that we’re here for you to give us your account of what happened in as much detail as you can. Thereafter and in response to open questioning, D gives her account of her father touching her and making her feel uncomfortable. There is then this exchange:

On 4 July 2022 D had a session with Aimee Dover. Within the session D described how she was hesitant to do the interview but decided it was important. She expressed that on camera, it felt frightening. She expressed fear that her father will convince the police not to believe her.

On 5 July 2022 the father was interviewed under caution by the police. He chose not to have a Solicitor present. When he considered the allegations, the father stated: And I have been racking my brain ever since about those things. Hundred per cent, I massage all my children and they come to me, especially my oldest son, C and I massage their backs. I haven’t seen D in the last year. He then clarifies that he had not seen D from September until Christmas. Later in relation to the squeezing of D’s thighs he says I 100% have but definitely not in a sexual way at all. And when we’re driving to School, there’s the tunnel at [redacted]. You drive through the tunnel and we have a thing where you hold your breath and whoever’s sitting in front of me, I hold their breath and I slow down to make then, so the, so they can’t laugh. Or I try and make them laugh by grabbing their thigh and squeezing their leg … Or tickling them or doing whatever it is… So if I, on my hip with my shorts, I don’t have a pocket. So what I do is I put two fingers inside and I rest my hand and I do that when I don’t have a pocket to put my hand in. … and I know when I walk to School, I say I normally, especially on Mondays , when you know, I play sport. And then in the early part of the week, I’m like a cripple walking to School and I lean on and hold on to C normally but D as well, …its normal my hand around their shoulders or their hips as they carry me into School. So I potentially could have done it…. Within the interview the father explains how D has only stayed twice since Christmas with him and that he only slept in the bed with her on the one occasion when she had had a panic attack. He describes D as wearing layers in bed. He later admits in the interview that he would squeeze her leg, she would say stop but he would continue. The admission is given in the context of driving through the tunnel. The father adamantly denied any sexual touching. Within the interview the father then details that he believes the mother is alienating the children from him and sets out the basis for that assertion.

On 9 July 2022 the mother emailed School X to tell them that D will not be returning to School before September. The email also captures her mother reporting that D continues to state that she loves her father but that she is adamant that seeing her father and having contact with him is not safe for her.

On 12 July 2022 D had another session with Ms Dover. D was reported to be reluctant to report any issue other than reporting that she feels very unsettled and frightened because she does not know what has gone on since her disclosure.

On 13 July 2022 the social worker Mr W visited D and E at the mother’s home. D is described as bright and engaging. She told the social worker that her father needs to be more aware of how his words make her feel - oftentimes he has described her mother as mentally ill and crazy, that she twists the children’s minds and influences them, and this has made her feel uncomfortable. She told the social worker that her mother has anxiety but that does not make her mentally ill. She wanted her father to be more careful not to hurt her or her siblings. She is said to have described how her father kicked C and another where he took her siblings out on a boat without life vests. He is said to need to reduce physical contact with D because sometimes his physical touch makes her feel uncomfortable. D also described how her mother was worried and that D had said she had thoughts of hurting herself and her mother doesn’t want her to hurt herself.

On 13 July 2022 the mother made allegations about the paternal grandmother. She expressed concerns over her contact with the children and accused her of sending an anonymous letter to the School.

On 14 July 2022 the social worker, Mr W, saw C at School. C described his father as a good guy, but he gets stuff wrong and won’t admit it. His father had done questionable things. When asked what he meant by that, C detailed how one time his father had kicked him following an incident with a nerf gun; another time when C was about 8 years old, his father confiscated his mother’s car keys so she could not go to the beach. He recalls his father took him by his shoulders causing him to fall on a box of wood and cut his back. There was another incident when his father took him and his siblings out on a boat without life jackets when there was a strong current which pulled them off course. C also recounted that he had heard that one time the father held D under the water in a swimming pool by her buoyancy aid before taking her to the changing rooms and smacking her. C had heard this from his mother’s friend. C also described how, like D, he had been made to feel uncomfortable by physical contact with his father. He described his father laying down in bed with him, giving him a hug, rubbing his back too low. The social worker’s note states that with support he went on to describe how Dad rubs his lower back and upper buttock, above his clothes. Dad doesn’t say anything when he’s doing this but C feels uncomfortable and will say “I am going to sleep now” and then Dad will leave the room. C also told the social worker he wants a relationship with him, but he needs to turn it around first. C had no worries about his mother.

On 15 July 2022 the mother emailed the social worker a copy of the Swim YouTube video. The mother says that it is not available to the public only to those who have the link. The mother explains how the father and paternal grandmother tell the mother’s friends and family that the mother is crazy. Within the email the mother states that having to tell her children about her suicide attempt is not something you ever want to do or imagine you will have to do. The email includes the mother’s report that C and D are aware of her suicide attempt but E is not.

The same day there was a SFS Consultation between the and the social worker. He was to send the mother a suggested script to use to tell E why he was not having contact with his father.

On 15 July 2022 the mother sent an email to SCHOOL X making further allegations against the father. After speaking to the social worker, the mother reported to SCHOOL X that C had disclosed to him that he has also had an experience very similar to D during time with his father.

The same day Aimee Dover emailed W. In the email Ms Dover described the mother as a tireless protector of the children.

On 17 July 2022 W the social worker completed a S17 assessment. He recommended CIN plans for all 3 children. Amongst the recommendations it is recommended that the father should receive the specialist family service sexual risk assessment.

D had another session with Aimee Dover on 18 July 2022. During this session D expressed that it was bizarre that the social worker had asked her about seeing her father around whom she still felt uncomfortable. D expressed that she was fed up with everyone arguing with everyone else across both sides of the family and exhausted by it. D is recorded as stating that her paternal grandmother had suddenly begun to flood her with texts.

There was a decision that the test for a further strategy discussion was not met by C’s recent allegations against his father. Instead, it was decided the information would be passed to the specialist family service and the police.

On 19 July 2022 C texted the social worker to say he didn’t want any contact – text, video or face to face- with his father.

On 25 July 2022 D had another session with Ms Dover. They discussed breaking the patterns that cause her to self-harm.

The paternal grandmother emailed the local authority on 25 July 2022 raising concerns about the mother. In the email she states a concern that the father may lose his job as a result of the allegations made by D: The father has now been suspended and because of the delay and continued unfounded allegations is highly likely to lose his job and therefore his ability to pay for their continued Schooling… If due to the slow progress of this case the father loses his job, we fear D’s mental health will be further damaged.

The LADO closed on 27 July 2022 due to it being private life matters.

On 29 July 2022 Mr W met with the father to discuss the recent family assessment. The father is reported to have said: The Father said that ahead of our meeting on 30 June 2022 he had been made aware that D had suggested his hand was inside her clothing and so ahead of our meeting he had been thinking hard to identify a time when that might have happened. In our meeting he suggested that sometimes when walking to School he would place his thumb inside the top of D's trousers and "rest my hand there". However, today he was clear that this had never happened and described how he had only said it because he felt pressure to account for a time when his hand could have been inside D's clothing.

On 31 July 2022 there are emails passing between the mother and DC B (police). The mother forwarded to her the post-it note [RAPE] D is said to have written her disclosure on the first night she told her mother about it.

D has another session with Aimee Dover on 4 August 2022. D expressed concern that she had not heard from social services or the police and was worried she had not been believed. D described dreams she has in various situations in which her father appears and the fear she has that she cannot escape him.

On 10 August 2022 the police spoke to family members who were present at the camping trip. K and his wife cannot add anything to help the investigation. There had been a group of older children on one trip who they had spoken to about their language. They had noticed nothing unusual about D. Equally the paternal grandfather and his wife had seen nothing untoward. F Z and her partner said they had been racking their brain. They had only been on the first camping trip and the only adverse memory was the father arguing with F’s partner.

On 15 August 2022 D saw Aimee Dover again. D is reported to appear relatively happy. In relation to her dreams, she now experiences reoccurrences of the same dream in different settings.

On 16 August 2022 the father has a disciplinary hearing with SCHOOL X.

On 24 August 2022 SCHOOL X told the father that he has been dismissed from the School with immediate effect. The same day the mother informed the local authority that she is not willing for E to have contact with his father.

On 26 August 2022 the mother emailed SCHOOL X. She describes D appearing happier and not self-harming. The mother reports that D is having nightmares about her father. D is said to be positive about returning to School.

On 29/30 August 2022 the father appealed the SCHOOL X’ decision to terminate his employment. An appeal hearing was organised for 5 September 2022.

On 30 August 2022 DC B telephoned the social worker, Admin assistant . She is concerned the allegations are malicious and the mother is manipulating the children. The OIC is concerned that once the mother knows one allegation is going nowhere another emerges.

The next day the social worker visited the children. C says he does not mind contact with his father but sometimes when he is angry it worries him. D said she would rather not have contact with him, and she does not feel comfortable around him.

On 2 September the mother emailed SCHOOL X. Within the email it is stated that C is undecided about wanting to pursue his own allegations against the father.

The 5 September was the father’s appeal hearing against SCHOOL X’ decision to terminate his employment. The mother points out that again, just as in the original hearing, the father mentions the SWIM video when the hearing is meant to be about his conduct. On 6 September 2022 SCHOOL X informed the father that his appeal is dismissed.

On 6 September 2022, the mother emailed School Y’s to update the School on what has happened over the summer and the impact on E.

D had a session with Aimee Dover on 7 September 2022, D was said to be nervous about returning to School. The dream was recurring with increased intensity and level of fear. She expressed concern for C who she said felt betrayed by CAFCASS when they told the father everything he said and did nothing to help C.

On 8 September 2022 E spoke to a teacher in School. He told her he cannot see his father anymore and that he is sad about that. He also told her that his father used to be a teacher, but he is not anymore because he hurt little children.

The same day the mother replied by text to a message DC B had sent her. Within that text she stated this - D has been having nightmares about her dad. She described them to me. She also said she was not sure that the person who assaulted her on the camping trip wasn’t her father.

D had a further session with Ms Dover on 12 September 2022. D reported that her dreams about her father are getting worse. In the most recent, she says he catches up with her, often slapping or punching her. In one he begins to beat her to death.

On 12 September 2022 the paternal grandparents reported the mother to the police alleging child abuse. They allege that since the parents separated the children have been weaponised by the mother against the father. They have examples on video of how this is being done, they have a video of the mother talking about attempting suicide and D is listed in the credits. Since seeing the film D has attempted suicide and self-harmed. The finished video has been shown to D and C. The video is on You-Tube but private. They, the paternal grandparents, did not consider that it was appropriate for the children to have seen the video. They had also taped distressing phone calls from the children expressing what is going on at home- tapes of the mother crying to them when they were with their father. D had not been at School for the last 6 months.

In response the police carried out a welfare check. The log records that having seen the footage which is in fact a supportive tool for persons suffering in crisis and there is no criticism of this. An occurrence detail states that I have explained to The Mother that I consider the video to be of benefit to people suffering with mental health and I have no concerns that this video has been shown to her two older children. The children thought their mother was brave and the video informative. The mother alleges that her estranged in-laws are out to harass her because their son has been dismissed from work because of allegations.

On 13 September 2022 the mother reported to the School that E had spoken to her about not being able to see his father and that it was D’s fault - If D had kept her mouth shut, I would be able to see my daddy.

On 17 September 2022, the mother posts a video on YouTube about her mental health.

On 21 September 2022 the mother spoke to DC B. In that conversation she told the OIC that she had said that D had told her that she could not say that it wasn’t her father who had raped her. D has not said her father raped her. D has nightmares about the camping incident and sometimes her father’s face appears on the person who assaulted her.

On 21 September 2022 the police decide to NFA the allegations D made that her father touched her sexually. Both parents were informed.

D saw Ms Dover again on 26 September 2022. D reports that her dreams are getting worse. She also mentioned her mother’s SWIM video. D is reported to be sad her mother has been pushed to that point but proud she was open about it and tried to help others, D worries that her mother is under a lot of pressure with all the court hearings.

On 29 September 2022 D was allegedly pushed to ground by (stranger) older boys whilst on her way to Tesco causing a graze to her knees and her mobile phone to break.

On 29 September 2022, the mother sent a lengthy email to SCHOOL X, asking that the father not be informed of the incident involving D.

On 2 October 2022, there was email correspondence between the mother, local authority and police re the ‘Swim’ YouTube video posted by the mother and about applying for a NMO.

On 3 October 2022 D has another session with Aimee Dover. In this session she discussed the Tesco attack and her dreams which plague her.

On the same day, D and E are seen at the mother’s home by a social worker.

E had a check in with the welfare officer at School on 4 October 2022. He is reported to be sad because he misses his father.

On 7 October 2022 D’s School friends expressed concern for her as she was self-harming.

C was spoke to by the local authority on 7 October 2022. C says he would like to see his father but that he is concerned for the consequences for the people he loves, D and E would be worrying, and it would possibly be dangerous.

On 8 October the mother posted a video on Instagram detailing what she says happened in her marriage and how it made her feel.

D saw Ms Dover on 10 October 2022. The next session when D saw Ms Dover was on 17 October 2022. She reported feeling despondent that the police have decided that there is not enough evidence to pursue the investigation further. She stated that her dreams have changed to include the campsite rape, and the content is the Same but the identity of the perpetrator changes.

On 20 October 2022 the mother contacted the police.

On 22 October 2022, the mother alleged that D had said that the father was raping her in her dreams and that her rapist is probably the father.

On 24 October 2022 D has a session with Aimee Dover. The notes record that D misses her father at times but feels sad that the good did not outweigh the bad. She feels guilty about her father’s situation although wondering why she feels guilty when he puts himself in that situation.

On 24 October 2022, the mother sends an email to the new social worker making allegations about the paternal grandmother.

The next day, the social worker visited all three children at the mother’s home.

On 26 October 2022 DC B visited D at home to ask about dreams involving the father. The mother was present. D spoke about the perpetrator of the alleged rape sometimes having her father’s face and sometimes no features.

On 1 November 2022 E expressed his worries to his whole class in a PHSE lesson. He is reported to have said that he has lots of problems and worries about his father. His father had hurt his brother and his sister, but he did not understand how. He is worried about his father hurting them. He didn’t want to talk to an adult about it.

On 7 November 2022 D had another session with Ms Dover. D is reported to have told her that the recurring dreams are lasting longer and now include versions of real-life events in which her father held her under water at a birthday party. D liked her current social worker who she said was honest and kind.

On 12 November 2022 D attempted suicide. D was admitted to hospital overnight and discharged on 14 November 2022. The hospital made a referral to CAMHS and there was a CAMHS liaison care plan (completed whilst D in hospital). However, the mother refused the referral to CAMHS for D because D was working with Aimee Dover.

On 14 November 2022 the mother sent a long email to the local authority including the social worker. Within that email she stated that – she [D] has had repeated nightmares about the rape and other situations involving her father.

On an unspecified date after D had attempted suicide, her friend recalls that she had harmed herself because she had been raped. In his statement to the police after her death, he recounts that she told him that the person responsible for the rape was either her father or someone she was supposed to be very close to. She had told him this only once but had on other occasions said it was the cause of her being unable to sleep.

On 14 November 2022, CAMHS visits D and concludes that she is well supported by her weekly therapy sessions with Aimee Dover and that she did not present as a danger to herself.

The next day, the social worker visited D at the mother’s home. The following day, CAMHS had a follow-up call with the mother following D leaving hospital. D was then closed to CAMHS.

On 18 November 2022 Ms Dover visited D at home.

On 21 November 2022 D had a therapy session with Ms Dover. During that session D discussed dissociative episodes which were becoming more frequent before she attempted suicide. She says her characters that are present in dissociative episodes first appear in dreams from the later part of primary School. Under the heading ‘Family’ it is noted that the thought of being around and frightened with her father. People believing the false image her father projects. Hearing people blame her mother when her negative mental health has nothing to do with her. The thought of E having to witness the things she and C did with their father. She has a great concern for E if he were to see the father again.

The next week D had another session with Ms Dover. Amongst other matters D expresses her worry that information will get back to her father and he will blame the mother.

On date 2022 the mother posted a video on YouTube

Between December 2022 – May 2023 D struggled to attend contact, often refusing altogether. D experiences numerous illnesses during this period, including frequent stomach pain, terrible mouth ulcers, inability to sleep and a severe decline in her mental health. This resulted in two emergency trips to a local Hospital in March 2022, with the GP suspecting lymph node infection/appendicitis/polycystic ovaries. Hospital scans after the second hospital visit showed no physical problems, and medics concluded that the symptoms were linked to stress and anxiety.

On 5 December 2022 D has a session with Aimee Dover in which she is reported to have reflected on watching C being treated poorly by their father but being too frightened to stand up for him. She had another session with her on 12 December 2022.

On 21 December 2022 the social worker visits the children at their home.

On 24 December 2022 the mother posted on Instagram. The post detailed the disappointment and anger she felt at the manner in which the paternal grandparents had favoured E for Christmas. They had sent E a present but made donations for the other two.

D did not return to School after her suicide attempt and on 27 December 2022 the mother informed SCHOOL X that D would be home educated.

Between January-July 2023 there are various messages between the father and C. An email from Aimee Dover on 6 January 2023 implies that this communication channel had not previously been known about.

In January - February 2023, Mr A proposed that the children's contact with the father should resume. Aimee Dover advised Mr A in an email dated 23 February 2023 that D continues to be adamant that exposure to her father in any manner would be catastrophic to her mental health. She feels he is a danger to her brothers as well. I concur […] I would also like to register my viewpoint that both The Father and his family appear to try and contact (and manipulate) the other two children and that this has a negative impact on the family as a whole and individually.

On 5 January 2023 D has a session with Ms Dover. D spoke of feeling betrayed by C who had gone to their father’s to collect some belongings. She felt vulnerable and frightened at her father coming back into their lives. From her perspective, her safety means her and her siblings having no contact with the father. She was worried that the father would accuse the mother of bad parenting again.

On 5-6 January 2023 there are emails from the mother to the social worker in which she expresses concern about messaging between C and his father and states she has told C to block him.

On 9 and 16 January 2023 D had sessions with Ms Dover. She appears not to have engaged with the themes which had dominated earlier sessions.

The mother posted a video on YouTube

D’s next session with Ms Dover was on 23 January 2023. D described increasingly alarming dreams which include one where she is stuck in a room with her father. He is speaking but she cannot hear him or find a way out.

On 24 January 2023 Admin assistant creates a note which copies and pastes into the record an email from the mother. It includes the mother’s reflections on a conversation she had with D on Sunday evening. The conversation was about what happened on the camping trip when she was 9 years old. There were some elements she did not understand and wanted explained to her. According to her mother she described ejaculation on and inside her. Her mother had explained to her what it was. She had not wanted her mother to look at her when she asked and when her mother explained but was otherwise calm. The only thing odd was she said she might laugh because she said she was embarrassed - which she did a bit. In this conversation the mother reports that D told her that she thought it was her father. Her mother had asked her why she thought that, and D told her that she dreams about it being him. Also, D thought that if it was anyone else, she would have told her mother at the time. D thinks that she kept quiet because she did not want to make him angry. Her mother asked her if she had a direct memory of it being him, she did not.

On 25 January 2023 the mother emailed B. In that email she acknowledged that the police had already investigated the allegation and closed the case. The mother detailed how she and her family were struggling to understand how they had not noticed anything at the time although the grandmother recalls D wetting herself which was unusual. In the email the mother asks DC B whether she believes D. The officer responds that that is not a question for her.

On 30 January 2023 D has another session with Ms Dover. D says she continues to have flashbacks to the camping trip (rape).

In February 2023 the mother notifies the local authority that she will be Homeschooling D.

On 2 February 2023, specialist family serviceissued a Risk Assessment of Sexual Harm and Domestic Abuse in respect of the father. None of the mother, D or C (the three alleged victims of the father's abuse) are interviewed by specialist family service. The assessment notes that: the father "suggested that the children are being subjected to misinformation from their mother, and that this is influencing their views of him" and that the father "highlighted concerns of parental alienation"; and the father is "an attractive man and if he was not, his actions may more readily be considered overly familiar". The assessment concludes that "based on the information available to the assessor, there is not enough evidence to conclude that the father poses a sexual risk to children" although it notes that "there are concerns that he has poor boundaries and needs to be mindful to stick to the safety plan and respect his children’s wishes". No restrictions on contact are recommended, except that handovers are conducted by a third party.

On 4 February 2023 the paternal grandmother messaged C.

On 6 February 2023, the mother informs the social worker that her NMO application was refused. The mother gives her account of the hearing. The mother also admits that C has access to her Instagram account. The father raises concern with the social worker about the mother’s Instagram posts, the fact these are public, and that the children have access to them.

On 9 February 2023 the father emailed the local authority, Admin assistant , and expressed concerns about posts the mother had made on social media over the last two years which he said were defamatory about him. He alleges that the mother has gaslighted the children, their classmates, friends, families, and teaching colleagues by these posts which he says are large in number.

Mr A telephoned the father on 10 February 2023. He had advised the mother about social media use and acknowledged it can be subjective. She said that only C would have seen any social media postings, and she would not post any material she considered harmful to the children.

The next day the paternal grandmother raised concerns with local authority about the mother’s social media posts.

The mother contacted Mr A on 13 February 2023 complaining that the paternal grandmother has messaged C. She was unhappy that the father and the paternal family did not provide birthday presents for the children. The father when asked about this said he thought they were not allowed.

On 15 February 2023 Mr A wrote to the court regarding the reasons for recommending a NMO. The order had been recommended by the previous social worker because the mother had expressed concern that the father would arrive at the house unannounced and because of previously expressed concerns.

On 16 February 2023 Mr A sees the children at home. The mother indicated that C would like to see the social worker alone which he did. C said he would like to stand up in court and give evidence of the harm his father had done to the family. He was worried that his father would harm E in the Same way as he had harmed D. E told the social worker when they were alone that his father has done bad things. He wants to see him, but he wants him to see. The social worker advised that C needed support rather than standing up in court.

On 16 February 2023 the father made a C100 application and filed a C1A

In February 2023, the mother makes her Instagram private. It was alleged by the paternal grandmother that C had been following the mother on Instagram.

On 20 February 2023, an initial gatekeeping order was made by Legal Adviser L Zorgji (on papers, without a hearing):

On 20 February 2023 D has a session with Aimee Dover. D described how her dreams had evolved to include her father being able to catch and immobilise her. D reported that C mentioned that he had also had a violent dream in which the father and his family are trying to kill him.

The Same day there is a CIN review. The social worker Mr A and the mother were in attendance. The mother reported that E says that his father is a bad man, and he is scared of his father too. His older siblings have added their mother’s maiden name to their surname, and he would like to do that too.

On 23 February 2023 Ms Dover emailed Mr A. D continues to be adamant that any exposure to her father would be catastrophic to her mental health. Ms Dover expressed the view that the father and his family appear to continue to try to contact (manipulate) the other two children and this is having a negative impact on the family as a whole and individually.

On 27 February 2023 D has another session with Ms Dover. D says that she is mentally and physically exhausted.

On 7 March 2023 there is a specialist family serviceassessment. It states that based on the information available to the assessor there is not enough evidence to conclude that The father poses a sexual risk to the children. There are concerns that he has poor boundaries and needs to be mindful that he sticks to the safety plan and respect his children’s wishes. The lack of boundaries around physical contact and nudity could be an extension of difficulties he has with emotional intimacy as indicated in the parental acrimony and alleged domestic abuse. ………In the view of the assessor any risks posed to the children by The father can be mitigated by ensuring he sticks to any future contact arrangements and respects the wishes of his children and follows the safety plan.

On 8 March 2023 the mother was closed to FMD.

On 8 March 2023 the mother sent a lengthy email to School Y’s critiquing the SPECIALIST FAMILY SERVICEassessment. Within the email she refers to the allegations of unwanted touching by both C and D and rape by D which has been potentially linked to her father. She says that this means she can no longer encourage or facilitate their relationship with their father. Allowing contact between E and the father will, in her opinion, invalidate the older children’s allegations.

On 8 March 2023 the mother had a phone call with Mr A about the recommendations in the SPECIALIST FAMILY SERVICEassessment. The mother did not accept the recommendations and became emotional. She followed up the conversation with an email in which she critiqued the report, stated there should have been a fact-finding and concluded that she would not facilitate the recommended contact.

On 9 March 2023 the mother emailed the social worker about the SPECIALIST FAMILY SERVICEassessment, including Aimee Dover’s opinion that it should not be followed and is deficient. She asked to be referred to a ‘higher authority within the services’ and stated that she does not consent to the children being visited by the social worker in School.

On 13 March 2023 the mother spoke to the social worker on the phone. The note of that conversation includes the mother being informed of the relevant complaints process and the mother indicating that she would not follow the SPECIALIST FAMILY SERVICErecommendation.

On 13 March 2023 D had a session with Ms Dover. D finds herself missing her father at times but does not want to see him and feels safer now he is disconnected from the family.

There is another phone call between the mother and the social worker regarding the SPECIALIST FAMILY SERVICEreport on 13 March 2023. She will not go along with the report and will not agree supervised contact for E.

On 15 March 2023 the social worker Mr A visited C in School in the presence of a teacher. C did not agree with the recommendations in the SPECIALIST FAMILY SERVICEreport and felt the professionals had been taken in by his father. He expressed worry for E if contact resumes, including that E could die. C said he would want to speak up in court and not through a Guardian.

On 16 - 17 March 2023 the mother emailed the social worker to change recommendations about the father having contact with E. The mother made various allegations against the father. She also states that C believes that the father was the one to have raped D. She stated that a system which pushes contact with a perpetrator is wrong.

On 17 March 2023 Mr A noted the mother’s poor mental health and disclosure of suicide attempt.

On 20 March 2023 D has a session with Ms Dover in which D is reported to have said she is feeling tortured by her dreams. D is recorded as saying she feels hopeless at the never-ending cycle of conflict and blame. She considers her voice never matters. She described her father as a human hand grenade who she has been afraid of most of her life. She is fearful for E if he has contact with their father.

On 21 March 2023 the mother sent a group email to Mr A, previous social worker, Former Guardian, headteachers for both Schools, B (police) and her local MP, complaining about the local authority’s recommendation for supervised contact between the father and E, and asking for an ‘appeal’. There is also a linking of the rape to the father by the mother.

The mother did not attend the second hearing on 27 March 2023 of her application for a NMO. Her application was dismissed. The mother told the social worker she had not attended because she does not want to see the father.

The Same day D had a session with Ms Dover. The record records that themes which were now familiar were repeated but does not provide detail.

On 28 March 2023 the mother sent a further group email, complaining about the SPECIALIST FAMILY SERVICEassessment and the local authority’s recommendation for contact between the father and E.

On 30 March 2023 the mother agreed that the social worker could visit the children.

On 3 April 2023 D had another session with Ms Dover. The session is said to be dominated by D’s fear about the possibility of the father having contact with E.

On 4 April 2023 there is a group session of supervision within the local authority. Concerns were raised that the mother was potentially alienating the children from their father. It was noted that the mother seems to seek affirmation for her decision making on social media platforms and it was queried whether anyone ever challenged her views. The father is said to be wanting to return to court for 50:50 care of E but the social worker has been clear with him that the current view is contact not residence.

On 6 April 2023 the CAFCASS safeguarding letter was signed and completed. The letter included that the court now needs to consider a fact-finding hearing concerning the allegations of past harm. In the absence of this a cycle of dispute is likely to remain.

The Same day the social worker, Mr A, visited the children at home, their mother was there but he spoke to the children alone. E said he does not want to see his father at a contact centre, but he does want to see him with C and D there. C wanted to see his father to get him to withdraw the court application. C said he was making a list of incidents which had been harmful which included the father beating him black and blue when C was 5 years old. The mother was spoken to and continued to say she did not want E going to a contact centre. The mother in response to a question from the social worker asked him not to share D’s suicide attempt with the father.

On 11 April 2023 D had a session with Ms Dover in which she related multiple conversations with C about their childhood experiences and their fears for E, but no detail is recorded.

On 12 April 2023 there are email between the mother and Mr A in which the mother complains about CAFCASS. There is also a phone call in which the social worker suggests a FGC being set up in anticipation of court ordered contact, and the mother is recorded as saying there isn’t any way that I will be handing E over to his dad. The contemporaneous records also capture that the social worker is arranging a meeting between C and his father. The mother asks if Ms Dover could accompany him. Enquiries were thus made of Ms Dover who saw her role as a mediator as she had not counselled C. Mr A subsequently indicted that it would not be a good idea as his father would feel as if he had been rounded up on.

On 14 April 2023, the mother told the School that E does not want to have contact with his father at a contact centre.

On 17 April 2023 D had a session with Aimee Dover at Ms Dover’s own home. The session is said to revolve around D’s distress around the possibility that her father will have contact with E. D is said to recount the enormous stress the whole household is under as a result.

On 18 April 2023 Mr A visits C and takes him out to speak to him alone. C thinks E should have contact with his father when he is 13 years old. C said he would like to hear from his father that he is sorry. That day Mr A contacts Ms Dover to see if she would accompany C to a meeting with his father on 21 April. Mr A then decided it is not appropriate as the father may feel rounded up on. Ms Dover’s notes record that there is a transcript of this voice message. It has been disclosed into these proceedings.

On 19 April 2023 the mother reported to the police that she had arrived home to find a package, a birthday present for D, from the paternal grandmother. The father is not supposed to know her address and she does not know how they got it. Later reports refer to a second letter and parcel being sent on 21 April 2023. The mother had not told D about the gifts as she considered D would be distressed knowing that their address was known. There is no court order in place to stop them contacting the children but D and C have blocked them on their phones.

On 21 April 2023 C had a meeting with his father facilitated by Mr A at County Hall. Ground rules were established at the beginning. During the meeting C asked his father to stop the court case about E but the father declined. C asked his father to apologise for all the family had gone through. The father acknowledged he had made mistakes and had not been perfect but said he had engaged with all the risk assessments openly and honestly. They spoke about the NERF gun incident. The father said he had kicked him lightly and C is said to have acknowledged that. C said he would be happy to have a relationship with his father. They discussed the use of texts and phone calls. At the end of the meeting the social work record states that C indicated he wanted to hug his father. In his statement to the police after D’s death, C gives a different account. With that statement he sets out how he felt bullied into a position where he had agreed 50:50 contact and had hugged his father. In retrospect he states he is furious with himself for not standing up for himself. He says in his statement he felt completely let down by Mr A who he says betrayed him to his father. C recalls in that meeting that the father denied ever harming D. Since the meeting C has become aware of the allegations D had made against the father. C is clear in his police statement that he believes D.

On 22 April 2023 C sent his father an email through the social worker in which he states he wants his father to take responsibility, apologise and to stop going to court. He wrote that the father has made D ill and that it is too late for D to forgive him, and he doesn’t blame her. I am going to miss you and we will always love you but that’s not enough for a broken life which is what we had before.

On 24 April 2023 D had a session with Ms Dover in which she is reported to have said that C was greatly upset by the meeting with the father and to have expressed her hopelessness at the father’s campaign to see E.

On 25 April 2023, a family therapist, specialist family servicemade a referral to the social worker (Mr A). In it he records his discussions about the family and the history with the social worker. They include the significant deterioration in D’s mental health and her recent second suicide attempt as well as her withdrawal from School, the mother’s negative attitude to the father which seems to have intensified and the representation of the father to the children appears to be negative. The fact that the mother appears to have brought about some change in the children’s attitude to their father and contact. It was also recorded that the father had not handled the introduction of his new partner and her children to his children well and this was thought to have been likely to have impacted on the older children’s views about contact. There have also been some previous concerns about the father in particular about controlling behaviour and poor boundaries.

On 25 April 2023 Mr A sought the mother’s consent to refer D to CAMHS.

The father asserts that on 26 April a friend had seen the mother posting 40 posts on Instagram that Saturday.

On 26 April 2023 Mr A visited E in School. E said he missed his little goat at his father’s and that it was fun there. He had his own room, but he can’t go anymore. E said a visit with his father and C would be good.

On 27 April 2023 Mr A referred D to CAMHS. The referral includes his belief that D should continue contact with her therapist however D, he felt, required intensive professional psychotherapy. The record disclosed Mr A’s opinion that D’s allocated therapisthas been extremely vocal in Dad’s direct role in causing D’s suicide attempts, as had her mother.

In May 2023 C, D, and E’s CIN plans ended.

In May 2023 the mother alleges that D told her she thinks it was the father’s friend who allegedly raped her (D), but she did not know, and she thought it was in a tent.

On 2 May 2023 D saw Ms Dover again. D is said to have been anxious that she did not have full knowledge of what had happened between the father and C.

On 10 May 2023 the father tells the social worker that he has been told the mother’s address by a third party.

D has a session with Aimee Dover on 12 May 2023. By this session she knew of what happened in C’s meeting with his father because C had told her. He has also shown her an email he has sent to the father and the social worker. D is said to be visibly frustrated and angered that the social worker cannot protect them and saying neither she nor C trust Mr A to represent them.

On 12 May 2023 the mother emailed Mr A stating that she no longer consents to him visiting the children and asking for a meeting at 3pm that day with him and his manager. The meeting was arranged in the end for 18 May 2023.

There was a CIN review meeting attended by Ms Dover and the mother on 17 May 2023. The father was not an attendee. It was reported by the mother that D did not want to engage with Mr A because he is a man. The social worker, Mr A, discussed the importance of promoting contact for both parents in line with the specialist family servicerecommendations. Ms Dover asked why the children’s views have not been heard to which he responded he had views from C and E but not D. Within the minutes of this meeting there is the following: Aimee discussed the emotional harm has not been taken into account in the specialist family servicereport. The social worker says the local authority can manage the risk but it can never be 0%. Ms Dover gave an update on D and said her mental health was declining. She believes this is because contact for the father with the family is getting closer. The mother and Ms Dover state that the father needs to take responsibility for his actions and its impact and lasting effects on the family. C’s form tutor provided a written update: 'I have been C's form tutor for the past three years and have acted as a confidant to C during this time. C has expressed the following pertinent information on more than one occasion; both to me privately and further to his social worker in his most recent meeting in School. C does not personally wish to seek a relationship with his father at this point. He also does not wish for his siblings, D and E to have a relationship with his father as he does not feel they would be 'safe' in his care. C feels very strongly that if his father was granted access to E, C would feel that he would also have to attend the meetings to ensure E is safe. C has discussed the possibility of his father seeing E in a supervised centre. He tells me that he believes his father is manipulating and that he would put on a caring front, only to become abusive when alone further down the line. C has also stated that he would be prepared to give evidence in family court should it be necessary. C has stated that he feels this process has gone on for far too long, that the necessary authorities seem to 'take his fathers side' which forces him and his siblings to continually go through this process. C has expressed that he just wants this to be over and done with, he doesn't feel heard by the services involved with the family case. He also feels increasingly under pressure to 'protect' his siblings from further involvement with his father.

On 18 May 2023 the local authority close the case because the mother was refusing to engage and refusing to allow the social worker to see the children. Having now considered all the evidence in this case, in my judgment this was not an appropriate response. Given the level of allegations being made, the children were in my judgment at least Children in Need. That the mother was refusing to allow the social worker to see the children should have escalated concern not caused the local authority to walk away.

On the Same day a Notice of Hearing for a remote FHDRA on 22 June 2023 was sent.

On 18 May 2023 E states ‘I want to kill myself’ at School. It appeared to be reactive at the time to children he had been playing with and said in a flippant manner. He did not appear distressed.

There was a further CAFCASS safeguarding letter after interview with the mother.

On 19 May 2023 there was a FGC to consider contact with the father and his family. The mother and her family declined to attend. The report notes that "the children cannot be given feedback about the FGC as their mother has refused to allow the Social Worker access to the children" and "[the social worker] had previously arranged a meeting with C and his dad. [The social worker] reports it was clear that C wants a relationship with his dad." It is also reported that E wants to see his dad and that Mr A has not had a 1-to-1 session with D to determine her views. The meeting recommends "a phased approach to re integrate E back into contact with his dad/paternal family" and that the long-term plan would be to "revert back to 50/50 shared care which was previously in place and was working." The meeting also recommends that a guardian be appointed and a section 7 be completed because "the mother is ignoring the specialist family service assessment, refusing access from Social Services and has removed D from education. She has previously broken court orders and blocked children from attending School." It is stated that the children appear alienated from professionals and services, not just Mr A. - Current Proceedings, p. 595

On 22 May 2023 D has a session with Aimee Dover. In that session it is reported that D stated that her dreams were becoming less vague. She described the current one as particularly horrid saying she can identify the house as the one she used to live in and the perpetrator as her father. D became very upset and showed signs of disassociation. Ms Dover alerted the mother to D’s presenting state.

On 1 June 2023 the father reported that he had only become aware that D was no longer attending School this day.

D has a session with Aimee Dover on 5 June 2023. The themes are recorded as court cases/services and suicidal thoughts. D has low expectation of the upcoming court case.

On 8 June 2023 the mother sent a lengthy email of complaint to the local authority. This includes a different account of C’s recent meeting with the father (facilitated by the social worker Mr A), which is not in line with Mr A’s account.

On 12 June 2023 D had another session with Aimee Dover. She describes family battles always ending in loss for someone and that she feels confused and conflicted much of the time.

On 14 June 2023, there was a C7 Acknowledgment from the mother and Notice of Change of Solicitor for the mother.

On or about 14-15 June 2023, E made a Father’s Day card and gift for his father and said he wanted to see him. The School asked the mother should they send it on, and she assented.

On 17 June 2023 the mother completed a referral to CAMHS for D. In it she refers to D’s self-harm in 2021. Children’s services have suggested contact for the father with E which has made her start to feel suicidal again. The mother reports that the problems have arisen from abusive behaviours by the father. The mother wrote that D has disclosed inappropriate touching and rape when she was about 9 years old possibly by her father. D is said to feel that her disclosure has been minimised or disbelieved because of the suggested return to contact for her brother.

On 20 June 2023, D has an appointment/initial assessment with CAMHS. This was an in-person assessment with the mother present. Within the consultation D shared that she thought of suicide daily and had shared that she had self-harmed once that year by cutting her wrists as a way to manage her suicidal thoughts. D told Ms MM that she experiences 13 different voices in her head, some male and some female. She did not want them to go away but wanted a better relationship with some of them. D told her she was concerned about the amount of memory loss and dissociation she was currently feeling. In relation to her father D described experiencing him as controlling within School hours and recalled difficult journeys home from School with him which got worse when her mother went to work at another School. They discussed an incident when her father had physically assaulted her brother. They also discussed her mother’s mental health crisis following separation and how she had become aware of it and hoped she was ok now. When D was alone, she told Ms MM about an incident when camping and this led to her fearing the dark and makes her feel as if she has been robbed of her senses. She also shared an occasion when she ran away and hid from her father crying. D said she had pretended to forget who the perpetrator was, but she had not forgotten. At the end of the session, when they were discussing the safety plan Ms MM signposted D to Survivors Network and said because that’s what we’ve been talking about with your dad isn’t it and D nodded in response.

Later the Same day, after walking the dog with D, the mother emailed CAMHS at 15.53 hrs, informing them that D had told her that she was sure that the perpetrator of the rape was her father. The mother reported that D had told her that she had known all along but her reluctance to name him had come from her confusion about what had happened and not wanting to get him into trouble and so it was easier to reframe her disclosure as a memory which had resurfaced because of inappropriate touching. The mother wanted to speak with Ms MM the next day as she didn’t know what to do with the information.

The next day the mother reported the allegation to Ms Dover and the police, DC B.

There is a record from Ms MM of her contact with the mother on 21 June 2023. It is recorded that Ms MM apologised for not referring the disclosure earlier but explained that she thought it had already been made at the time of the assessment session. The mother shared that both C and D had experienced inappropriate touching from the father, and she is concerned the response will be that she is making it all up and that is part of parental alienation.

On 22 June 2023 there was a FHDRA before DDJ Gardner. The case was allocated to the district bench, and a decision was made to hold a fact-finding hearing, but the court required more information to decide the time estimate and whether C and D should give oral evidence. Directions were given for schedules, statements and third-party statements, as well as responses, along with disclosure from the local authority. Permission was granted for the mother to file/serve a report from D’s counsellors detailing allegations made by D against the father. The papers in the previous proceedings were ordered to be disclosed, a r.16.4 Guardian was appointed, and Form EX741 was directed to be completed. A directions hearing was listed on 21.11.2023. Lastly, there was a separate police disclosure order.

After court the father emailed B to say that he had just got out of court and the mother had said D has disclosed that he has raped her. The father asserts that D is not safe with the mother; that D is being damaged by her and the court are not doing anything about it. He says he just wants his children to be safe and they are not if they are making up allegations.

On 23 June 2023 Ms MM referred D to the Voices clinic but they refused the referral because of the need to reduce their numbers. The Same day the mother contacted 101 to report that D has named her father as her rapist.

On 23 June 2023 Mr A emailed Ms MM raising the issue of leading questions and asking that the mother raises the issue given that D had made the allegation in a clearer way to the mother. In an email in which Ms MM captures her subsequent call to the mother she captures that she had explained to Mr A that D had never directly shared specific details with her but alluded to things such as one of the incidents happened here and nodded in response to her leading questions.

D saw Ms Dover on 26 June 2023. D is said to have revealed the truth of her rape (her father, the campsite, time, location). She expressed relief at revealing her secret but also fear as her father had threatened her if she ever spoke of it. In discussion D reflected that it was shortly after this episode that the dissociative events and episodes started.

On 6 July 2023 DC B records in the School X that she has spoken to the mother who initially said she did not know if D wanted to provide a VRI then said she did. The Same day the officer had heard from the father and his concerns for the children. B asked for a meeting with D and suggested that Mr A should be there. The mother stated that D would be unlikely to talk with him present because he has promoted contact with her father and she perceives a relationship between him and her father. The mother had suggested that Ms Dover be present but that was rejected by the officer as Ms Dover is likely to be a witness. The officer decided to ask for a new social worker to be allocated to speak with her before deciding whether to proceed to ABE Interview. The officer stated that she queried whether D would need an Intermediary because of her mental health and stated she was concerned to safeguard D.

D had a further session with Ms Dover on 10 July 2023. D was too exhausted to engage.

On 27 July 2023, a Notice of Hearing was served bringing the directions hearing forward to 15 September 2023.

On 28 July 2023, D’s ‘Care and Safety Plan’ came in from CAMHS.

The Same day, the first batch of police disclosure was received.

On 31 July 2023 D saw Ms Dover for another session. D is said to have said she hopes her disclosures will prevent her father assaulting or raping another girl. She expresses deep sadness that he has done this to his own daughter. The recording of the session is minimal.

In August 2023 all three children are placed on CIN plans.

On 4 August 2023 the police, DC B and the duty social worker make a joint visit to D. This would be an Initial Visit in the terms of the ABE Guidance. During the visit D stated that she had always known her father was responsible for raping her when she was younger, and she had hoped her father would be able to change his behaviour, but she did not feel he had in relation to her or to C. She expressed concern that her father wanted contact with E and was worried that at the Same age he had raped her. The police officer explained that a prosecution was unlikely because of lack of evidence but D wished to proceed to an ABE interview.

During a session with Aimee Dover on 8 August 2023 D stated that she had spoken to the police to protect others. D described her life as always having been dominated by her father and the fear of punishment. She feared that if she told he would punish her again. D said the denial reaction of her father and his family to the initial disclosure of inappropriate touching was one of the things that held her back.

On 8 August 2023 DC H and a social worker visited D at her home. The incident itself was not discussed. After she had left, the social worker received an email from the mother detailing the abuse she herself had suffered and how hard D had found revealing her father was her alleged rapist. The email is detailed. I find its intent was to seek to persuade the police to do something about it. The email appears to be a reaction to DC B explaining to D that a prosecution was unlikely.

Taylor Rose MW came on the record as acting for the child on 10 August 2023. On 11 August 2023 the mother’s Solicitors made a C2 application on behalf of the mother objecting as unfeasible the bringing forward of the next directions hearing from 21 November to 15 September 2023.

On 14 August 2023 the father text D to tell her he misses her and that he has sent her a birthday present in the post. The text includes – here for you whenever you want me promise don’t care about anything just want to be your dad xxxxx.

On 14 August 2023 D had another session with Ms Dover. According to her witness statement D described being raped by her father in great detail during this session. The thematic note kept by Ms Dover is bare of detail.

The next day, the mother posts a video on YouTube of C singing

D had another session with Ms Dover on 21 August 2023. D expressed fear that her allegations would not be believed.

D was ABE interviewed for a second time on 22 August 2023. The interviewing officer was DC B, and the social worker was also present. The monitoring officer was DC QQ. The interview again began by establishing that D knows the difference between truth and lies. D was asked to say what she wanted to report to the police that day. In response she said she wanted to report what happened with the father in the tent and proceeded to allege he had raped her. In the course of her narrative, D says this: [graphic content removed].Later D tells the police that she thinks it was two separate incidents one at the farm and the other at the campsite, but it could be one. In the interview, D said that her father had told her that it was our secret game. Towards the end of the interview D tells the police about the voices, the characters, in her head: Q- So you say you started hearing these voices before the incident? A- A bit before yes, and they got stronger afterwards and I got a few more but not straight away. The voices told her not to tell anyone.

Following the interview a referral was made to the local authority.

On 24 August 2023 the mother emailed DC B. The mother writes about D being worried that she won’t be believed because of the voices in her head she has heard since the rape. The mother reminded the officer of trauma informed responses and wrote about her concern that disclosure into the civil case will prejudice the police investigation.

The next day, a letter was sent from the mother’s (former) Solicitors to the father and the paternal grandparents regarding indirect contact and the mother’s address, and the parental grandparents’ response.

On 29 August 2023 D had a session with Aimee Dover in which she reports that she found the interview by the police difficult but that she was glad she did it. D still sometimes missed her father despite the horror he put her through.

On 29 August 2023 the mother emailed DC B to alert her to C wanting to give a full account of his experiences during the time he had contact with his father. In the email the mother suggests that the father’s new partner P and her children are at risk.

On 30 August 2023 DC B emails the mother and tells her that the father is to be interviewed on 1 September 2023. The Same day the mother emails B to tell her that she has just read Ms Dover’s statement in the Children Act proceedings and she has been sickened by the detail. The mother asserts that D had identified the identity of her rapist to her but the first she knew of the detail was on reading Ms Dover’s statement. Within the email the mother details similarities that she sees between D’s account and her experience of having sex with the father, including using spit as a lubricant.

On 31 August 2023 as a precursor to the new School year, the mother told E’s School that E suffers from separation anxiety. He knows that something bad has happened but not what has happened. The mother says that E really misses seeing his father and would like to see him.

On 1 September 2023 the father was interviewed by the police.

On 6 September 2023 D has a session with Ms Dover. D discussed an incident on E’s birthday when he got very upset with her. It is recorded that during this session D worried about not knowing what is happening with the court case and the police investigation. Sometimes she still wishes her father would acknowledge the hurt he caused.

On 13 September 2023, it is recorded in E’s School records that on Roald Dahl day the children spoke about the dream jar. E says his was an absolutely bloody nightmare.

On 14 September 2023 the mother wrote to DC B to clarify a few things. She wanted to know whether it was alright to disclose D’s counselling notes into the Children Act proceedings and queried whether that would prejudice the investigation and asked when C would be spoken to. The mother said she had been researching the prosecution of historic abuse cases.

On 14 September 2023, the mother filed an EX740.

The next day, there was a Directions Hearing before DJ Owen. The following directions were made:

On 15 September 2023 D had a session with Aimee Dover. The theme was the court case about which D was anxious. She says that her mother does not usually talk to her about the court case.

A new social worker was allocated on 18 September 2023. She was LL. She and Former Guardian had a phone call in which the Guardian’s concerns about D’s change in presentation since 2021 is recorded. A decision is to be made on 1 December as to whether any of the children should give evidence.

On 19 September 2023 the mother’s Solicitors received an email from the father offering a percentage of his monthly pay as a contribution towards child maintenance until contact is resumed. A maintenance payment plan was established and scheduled to begin on 11 January 2024.

On 20 September 2023 DC B emailed the mother. The father knows of all the details of the allegations as they have been put to him in interview and there is no reason they should not be disclosed into the Children Act proceedings. The counsellors’ notes have not been put to him and so should not be disclosed.

In an email from the mother to DC B on 21 September 2023 she writes that Both D and C made allegations of the inappropriate touching of both of them by The Father. C also observed The Father touching D and told him to stop. C has not been spoken to by the police regarding either and would like to give his statement.

On 25 September 2023 D has a session with Ms Dover in which she describes a dream in detail in which she is held under water by her father, but the dream continues after her death.

On 25 September the social worker, LL, went to see the children at home. Earlier that day in School E had expressed his frustration that yet another person was coming to see him to talk about his father when he had already answered the questions.

On 29 September 2023 the social worker, LL, visited C and E in School and D at home. D was at home with her maternal grandmother when the social worker arrived. The grandmother asked whether D would like her to stay or if she felt comfortable talking alone. D confirmed she was happy to speak with the social worker alone. D spoke about sessions with Aimee Dover, finds these helpful as they focus on de-escalation techniques. D finds art and listening to music helpful, D struggles at nighttime as she has frequent nightmares. D shared these nightmares are about an alleged incident with the father and "other things that have happened in my life." D would be open to accessing more specific support around sexual harm. D shared that she had always remembered the details of the alleged assaults but had not felt ready or able to share these. D felt she had to share this as "Dad was still pushing to see E." D worries about E if he was to have contact with his father.

On 30 September 2023 the father filed an EX7541

In an email from the mother to DC B on 2 October 2023 the mother reports that D is asking if there is a restraining order preventing her father from approaching her. The mother states that she has responded that there is not but that she is sure the father will not approach them.

On 3 October 2023 CAMHS apologised to D because she had had to wait for therapy and invited her to attend three CAMHS PTSD workshops (via Zoom).

On 5 October 2023 the paternal grandparents make an application to the family court for a child arrangements order (contact/spends time with) in respect of E.

On 6 October 2023 D has a session with Aimee Dover. She was ill so they talked about positive influences in her life.

On 9 October 2023, E starts seeing, a counsellor at School Y’s.

D has another session with Aimee Dover on 13 October 2023. She is reported to have spoken about two main dream themes - the pool drowning and no escape. They are said to have become longer and more intense.

On 19 October 2023, the father sent a letter to DC B.

On 20 October 2023, D has a session with Aimee Dover. D is recorded as saying that she is experiencing increased episodes of spacing out and character involvement almost always after a bad dream. She agrees to track her episodes to see if there are common triggers.

On 26 October 2023, the former Guardian (Former Guardian) meets with the mother and E. The mother brought D to this meeting as well.

On 1 November 2023, there are emails between mother and DC B.

The next day, the father sends a number of documents to DC B including messages from C and from the mother.

On 3 November 2023, the mother responds to DC B.

D’s diary entry for 6 November 2023 reads: Last night I had a horrible dream. I don't think I can even begin to describe it, it's too horrid. The worst part is I don't even know if it's just a dream or an actual memory which is absolutely terrifying. I really don't want to be here anymore, I wish my attempt last year had worked. I can't kill myself because that would hurt mum, C and E too much and that would just be me being selfish. But I'm starting to think I may just have to be selfish in order to get any kind of peace. At the podcast today I kept zoning out and I just couldn't focus. I kept thinking about dad (he was in the dream/memory) and it's really freaking me out.”

On 8 November 2023, the mother was assessed again by FMD. There was a recommendation for CBT and the mother was placed on a waiting list.

On 10 November 2023 the S47 assessment was completed by the local authority.

The Same day, D has another session with Ms Dover. She reports a new very bad dream sequence which she cannot verbalise. D attends a Zoom interview later that day prior to attending the CAMHS trauma workshops.

On 14 November 2023, the mother and D were sent trauma workshop materials.

On 15 November 2023, D attended an online CAMHS PTSD workshop.

D has another session with Aimee Dover on 17 November 2023. She is uncomfortable attending the trauma workshop.

On 21 November 2023, there was a meeting between the mother and E’s School- concerns were raised about his ability to manage without very intensive levels of support.

The next day, a Notice of Hearing was served rescheduling the directions hearing for 7 December 2023.

On 22 November 2023, D attended an online CAMHS PTSD workshop.

On 24 November, D had a session with Aimee Dover in which she revealed that she had had a new set of nightmares all involving the ocean, swimming, and are based on a real event in which she and C were in actual danger. D states that she hates Christmas as they have been very volatile, upsetting, and difficult since her parents separated.

On 28 November 2023 the mother sent D’s diary entries to DC B. The mother reported in a phone call on the Same day to another police officer that the father had been to the School where she works today and that he and his parents have discovered their new address and sent presents making the family feel insecure.

The next day, D attended another online CAMHS PTSD workshop.

On the Same day, B (police) presented her case regarding the alleged sexual abuse of D for review by DI L. DI L agreed that it did not meet the threshold for charging the father.

It was on the 29 November 2023 also that the mother sent a copy of D’s 6 November 2023 diary entry to police.

On 30 November 2023, ZZ Police confirmed that it will not send D's allegations to the Crown Prosecution Services for a charging decision.

On 1 December 2023 the father was informed that there would be no further action in relation to the police investigation.

On 1 December 2023 D saw Ms Dover again and reiterated her views on Christmas. She also is recorded as reporting that after the divorce there was a Christmas Eve when the father did not speak to her or C at all because they had complained they were cold.

D and the mother had a session online with CAMHS on 3 December 2023.

On 5 December 2023, there was a meeting between DC B and the mother about the decision to NFA regarding the sexual abuse allegations. The mother recorded this conversation with the permission of those present.

The Same day, the Guardian filed a position statement ahead of the hearing on 7 December 2023, which notes that: (i) a fact finding hearing should take place; (ii) C should not give evidence at such a hearing because "his views are clearly captured in the CFA and other reports"; (iii) that if a Re: W assessment takes place it should be based on evidence in the current bundle, noting that "the older children are not a party to this current application so [the guardian] would not be arranging to speak to them" and that (iv) the court should consider the guardian as being a witness of fact as she was the guardian "involved in previous proceedings concerning all 3 of the children of this family", that "within such proceedings she interviewed all 3 about their wishes and feelings" and that "those views are contained in her reports which show a positive relationship at the outset followed by a shift in views about the father within an approximate 3 month period." The position statement goes on to recommend interim supervised contact between E and the father be ordered pending the fact-finding.

On 6 December 2023, the father filed a position statement ahead of the hearing the next day.

Also on the 6 December, D missed an appointment with Aimee Dover but text messages were exchanged between them.

Lastly on the 6 December, there was a phone call between the mother and social worker.

On 7 December 2023 there was a directions hearing before HHJ Jakens. She listed a contested interim contact hearing before Recorder Hellens, t/e 3 hours, on 20 December 2023. The PTR was listed on 16 February 2024 before HHJ Talbott, t/e 1 day, including consideration of: “a. whether Re W assessments should be directed in respect of either / both of the older non-subject siblings for participation in the fact-finding hearing; b. which allegations made by both parties should proceed to be determined at the fact-finding hearing; c. which witnesses proposed by both parties should give evidence at the fact-finding hearing; d. the time estimate of the fact-finding hearing; and e. any participation directions for the fact-finding hearing, including as it relates to prevention of cross-examination in person.” There was a separate police disclosure order. The mother was permitted to amend her schedule and supporting statement and her responses to the father’s documents was extended in time. The father was granted an extension of time to provide his responses. The child’s legal team was directed to file/serve a neutral chronology. The then allocated social worker (LL) was to file/serve a brief updating letter setting out her views and observations on interim contact. The father was given permission to send letters, cards and presents to E once weekly through the child’s Solicitor. At this hearing, the mother’s counsel submitted (position statement on behalf of the mother) that contact between E and the father would have a significant impact on D’s mental health.

On 8 December, CAMHS met with D and the mother for a post-trauma workshop catch-up via Zoom. The Same day D missed a session with Ms Dover.

The next day, the mother, D, and E attended School Y’s Christmas Fair. On 13 December 2023, the father emailed the social worker regarding the family assessment.

On 14 December 2023, School Y’s School give the mother a ‘Letter of Concern’, the Guardian’s position statement was served ahead of the hearing on 20 December 2023, and Aimee Dover cancelled a session with D due to being unwell. D sent a text message to Aimee Dover.

On 15 December 2023, there were emails between the mother and former Guardian with the mother asking for E to have preparation for contact with a social worker and provided with emotional support afterwards.

The Same day, School Y’s School breaks up for Christmas holidays.

The next day, Ms T visited the mother and the children at the mother’s home, including going for a walk during which D obtained the yew tree branch. After the walk, the mother and Ms T go to “Middle farm.” Ms T recalls “The Mother & I then popped out to Middle Farm which is close to The Mother’s house. She needed to get some things for her horses and other animals. We were only gone for around 15 minutes or so.” Middle farm is a 5-8-minute drive away from the mother’s house (each way).

D died in late 2023. The call was received by the 999 operators at about 08.34hrs. The time of death is certified at 09.18hrs.

I have read the police disclosure from which I draw that at 20.37 hrs the police attended the mother’s home and photographed some letters D had left her family. D’s suicide notes – the notes said that she killed herself, blamed her father, and said she wanted to protect her younger brother from her father. In evidence, the father contested that D wrote these suicide notes – however he did not apply for permission for a handwriting expert and previously did not dispute that D was the author of her suicide notes. Accordingly, I have proceeded on the basis that the notes were written by D.

At about 20.37 hrs the father was told of D’s death. The police log records that he was extremely upset blaming the police and social services. He talked about going to the mother’s address but was advised not to. His partner P said she would stay with him, and his brother Q also came to be with the father. His partner and brother told the police that they will not let the father attend the mother’s address.

Also on that day, the ambulance service makes a referral to the Local Authority in respect of E.

C gave a witness statement to the police about his sister’s death. He was supported to do so by his maternal uncle K. In that statement he describes how during the first years after separation his father allegedly shared a lot of misleading information with him. He would blame the mother for the breakup, saying that she left him for another man. C states that this caused him to actively go after his mother and verbally abuse her. The paternal family would repeat that narrative, but his mother would not retaliate. In the statement C describes the NERF gun game and says that his father properly went for him. He knew his father said it was an accident, but it was not. In the statement C then sets out other examples when he says his father lost his temper. He recalls having to stand between his mother and his father as his father was shouting and screaming at her. He alleges that his father picked him up, pushed him down out of the way onto a wooden plant box and the corner cut into his back. C also described in the statement being told they were moving in with their father’s partner P and the difficulties he and D found with those arrangements. C also tells the police that when his father was not in a relationship he would stay in bed with D or E. He had no boundaries when it came to personal space. For example, if we were in the car talking as I sat in the front passenger seat he would slap my leg and run his hand up and down it. He did not think anything about it at the time. C says that his father would also do this to D and E when they sat in the front or reach into the back and grab their legs. In the statement C recalls a time when D had an anxiety attack during contact with the father. I think it was at that time when D said she was not going to stay with dad anymore and it was then disclosed that she had been assaulted and would later tells CAMHS that it was dad that assaulted her (which I fully believe).

On 18 December 2023, there was a Joint Agency Response to Child Deaths Initial Information Sharing and Planning Meeting.

On 18 December 2023 the paternal grandfather made a complaint to the police alleging that the mother drove D to suicide. He is described in the police log as being very emotionally charged and wanting the mother arrested for murder. He believes that the mother manipulated D into reporting her father for rape and other sexual offences. He believed that put his granddaughter under extraordinary pressure as D would have known that was not true and that led to her suicide.

There was correspondence on the 18 December regarding an adjournment of the hearing on 20 December 2023, including a written email judgment of Recorder Hellens.

On 18 December 2023 the court adjourns the hearing listed for 20 December.

On 19 December 2023, the social worker (LL) visited the mother and the children at the mother’s home.

On 18 and 19 December 2023 the father sent messages blaming various members of the maternal family and the mother’s friends accusing the mother of killing D.. This included the father sending messages to the mother’s family 24 hours after D died, and the father contacting child services and trying to get the mother dismissed from her job. The impact of this on the mother and the children as seen through the mother’s eyes is detailed in the mother’s witness statement dated 16 April 2024.

The next day, there was a multi-agency response meeting (mainly about support for family, professionals and other affected individuals). As part of this, concern was raised about the mother’s social media posts. It was asserted that the mother was posting on Instagram blaming the father for D’s death and on the day of D’s death it is alleged that she had told the whole village that is what he has done.

On 21 December 2023, the mother informed police that she would like them to review their decision not to charge the father with the sexual abuse allegations.

On 21 December 2023 G also contacted the police. She reports being fearful of the father and that he may target her as she is the mother’s friend. The police log records that there is nothing to back up this concern.

On 22 December the social worker called the mother and the maternal uncle.

The Same day, D’s post-mortem examination came to a conclusion: suicide by yew tree intoxication.

The next day, the mother sent numerous emails to the police (-), including emails criticising the local authority, CAFCASS, the Court, the police, the father, and the paternal grandparents. Police advise the mother that they have no power to stop the father from coming to the funeral but that there may be a civil application available and to take legal advice. The mother sent a further email making further new allegations against the father. The mother alleges that someone had just ‘banged on our front door really hard and when we answered it there was no one there.’ Police came that evening to fit safety equipment in the mother’s home.

On 24 December 2023 in an email to the police the mother wondered whether the father had passed herpes or HPV to D who had suffered from recurrent cold sores.

On 27 December 2023 the mother emailed the police again. She expressed the view that D had felt not believed by the family court and the professionals working with the family.

On 27 December 2023 the mother emails the police to tell them about a podcast that D, C and a cousin had made. She asked the police to get a feel for D by watching the podcast.

On 29 December 2023, the mother emailed the police to inform them that she has had a message from the police that the father has already amended payments for the children before they had even started.

From 29 December 2023 to 5 January 2024, there were emails between the mother and police regarding D’s funeral, which funeral home she was in, the mother asking that DC B no longer has any involvement with the family (including taking the father’s statement), and the mother providing a list of potential witnesses.

In January 2024 there is correspondence between the parties regarding funeral arrangements for D. Agreement was reached in correspondence on two separate funerals. On 3 January 2024, the social worker had phone calls with both parents and the former Guardian. The Same day, the Child Death Review Specialist Nurse for E, speaks to the father on the phone.

From 2-5 January 2024, there were emails between the mother and former Guardian (Former Guardian).

On 5 January 2024, the father made a report to the police, stating he is concerned for the welfare of E and C in the mother’s care.

There was a second Multi-Agency Response meeting on 5 January 2024. The minutes include that the mother is also seeking legal advice about the father’s family being invited to the funeral.

On 7 January 2024, K (maternal uncle) sent a lengthy complaint to the local authority.

On 8 January 2024 there are emails between the mother and police regarding D’s funeral - the mother requesting police presence and the police stating that this would not be provided. The mother also requested that police do not inform the father about the details of the funeral. The police asked for details in terms of the funeral, however the mother did not provide these.

On 10 January 2024, a strategy meeting was held due to concerns expressed by the professional network. A decision was made to conduct an updating s.47 assessment.

The next day, CMS sent a message to the mother.

On 12 January 2024 there is a joint police and social work visit to see C and E. The mother expressed her anxieties around the father and his family holding their own funeral service for D as that was against D’s wishes. The mother stated that she had felt pressured into this so as not to be obstructive.

{Redacted date]there was an out of hours hearing before Mr Justice Francis.

On 18 January 2024 the father emailed the social worker raising the following after the court hearing: Following events at the weekend I wanted to record a number of new serious concerns regarding The Mother's recent actions and their consequences whilst I await the next court date. I want to make it clear that I continue to support the advice and guidance being given by CAFCASS. I want to record the below primarily to Social Services but copied to all parties: As you aware I received notification of an emergency court action being taken against me by The Mother at 4pm on Friday. The hearing was held out of hours and heard by the high court and prevented me from holding a separate ceremony for D. This order was applied to myself, my family and friends the night before a service which was planned to be held at 9am the following day. The timing of this action was intentional to cause maximum harm and prevent appeal. Correspondence between all parties to ensure separate ceremonies could be held for D without issue was ongoing all week. The Mother directly involved C in these court proceedings despite every piece of advice over the past few years not to do this. It will have no doubt further alienated him towards me. The Mother lied in this latest court submission stating as evidence that it was D's express wish that I did not hold a ceremony. There is no evidence of this other than The Mother's interpretations. In the lead up to the funeral The Mother has lied to the Coroner by not passing on the relevant information to me about what arrangements are being made. Then though her barrister says there was a miscommunication that the police were telling me which is either a lie or withholding information.

On 22 January 2024 serious concerns were raised by School Ys with social services. E had returned to School on 22 January 2024 and is reported to have shared information around D's death. "E has informed classmates that D ended her own life by eating a poisonous plant and that 'it's all my Dad's fault'. "

There was a social work visit to the father on 23 January 2024 as part of S47 enquiries. The father shared videos and screenshots taken from the mother’s social media accounts over the past few years which contain mention of domestically abusive relationships. Concerns were also raised regarding a last minute application to court, the outcome of which was to restrict the father's family being able to hold a funeral. The father is concerned that C was involved in this, as well as the children's on-going involvement/understanding of court proceedings.

On 7 February 2024 C and E were placed on the Child Protection Register under the category emotional abuse.

On 29 February 2024 the mother gave a statement to the police. Within it she details the history of her relationship with the father, the abuse she alleges she suffered and D’s allegations about the father.

In March 2024 the mother’s current Solicitor came on record as acting for the mother.

The father gave his statement to the police on 23 March 2024. With the statement the father blamed the breakdown of his relationship with the mother on two affairs he says she had. He states that since contact became disputed between him and the mother, she has made numerous allegations against him which he says are untrue. He believes that the mother had consciously used the children against him since he started a relationship with a colleague in School in July 2019. In the statement the father describes the NERF gun game he played with C. He states that he and the children always had rough and tumble. He recounts how he accidentally kicked C in the leg. The father alleges within this statement that the mother has used her creative writing hobby to portray him in a negative light and that a book she wrote is obviously about him. Within it the mother, the storyteller, warns children that bad things happen in the woods. He alleges that the mother posted on Instagram in 2021 to harm him and that C also follows her account. He asserts that C and D have been manipulated by their mother into making allegations against him. Within the statement he describes how he was prevented by the mother from holding a separate funeral service for D or properly saying goodbye to D.

On 22 June 2024 the mother reported to the police that D’s grave had been damaged. The damage is to the grass and wildflowers all of which have been pulled out and left strewn across the grave. There had been lots of painted stones and these had been thrown around. The mother reported that only D’s grave had been targeted. The father has been asked about it by the vicar and has denied causing the damage.

On 24 June 2024, E had his final session with a counsellor at School Y.

The Same day, there was a C2 application on behalf of the child for permission to instruct Evidence Matters to interrogate D’s mobile phone.

The next day, the mother made an application for a Non-Molestation Order to prevent father going to D’s grave and near to the mother’s home.

On 26 June 2024 the President ordered:

On 27 June 2024, the School counsellor, , prepares new ‘scripts’ for E in order to attempt to explain what happened to D and his current situation- to which the mother makes amendments.

On 1 July 2024, E had an initial assessment appointment with CAMHS- he was seen by CAMHS with the mother present.

The Same day, Aimee Dover emailed the child’s Solicitor, regarding the disclosure order requiring disclosure of her notes.

On 5 July 2024, the police conducted a review of D’s mobile phone.

From 9-17 July 2024, there are emails between Aimee Dover and child’s Solicitor, , regarding the disclosure order.

On 12 July 2024, the letter of instruction was sent to Evidence Matters.

On 22 July 2024 a C2 application was made on behalf of the mother seeking permission to instruct an obstetrician and gynaecologist and the appointment of an intermediary for the mother when giving her oral evidence.

On 24 July 2024, I made the following order:

On 25 July 2024 there was a C2 application from the police to vary the disclosure order. The Same day I wrote a letter to C regarding him being a potential witness.

Between 29 and 30 July there is an email exchange between the mother and the police, with the mother asking for the return of D’s diaries and requesting confirmation that her phone and diaries are safe.

On 31 July 2021, I made the following order:

The Same day the mother emailed E’s therapist concerned about E’s understanding of the allegations against the father.

On 30 August 2024, I made the following order:

On 13 September 2024 I made an order as follows:

This case was listed to begin on 7 October 2024 with a reading day. At the commencement of this hearing the parties were represented by the following:

I am grateful to each of them for their industry and commitment. I acknowledge that the father was either a self-representing party or represented pro bono until 19 September 2024 when legal aid was granted for leading and junior counsel. A certificate for a second junior was not granted until 27 September 2024. On 26 September 2024 leading counsel on behalf of the mother told the mother’s team that they were no longer available for this hearing. Mr Roche KC stepped into the breach. Thus, the week before the October hearing I was asked to delay the start of the hearing to enable further reading in and preparation. Accordingly, I pushed back the start of the hearing to 9 October 2024 and the witness template was reorganised to enable both parties to have adequate time to prepare with the parents’ evidence not due to start to the beginning of the third week. In the event this hearing ran into a fourth week.

On 15 October 2024 I was notified that the mother had dispensed with the services of Mr Roche KC. I convened the court and offered the mother’s legal team time to regroup. Ms Chhina on behalf of the mother told me that they did not need any further time. Dr Proudman was absent and could not join this hearing until later that week. I again offered an adjournment but Ms Chhina on behalf of the mother told the court that the mother wished to continue; that Ms Chhina was prepared to cross-examine that day and would continue to conduct the advocacy until Dr Proudman could attend. That is what happened with the court offering time to the mother’s team where necessary to ensure the hearing could proceed.

The position statement on behalf of the Guardian in opening referred to the coronial material. It was considered at the time that everything that was then available had been disclosed but I was invited to confirm the uptodate position. I did so by sending an email to the Coroner’s office. After the evidence in the fact-finding had closed, I received on 3 December 2024 further evidence from the Coroner. There was an issue raised by the Coroner’s office about disclosure to the parties. I attempted to resolve it by email. In the event I decided that there was a pressing need for disclosure into these proceedings and that the court could not be party to information which the parties were not. Accordingly on 13 December 2024, conscious of the deadline for closing submissions fast approaching, I disclosed the papers to all parties.

During the course of the evidence, I reviewed the mother’s medical records again and disclosed that which I considered both relevant and admissible.

Within this section of the judgment I set out my assessment of the witnesses I have heard and any salient findings that I have made in relation to them. I do not seek to set out all the evidence I heard.

Ms R was the first witness to give evidence before me. She gave her evidence in a straightforward manner and tried to assist the court. She was tendered on behalf of the father and cross-examined on behalf of the mother and the Guardian. Her evidence related to what I have termed the Nerf gun incident. She had attached to her statement an email she wrote on 30 September 2020 about the incident. Within that email, she said she had not seen the kick in question however I did hear and see The Father apologising to C if he had accidentally hurt him. She did not see the father overreacting as C has alleged. She did not see any aggression, glaring or verbal intimidation by the father towards C. She considered the kick to have been accidental and the apology immediate. She had seen the father comforting C who was quite upset. He was being comforted when she left the home. She had not seen C dragging himself to the bathroom, shutting the door and contacting his mother.

Ms T described herself as a good friend of the mother who she had met at School Y’s School where they both worked. She did her best to assist me. She had provided a statement which detailed her contact with the mother, E and D on 16 December 2023 and the walk they had taken when D had gathered a yew branch.

The mother had shared the SWIM video with her, and she had come across the video in question which was freely available on YouTube. The mother had told her that the children knew about it and that she wanted them to be aware of how she felt then and how different she felt when she made the video. She did not know if D had had any involvement with it but when asked about the production credit said - I am not surprised.

Ms G was called on behalf of the mother who she said was a close friend. She had provided a letter about the pool incident and a witness statement dated 30 July 2024. Ms G had participated in the SWIM video. She had been present when the mother met with the police to review their NFA decision on 5 December 2023. She had made a complaint to the police about the father on 21 December 2023 (see above) which to me appears, upon reading the police disclosure, to have had no substance. I find that she is closely aligned to the mother and I bear that in mind when assessing her credibility and reliability. I also bear in mind that the events about which she gave evidence are historic.

Ms G was a witness to the incident in 2016 in the pool which she described as shocking. She heard D say to her father- let me go. He did not shout at her but did say stop. The maternal grandfather had been standing next to her. She did not say anything to him at the time. She knew GT says it’s very important behaviour and made allegations in these proceedings and to the police. In questioning by Ms Venters KC she said she did not think the father responded to the child’s behaviour in an appropriate way. She had seen the paternal grandmother walking to the pool edge and heard her say- that’s enough. She thought she said it to the father but cannot be sure. She does not know what happened in the changing room, but the mother had told her the father had hit D. She was adamant she had never spoken to C about this and I believed her on that point. She would have spoken to her friend about it on the phone when the mother was in the car. The children could have overheard. She had told the mother the father had dunked D, she had not said that he had held her under water. She had not told D about it. D has said that her mum’s friend has told her about it. It being that her father pushed her under the water at the pool. I find that this is an example of D’s narrative being cross-fertilised by what she had heard from others. I find that if, as I accept, Ms G had not told her that, then the narrative is likely to have come from her mother.

In relation to the message exchange with the father in 2018, at the time they were written she, the mother and the father were all friends. She had been asked in evidence if the comments were in poor taste to be funny ? She replied yes. They were in my judgment examples of sexually provocative messaging between friends which were meant to be funny.

Ms G had written the letter dated 17 November 2019 after the event and after she knew of the parents’ separation. She had written it to clarify things and in the hope it would be used in court or in evidence. Q – to help her with allegations against the father/?A- Yes. She finished her letter by saying “I am so proud of you for saving yourself from a life of rape with a disguise of marriage. I note the letter was written after the mother had reported the allegation of rape to the police. The letter is likely to have been influenced by what the mother had told her about those allegations and to be coloured by the natural sympathy allegations of rape and sexual abuse properly arouse. I find that by the time she came to write that letter, Ms G was accepting of the mother’s narrative and had bought into it.

Ms G had participated in the SWIM video. In questioning on this topic, I noted that the witness did not want to speculate on the intention or reaction to the video. She had not questioned the involvement of D until a long time afterwards. She had accompanied the mother on 5 December 2023 to speak to the police and ask them to review the decision not to proceed.

As she gave her evidence, I formed the view that she was doing her best to assist the court. I noted that she held her own when she described the father dunking D underwater and would not say he held her under water. She told the court that the mother, KK and the children had lived together from April- August 2020. In re-examination she told the court that her recollection was that D had been involved in filming that part of the SWIM video which was underwater.

I consider that Ms G was a long standing friend of the mother’s who had been told about D’s dreams and the allegations she came to make against the father. She was sympathetic and supportive of the mother, was coloured in her evidence by the desire to assist and over time, and what I find, are likely to be many conversations with the mother there has been story creep and cross-fertition so that memories have become merged or contaminated.

Ms U is the sister-in-law of the father on whose behalf she was called. She had met the mother on more than two occasions but less than ten. The children, their father and P had stayed with her approximately every two months. She had heard D call P a dog. She described to the court how she had witnessed the mother crying uncontrollably on the phone, sometimes on speaker phone, and being inappropriately emotional, telling the children I wish you were with me. She had heard the mother persistently question – what have you been up to? I accept her evidence on that as I do on all the other issues except one. She also told me that she felt that the mother’s reaction was performative. I consider that is an analysis too far. I take into account when evaluating that assessment of the mother that she did not know the mother and thus was not in a position to make that judgment.

K is the mother’s brother. He gave evidence on her behalf. He confirmed his written evidence. He had had regular contact with the children and the parents. He and the father would run together. He told me that he had participated in the SWIM video but had not been part of its production. As far as he was aware D had no involvement in the making of the video. He recalled they swam a year after the event, thus in 2020. He viewed it as a story of hope- the return to the shore.

In cross-examination by Ms Venters KC, he gave the impression that he did not indulge in social media and thus had limited knowledge of his sister’s posts on Instagram. However, it transpired that his wife had and did use social media and had told him about the posts. As the cross-examination unfolded, I formed the impression that he was a kindly man who reflected and thought deeply. He has been deeply and obviously impacted by his sister’s attempted suicide and D’s death.

When the SWIM video was played, he was clearly distressed. He had been part of it. He thought D had only been involved at the end which is a family snap which is edited into the tape. He clearly did not know that D had attempted to drown herself. Until cross-examined about it, I do not think he had ever considered any potential correlation between D attempting suicide by drowning and the video.

I find that in the early days post separation, he had tried to stay impartial and I remind myself that he acted as an informal mediator between the couple. He now thinks that he was blind to what was happening, meaning to the allegations the mother and the children came to make. However I find that as time went on, he naturally heard and accepted what his sister told him of her relationship with the father and has become supportive of and aligned with the mother’s case. That impression is confirmed by the complaint he made to social services in January 2024. In cross-examination by Ms Wiley KC, he said – I agree with my sister. I have tried to be reflective- I have no reason to doubt D, C or the mother. In my judgment that actually was an honest self-assessment. I find that his evidence must be viewed through that prism of accepting at face value what his sister and the children told him. However, I find that he would not have acted as mediator and negotiated an agreement in September 2019 which saw the children spend significant time with their father if he then knew or suspected that the children would be at risk in the father’s care.

V is the maternal grandfather and gave evidence on behalf of the mother. He told me that the children had initially wanted to see their father but subsequently they were distressed when they knew they were going to see him. He denied saying negative things about the father to or in front of the children. He could not understand why D would say that his wife had called the father evil in front of her or got the impression the family was ganging up on him. His account of the pool incident in 2016 was not challenged. His evidence was brief. He did his best but he said little to assist me.

P was called next on behalf of the father. She is his current partner. They have been together since November 2020. As the father’s partner, I listened to her evidence with the expectation that she would simply be aligned to him. However, as I listened I formed the view that she was clearly an honest witness who told the court what she saw and heard. I find that she was both reliable and credible. She described to me the night before D’s funeral as one of the most traumatic things she has had to witness. With reference to the out of hours hearing before Francis J she told me – What they did to The Father … it was wrong … I watched him go through it……………he just wanted to say good bye to his daughter. In cross-examination it was put that her second statement was misleading to which she responded by explaining her dyslexia meaning that she did not see the differences Dr Proudman put to her. Her evidence that relentless text messaging of the father by the mother was common was credible as was her evidence about the mother messaging her. It is similar in content to the evidence of other witnesses who describe experiencing similar treatment from the mother. I accept her evidence about the mother exposing the children to her emotional state and distress. I accept her evidence about the turkey chicks incident.

Ms Z is the mother’s sister. She was called to give evidence on behalf of the mother. She had provided a police statement and a witness statement dated January 2022. She told me that her relationship with the father had started off ok but she did not think he liked her. She confirmed her written evidence about the party in 2011 which she described as boozy, the father had been calling the mother constantly and she was afraid to go home. On 2 May 2011 the father had called her directly and asked if the mother was afraid of him to which she responded that she was. About the parents’ relationship she told me – I only get The Mother’s version, I didn’t find The Father approachable – I found him to be quite threatening. She had observed two camping trips and thought there was too much focus on exercise. They had fallen out at West Wittering in 2017 when she and her wife had intervened. She stuck by her account of the father shouting at them and refusing to speak to anyone for the entire day. She said that during this day C and D confided in her that the father squeezed their hands so tightly when angry that they felt that their fingers would break. She recalled raising concerns at the time with the mother and the maternal family. In her statement to the court she said this At the time my family was not ready to accept just how damaging The Father’s ongoing behaviours had become. She denied that she had ever said what the mother reported to the police in an email dated 25 January 2023- My brother and sister have both suggested that although they believe that to D the incident is real and happened that they feel it might just be in her head because at the time she didn’t present as having been raped. They feel they would have noticed her damaged from being penetrated, bloody and bruised and either hysterical in fear or shock. However, as the cross-examination by Ms Venters KC on behalf of the father continued, I formed the view that Ms Z was in the witness box acting as an advocate for her sister rather than giving evidence. Given the mother is her sister, the mother’s narrative upon which she is largely reliant and the familial support that has been provided that is on one level understandable but it means that when considering her evidence I have to take into account her obvious alignment with the mother. In evidence in response to Ms Wiley KC, she stated we are quite an emotionally expressive family. Having seen and heard the mother and the maternal family I agree with that assessment. The issue for me is however whether the children have been shielded from that emotion by the mother as Ms Z claims. From what I have heard and what I have read and viewed I find it highly unlikely that they have been so shielded.

Mr W was the allocated social worker from 16 June 2022 until 26 July 2022. In his oral evidence before me he was professional at all times. Having heard him give evidence, I formed the view that his best evidence was his notes which he had made at the time and which he confirmed in evidence. He said nothing in evidence to undermine the reliability of his notes.

Mr A was the allocated social worker from February 2023 until September 2023. At the time he was newly qualified, having qualified in July 2022. I found him to be professional in his manner. He gave evidence which I find was both reliable and credible. I rely on his note on his note of the meeting with C and his father on 21 April 2023. It is a contemporaneous document. Mr A would have no reason to slant its content, nor would he have any reason to misrepresent what happened at that meeting. Where his record differs from C’s account of that meeting, I prefer Mr A’s record. I find that he has been professional in his working of the case as a social worker. I find his records are accurate and can be relied upon. I accept his evidence.

Ms Dover is a qualified and BACP Registered Integrative Psychotherapist for Children, Young People and Families. I called Ms Dover to enable all parties to cross-examine her. She told me that she had qualified in September 2022 but that it was very common to be placed and practice before qualification. In cross-examination by Ms Chhina, Ms Dover told the court that she had CPD for trauma aware, neurodiversity and suicide prevention. She had adopted a trauma informed approach with D. She told me that it never crossed her mind that the issues being raised in the sessions with and by D were beyond her expertise. In cross-examination by Ms Venters KC she said that she did not feel the issues raised by working with D were unmanageable. When cross-examined by Ms Wiley KC she told the court that she had received training in child sexual abuse as part of her Masters and then proceeded to tell me it was usually a day. She had at least 1 or 2 days training before January 2022. My understanding of her training was that it was limited not only in duration but substance as it related to adults disclosing historic sexual abuse not children making allegations of abuse. She accepted that she had no training or experience in relation to false allegations or alienating behaviours.

I accept the submission on behalf of the Guardian that the issue of the supervision of Ms Dover’s work was opaque. She was uncertain of the frequency of that supervision when at CDA but thought it roughly fortnightly. Those sessions were group sessions. When she went into private practice, she explained she had a private supervisor and thought the sessions were about monthly but was not sure.

In the chronology above I have already set out the dates upon which she had sessions with D. Each session was about 50 minutes long and most were by zoom with D being at home. Ms Dover has disclosed to this court her therapeutic notes of her work with D from 7 February 2022 until the date of D’s death. The notes for each session are relatively brief. They are not contemporaneous notes rather they are theme based and a record of generic issues/feelings which she addressed in the sessions. In cross-examination by Ms Venters KC she told the court that she would go back to them as themes developed and amend them. I find that Ms Dover’s notes are totally unreliable. I agree that Ms Dover’s records in relation to the crucial session in June 2022 are inconsistent. The emails sent after the session to Ms NN, the alert form, the email to the mother all differ from each other and all differ from her thematic case note. It is noteworthy that she omitted the allegation of rape from the alert form. Ms Dover stated in evidence that that was because she was shocked and upset. However, I consider that an unlikely explanation. The purpose of the alert form was to flag up serious allegations that D had made in the session on 6 June 2022, of those an allegation of rape was surely the most memorable. In cross examination, Ms Dover revealed that her thematic case note was written after reading the email from the mother which mentions the allegation of rape. Ms Dover stated that D did speak of rape in subsequent sessions but could not be precisely sure when it was first raised by D in their sessions.

I find that the manner in which Ms Dover has kept her notes has rendered those notes which are said to capture what D said totally unreliable. They have, by the manner in which they have been recorded, not captured the voice of the child. D’s words, the question which may have prompted her and the context in which they were given are lost and cannot be reconstructed after the event. In evidence Ms Dover said she could remember a lot more than she wrote down. I consider that that is highly unlikely. I find just based on the number and length of each session that is highly unlikely - no-one could. Further I consider that what she does recall is likely to be significantly contaminated by what she has been told by or on behalf of the mother. I do not accept her memory is either reliable or credible. I believe it has been coloured by her profound and uncritical belief in D’s allegations and her alignment with the mother's narrative.

In evidence Ms Dover told the court that she cut and pasted an account of rape from her case notes into her witness statement dated 24 August 2023. She said the account had been given on 14 August 2023. She had not kept the account in the original case note. At paragraph 3 of that statement Ms Dover wrote For the purposes of the statement I will outline the major bits but full detail can be found in the police interview from Monday 21 August 2023. In oral evidence, Ms Dover could not explain how she knew of the contents of that interview. Nor could she explain her reference in her informal 3 August 2023 statement to – specific examples of these behaviours are documented and can be found in other reports; earlier CAFCASS reports, children’s services interview, police interviews, specialist family servicereports, and statements by the mother and D and C. I find that there are only two possible explanations for those references either Ms Dover has seen and been able to examine in depth the documents she lists or she has allowed her name to be put to a document for the court which does not contain her own evidence but is instead an argument on behalf of the mother whose case she gave her written evidence to support. Whichever it is, I find on the balance of probabilities significant enmeshment and alignment between the mother and Ms Dover. I find that there has been far greater communication by email between the mother and Ms Dover than has been disclosed into these proceedings. Those that have been disclosed were disclosed directly by CDA and not Ms Dover. They, I find, evidence a friendly relationship. I find that Ms Dover had stepped outside her professional role. I find that her email of 6 January 2023 (see above) and her attendance at the CIN meeting on 17 May 2023 are further examples of this as is the January 2024 meeting with Former Guardian which the mother wanted Ms Dover to attend.

It is submitted on behalf of the father that during Ms Dover’s evidence the mother attempted to interfere with a witness. Ms Dover’s evidence was adjourned overnight and I gave her, as I did every other witness, a clear and unequivocal warning that whilst part heard she was not to communicate with anyone about the evidence. When questioned Ms Dover admitted receiving a WhatsApp message overnight from the mother. She told the court that she could not now find the message on her phone and she had not read what it said. On behalf of the father I am asked rhetorically, how then did she know who it was from? The manner in which Ms Dover gave her evidence on this point, her inability to retrieve the message and the mother’s two statements filed within the hearing to try to explain the messaging and the lack of any record just add to an air of suspicion and make the allegation of witness tampering unsurprising. However, I do not go as far as to make that specific finding. In my judgment what the mother did was send her a message of emotional support. It is in my judgment another example of the enmeshment between the mother and Ms Dover.

I find that Ms Dover’s note keeping is so unreliable that D’s voice and any allegations she made during it have no evidential value. I find that the court cannot on the basis of her records begin to even try to evaluate what impact the sessions with Ms Dover may or may not have had on what D told others. I find that Ms Dover was profoundly out of her depth. She simply did not have the requisite expertise or experience to deal with the allegations D made and to provide her with therapeutic support. Many children and young people who make serious sexual allegations need support and therapy whilst the investigative process is proceeding. That therapy and support should sit alongside the investigative process. Proper records should be kept to enable an analysis of what that child or young person says during the therapy to be properly considered and, if the child makes an allegation or allegations in the context of that therapy to be able to consider the impact of the therapy on what has been alleged. The manner in which Ms Dover kept her records has prevented that process. Instead of advocating for D and ensuring what she said is heard, Ms Dover’s record keeping has trampled all over what D has said and D’s voice has been lost.

I find that it is striking that Ms Dover despite her lack of experience considered that she was able to continue working this case when D’s mental health was obviously so poor and when that mental ill health persisted despite almost weekly sessions with Ms Dover. Mr A rightly identified when he became involved in this case that D needed psychiatric help and mental health support beyond that which she was receiving. Ms Dover should have come to the Same conclusion and sought more expert psychiatric help for D.

I am asked to name Ms Dover in any judgment that is published. I will hear submissions on that issue at the case management hearing listed to consider this judgment and any directions or orders that may flow from it.

DC Bis the police officer who has investigated D’s allegations. She was a credible and reliable professional witness. She is a tier 3 advance interviewer. She had been ABE trained in relation to the 2018 version of the guidance. She told me that she made her entries onto the case log/crime report the Same day as the event being recorded. If they were written retrospectively, she would mark them as such. I accept her record. They are accurate and reliable. As she told Ms Chhina in cross-examination on behalf of the mother, she recorded all evidence that pointed to and away from the suspect. I noted that in cross-examination on behalf of the mother it was not put that the officer had failed to follow up lines of inquiry which could have corroborated D’s accounts or had overlooked any evidence that should have been taken into account. I find that she investigated D’s allegations professionally. I accept the submission made on behalf of the father that in her evidence DC B demonstrated that she focused throughout the investigation on D and getting the right and the best outcome for her. I find she followed the evidence and investigated the allegations properly following up all reasonable lines of enquiry.

DC B did not, as put on behalf of the mother, allow the father’s view that the mother was behind the allegations to influence her investigation. She told me and I accept that although she had expressed concern that the mother was manipulating the making of allegations, she did not let that affect her duty to investigate the allegations fairly and properly. Having heard and read all the evidence in this case, and in relation to this witness considered the police School X, statements and interviews in depth, I accept her evidence.

DC B was cross-examined extensively on behalf of the mother on the basis that she should have sought early CPS charging advice. DC B was clear in her evidence that that would be highly unusual, that it had to be done in a very tight time limit and was not indicated in this case. I accept DC B’s analysis and evidence on this point.

I consider that Ms H was a calm and moderate witness.

The mother referred herself to counselling with Ms H, known in these proceedings as H, on 11 October 2017. She provided 15 sessions of counselling over a period of approximately one year with the sessions ending on 11 September 2018. The mother re-started counselling with H on 7 January 2021.

On 2 October 2018 she sent the mother the Statutory Guidance Framework on Coercive and Controlling behaviour. I take into account that the records of these sessions have not been disclosed into these proceedings, I also take into account that H was friendly with the mother. I find that it is likely that her friendship with the mother was greater than she revealed to the court. I consider that on balance she is likely to have been reticent about that friendship because of the professional conflict between maintaining a friendship and providing counselling. I find that she provided support to the mother as the parents’ marriage reached its end. She will have been largely reliant on self-report from the mother in the sessions. I consider that she gave the mother the guidance on coercive and controlling behaviour in response to what the mother told her. As she told me in re-examination by Dr Proudman her role was to support the mother. In oral evidence H could not recall anything which she had personally observed which caused her concern about the father’s behaviours. In her oral evidence H frankly admitted that her written evidence to the court had been written after she had destroyed the notes of the sessions she had had with the mother.

It appears from H’s written evidence and from a text message passing between the mother and father in 2019, that D and C had at least one session of counselling with H, probably in 2019. What the purpose of that session was and what if anything the children said is not recorded.

Ris the paternal grandmother. She was cross-examined robustly by Dr Proudman on behalf of the mother. She gave detailed evidence about the incident at the pool. She told me that her son had been very cross and D very upset. As I listened to her evidence I heard genuine sadness at what had happened to her grandchildren. I consider that she did her best to tell me the truth but on occasion the anger at what, as she sees it, the mother has done to her grandchildren and her son came out. I find that the actual complaint made to the police which begins at page 55 of the bundle was, as she told me, probably made by the paternal grandfather but I find that it expresses sentiments which she is likely to share. Although she is angry, she is also truthful. Despite her anger at the mother and her wish to support the father, I find that when it came to it she told me the truth. By February 2023 D and C had blocked their paternal grandmother. The social worker’s records capture that the mother regarded the paternal grandmother’s message to C on 4 February 2023 as gaslighting him. I accept her evidence that she continued to text C to maintain contact with him- I was just trying to keep a connection with my grandson. Her message of 4 February 2023 was written to maintain contact with him and explain why they had sent a donation to Oxfam on his behalf rather than give him a Christmas present. It was not gaslighting, it was simply an attempt to keep open a connection and was, I accept, written in response to the mother’s Instagram post about the lack of Christmas presents of which I find, at least C who followed his mother on Instagram would have been aware. On behalf of the mother it was put that she or her husband sent an anonymous letter to School Ys making allegations against the mother. She told me in oral evidence that she had not seen the letter before. Her reaction to reading it appeared genuine. I accept her evidence that by the time the letter was sent a lot of people knew of the mother and father’s alleged behaviours.

Ms Y is a School X School teacher and was friendly with both parents. She has had no contact with the father since he left the School. I found her a matter of fact witness. Overall I considered her a credible witness. She exhibited to her statement a message to her in 2018 from the father that demonstrated genuine concern for the mother’s mental health at the time.

I gave participation directions on 8 October 2024 to enable the mother to attend this hearing remotely save for the days on which she was giving oral evidence when the father would attend remotely with his camera switched off. I was concerned that such was the mother’s vulnerability that she should not view the evidence from a remote location alone. Accordingly, I suggested that a member of the mother’s legal team should be at the Same location with her to ensure she was supported throughout and could give instructions as needed. I am grateful to her junior counsel for travelling to accommodate that request.

There is an Intermediary’s report provided in April 2024 in relation to the mother. According to that report the mother presents with a diagnosed PTSD for which she was receiving weekly counselling. She will be unable to effectively participate when she is emotionally dysregulated. Although she has a high level of academic and professional linguistic abilities, emotional dysregulation and trauma have impacted her auditory memory which is significantly lower than would be expected give her academic profile; her auditory processing when distressed is significantly reduced and the use of grounding techniques and distractors is effective in calming her when overwhelmed and disassociated.

The mother gave evidence before me in person. She had the benefit of an intermediary with her when giving evidence. A Ground Rules Hearing was held proximate to the start of her evidence. Those Ground Rules were observed during her evidence in the main and where they were not either I or Counsel on her behalf intervened and questions were re-worded etc. There were regular breaks in the evidence to ensure the mother gave her best evidence. When the mother became emotionally overwhelmed and unable to give evidence the Intermediary informed me. I have borne in mind when assessing the mother’s evidence, particularly her oral evidence that she is a grieving mother. There were times when she gave evidence that her upset and distress did overwhelm her. On the first and second day of her evidence , the mother gave her evidence in the Royal Courts of Justice in the witness box. With appropriate participation directions, she managed evidence in chief but quickly became overwhelmed when cross-examined on day two. Despite regular breaks, shortly after the lunch adjournment at 2.35pm, the Intermediary was concerned that the mother was in a dissociated state and could not carry on. I thus adjourned to the next day. With the assistance of counsel, different arrangement were made for the mother to give evidence before me the next day. On day three the mother gave evidence before me at a video conference suite in Dr Proudman’s chambers. I was present with a court associate, Dr Proudman was there as was Ms Venters KC. All other parties and members of legal teams were able to view the cross-examination over the link. With regular breaks and in a less intimidating environment than a large old court room, the mother was able to give evidence. Breaks continued to be taken as necessary and the ground rules continued to apply. The Intermediary quite properly recommended adjustments to the Ground Rules as her evidence proceeded. On day four Ms Venters KC decided to continue her cross-examination of the mother remotely. As the evidence went into day four the mother whose vulnerability is obvious in her presentation became distraught on occasion and on one occasion was physically sick. As Ms Venters KC had cross-examined her about her allegations of rape by the father and D’s allegations, the mother became even more distressed and exhausted by the process. I queried the necessity for any further cross-examination. Although Ms Venters KC still had topics to put, I queried the evidential value of any answers that would be obtained. I made it plain to all parties that I considered that I had heard sufficient evidence from the mother to make an assessment of her credibility and the other outstanding topics could be dealt with by reference to the papers. Dr Proudman on behalf of the mother did not object to that course, Ms Venters KC did. Nevertheless I ruled that the mother’s evidence should be completed that day. Whilst Ms Venters KC in her closing submissions lists the areas she says she could not cover because I limited the duration of cross-examination, I consider that list does not take into account the overlap between the allegations. Whilst not all matters were put, I consider that both the mother and the father had a fair trial.

No one could fail but to be moved by the mother’s heart wrenching grief and distress as she gave her evidence. The mother’s profound love for her children was and is obvious. However the fact that she is so profoundly distressed does not mean that everything she says must be taken at face value. The demonstration of emotion and the credibility and reliability of a witness are different matters. It is my task to assess her credibility and reliability. Having read all the papers and heard her give evidence I find that unless her evidence is at one with other evidence or against her self-interest, I cannot accept it. She is neither a reliable nor a credible witness. As the mother gave her evidence I formed the view that (i) she has come to believe her own narrative and (ii) that she was continuing to develop it. I accept the submissions made on behalf of the Guardian by Ms Wiley KC that as the mother gave evidence it was striking how everything was the father’s fault even the vile language she used in the messages passing between the parents after separation. She told me that her anger at M was reactive to discovery of the relationship and short lived. I find that it was not and that it in fact endured from July until approximately December 2019. I accept that new allegations were raised for the first time in chief, notably that the father had stayed in hospital with her in the early part of their relationship was an act of coercion and control. As the inconsistencies in the evidence were put to her by Ms Venters KC , on occasion she showed an angry determination to stick to her script. Her oral evidence was at odds with the contemporaneous records and the relationship between the father and the children seen in the messaging. Her interpretation of the father’s messaging to D as grooming illustrated how far her perception differs from a normal reading of the messages. She had not been candid with the court about her relationship with KK. She had not revealed in her written evidence that they had lived together. She only accepted in oral evidence for the first time that between April and August 2020 KK had lived with her and the children. The acceptance was not a sudden recollection of something she had forgotten. It came because the evidence that the court had heard before she entered the witness box meant she had no choice but to accept it. There is evidence in the papers that the children, D in particular, were impacted by the mother’s new boyfriend. His existence and the extent of his role in the children’s lives was thus directly relevant to the issues before me and should have been revealed earlier. The evidence in the text messages between the mother and father contradict the mother’s current case that he forced her to work and do domestic chores and controlled late-night shopping.

On the face of the position statement on behalf of the father dated 8 October 2024, I was asked to permit an application for a cognitive assessment of the father that had been made the day before. I allowed the application. The assessment was from a Registered Clinical Psychologist. It is dated 16 October 2024. In his assessment the father has a level of cognitive functioning ranging between the Borderline Average range consistent with the bottom 6th -42nd percentiles compared to his age peers. There was variation across his domain scores with relatively better performance in tasks requiring perceptual abilities and processing information at speed. The father was relatively poorer in his verbal skills and in his working memory. His cognitive profile is supported by his presentation, his educational and vocational background as well as his self-report of everyday functioning. He does not present with cognitive impairment or a learning disability but that he may have some difficulty in his understanding and retention of information, particularly when this is complex or when he feels under stress. The Dr made recommendations for support and adaptations to facilitate the father’s participation in the hearing.

The father gave evidence before me in the witness box. Ground rules were set for the manner in which he was to be cross-examined. During his cross-examination by Dr Proudman, the other parties occasionally raised objections in relation to the manner in which questions were being put which objections I dealt with at the time. The father had breaks where it was necessary for him to regain his composure or to ensure he was not losing concentration. As he gave evidence, the depth of his love for his children became evident. He, like the mother is grieving D’s death. His grief and distress overwhelmed him on occasion, but he was determined to carry on. As I listened to him give evidence I formed the view that he was truly bewildered at some of the allegations made against him. He just could not understand where they came from. He clearly had been racking his brain to make sense of them and to work out whether some innocent event had mutated into an allegation e.g. him putting his thumbs in his waist band when walking. It was also clear in his evidence that he is angry with the mother and blames her for D’s death. When her brother had been giving evidence, I had had to remind the father of the need to kerb his reactions to the evidence as his derision became noticeable. I have, in writing this judgment, also reminded myself of his reaction when being interviewed by the police about the alleged rape of the mother. He had laughed inappropriately. I formed the view in evidence that the father was an emotionally awkward man whose reactions sometimes were incongruent with the subject matter. As with the mother, I listened to the content of what he said and made an assessment of him upon that content rather than his demeanour. Having done so I judge him to be a credible witness.

Chas not given evidence before me. His evidence is however contained in a witness statement prepared for the fact-find. As part of my task I have had to evaluate its content. I have been reminded in closing that in March 2024 the School and the local authority wrote this about him “…he has always shown a sense of being head of the family. He was adamant in the last meeting that he was part of that he wanted all information shared with him directly. This raised a concern in a sense of safeguarding as he is probably quite guarded about Children’s Services and not want to appear to be disloyal to Mum or share information that may cause problems […] YY added that she agrees with the way C acts in terms of protection.” The social work assessment was that he had had to grow up too quickly. He has had to deal with his parents’ separation, his mother emotional distress, and suicide attempt and the death of his sister.

I find that the chronology shows that C’s wishes and allegations about his father have evolved overtime. From wanting contact with his father and having a relationship with him, he has expressed extremely negative views about his father in his statement to the police and to this court. Last year, C came to directly instruct The solicitor for the child of Goodman Ray, and to make applications including for joinder/party status and to be a witness within these proceedings so that this court might have his narrative.

C did not give oral evidence before me. His evidence is thus hearsay evidence. I have to decide what weight to give it. In assessing his evidence on behalf of the father it is submitted that I should view the documentary evidence from C with extreme caution and through the prism of the mother’s narrative, her agenda, her influence and the undoubted psychological effect the death of his sister has had on him. I find that submission is made out on the basis of what C told the then Guardian on 30 July 2021. He spoke to her of his parents and their life together. He told her that his mother had helped him remember things as he has grown older. I find that C and the other children have been exposed to the mother’s extreme upset and distress since their parents separated and have, in her care, being exposed to and thus influenced by her narrative to the point where they have adopted it. My reasons for reaching that conclusion are set out in my analysis that follows.

In respect of the task of determining whether the 'facts' have been proven I have borne in mind the guidance given by Baker J (as he then was) in Re L and M (Children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam) confirmed by the President of the Family Division inIn the Matter of X (Children) (No 3) [2015] EWHC 3651 at paragraphs 20 – 24.  I have also reminded myself the judgment of Lord Justice Aikens inRe J and Re A (A Child) (No 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 12, [2011] 1 FCR 141, para 26.  

The standard of proof to which facts must be proven is the simple balance of probabilities. Lord Hoffman observed in Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35that “If a legal rule requires facts to be proved, a judge must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding by the court that something might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are nought and one”.  The test remains the Same regardless of the seriousness of the allegations.   

 The burden of proof rests on the shoulders of the party that seeks the finding. It is for them to satisfy the court, on the balance of probabilities that it has made out its case in relation to disputed facts. A respondent to an allegation has to prove nothing, and the court must be careful to ensure that it does not reverse the burden of proof. As Mostyn J said inLancashire v R [2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam), there is no pseudo-burden to come up with alternative explanations. 

 There is no reversal of the burden of proof in cases where sexual abuse is alleged.  An allegation is only an allegation, and the burden remains on the shoulders of the party who seeks the finding to prove that the allegations are established to the requisite standard of proof. The court must proceed cautiously and avoid “the child protection imperative”-see Oldham MBC v GW and PW [2007] 2 FLR 597at [97]).  Such a need for caution was recognised by Hughes LJ (as he then was) in Re B (Allegation of Sexual Abuse: Child’s Evidence) [2006] 2 FLR 1071at [43] when he observed that:  

“...the fact that one is in a family case sailing under the comforting colours of child protection is not a reason to afford to unsatisfactory evidence a weight greater than it can properly bear. That is in nobody's interests, least of all the children.”  

I acknowledge and factor in that allegations of sexual abuse in this case and D’s death raise very high emotions. However, notwithstanding the emotive subject matter, the task of this court is to take an entirely dispassionate approach to the process of determining whether on the relevant and admissible evidence available to the court the facts alleged are established on the balance of probability - Re A (A Child) (Vulnerable Witness: Fact Finding) at [77].  

Having heard and considered the evidence it is open to the court to conclude that the evidence leaves it unsure whether it is more probable than not that the event occurred and, accordingly, that the party who has the burden of proving that the event occurred has failed to discharge that burden - The Popi M, Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds, Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Fenton Insurance Co Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 948. The Supreme Court has made it clear that, whilst not routine, this outcome is permissible in cases relating to children-Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] 2 FLR 141 at [32].  

Findings of fact must be based on evidence, and the inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence, and not on speculation or suspicion. The dividing line between the drawing of inferences and speculation may not be a clear one; it is essentially a matter of judgment  as to what is  a legitimate inference and what is insupportable speculation - Re A (A child) (Fact Finding Hearing: Speculation [2011] EWCA Civ 12 [2011] 1 FLR 1817 andRe A [2015] (Application for Care and Placement Orders: Local Authority Failings) [2015] EWFC 11 [2016] 1 FLR 1.

The decision on whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard of proof must be based on all of the available relevant and admissible evidence including that from the alleged perpetrator - Re I-A (Allegations of Sexual Abuse) [2012] 2 FLR 83, as well as  the wider context of social, emotional, ethical and moral factors - A County Council v A Mother, A Father and X, Y and Z [2005] EWHC 31 (Fam) at [44]. The role of the court is, accordingly, to consider the evidence in its totality and to make findings on the balance of probabilities. This means that, in accordance with the foregoing general principles, when assessing whether allegations of sexual abuse are proved to the requisite standard, the court must consider each piece of evidence in the context of all of the other evidence - Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838at [33]. Overall, as noted by Holman J in Leeds City Council v YX & ZX (Assessment of Sexual Abuse) 2008 EWHC 802 (Fam) [143] in the context of cases of alleged sexual abuse:   

 “I wish only to stress … the very great importance of including in any assessment every aspect of a case. Very important indeed is the account of the child, considered, of course, in an age-appropriate way. An express denial is no less an account than is a positive account of abuse. It is also, in my opinion, very important to take fully into account the account and demeanour of the parents, and an assessment of the family circumstances and general quality of the parenting”.  

Within the foregoing context, with respect to the legal principles applicable to the highly complex fact-finding exercise concerning allegations of sexual abuse, in the  decision of Re A (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 1718, the Court of Appeal once again emphasised the overarching importance, when determining whether or not the case has been proved to the requisite standard, of the court standing back from the case to consider the whole picture and ask itself the ultimate question of whether that which is alleged is more likely than not to be true.

Within the above context, the evidence of the parents, carers and family members is of utmost importance, and I acknowledge it is essential that I form a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. The court is likely to place considerable reliability and weight on the evidence and impression it forms of them - Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd Anor [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm) at [15] to [21] and Lancashire County Council v M and F [2014] EWHC 3 (Fam)). However, with respect to the evidence of, and impression the court forms of the parents, it is also important that I bear in mind the observations of Macur LJ in Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147 at [11] and [12], noting that:   

“Any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment Eely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so”.   

The need for care with witness demeanour as indicative of credibility was further highlighted by the Court of Appeal in Sri Lanka v. the Secretary of State for the Home Department [2018] EWCA Civ 1391. In this context in Re A (above) King LJ stated 

“38.

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." 

The words of King LJ are particularly apposite in the case before me.

As Macdonald J observed in A Local Authority v W & Ors (Finding of Fact Hearing) [2020] EWFC 68, the authors of Phipson on Evidence say at 12-36:  

When considering the balance of probabilities, the court must also factor into its determination, the inherent probability or improbability of an event. As has been observed by the Supreme Court, common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question regard should be had, to whatever extent appropriate, to the inherent probabilities -Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) at [15]. 

In family proceedings, evidence given in connection with the welfare of a child is admissible notwithstanding any rule relating to the law of hearsay (see the Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993). The weight to be attached to a piece of hearsay evidence is a question for the court to decide - Re W (Fact Finding: Hearsay Evidence) [2014] 2 FLR 703. Within this context, a serious unsworn allegation may be accepted by the court provided it is evaluated against testimony on oath - Re H (Change of Care Plan) [1998] 1 FLR 193.I have reminded myself that is very important to bear in mind at all times that I am required to 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.   

  The entirety of the allegations made by D before me are hearsay. That hearsay evidence is admissible but when judging the weight to give to it, I must take into account that it has not been subject to cross-examination. As the American jurist John Henry Wigmore, observed “Cross-examination is the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth”. Oral evidence given under cross-examination reflects the long-established common-law consensus that the best way of assessing the reliability of evidence is by confronting the witness -Carmarthenshire County Council v Y & Others [2017] EWFC 36 at [8] per Mostyn J. The Court of Appeal has made it clear that where the evidence of a child stands only as hearsay, the court weighing up the evidence must consider the fact that it was not subject to cross-examination - Re W [2010] 1 FLR 1485.

 I must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, and distress. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything -R v Lucas [1982] QB 720. Within the context of family proceedings, the Court of Appeal has made it clear that the application of the principle articulated in Lucas in family cases should go beyond the court merely reminding itself of the broad principle. In Re H-C (Children) [2016] 4 WLR 85McFarlane LJ (as he then was) stated as follows:   

“[100] One highly important aspect of the Lucas decision, and indeed the approach to lies generally in the criminal jurisdiction, needs to be borne fully in mind by family judges. It is this: in the criminal jurisdiction the ‘lie’ is never taken, of itself, as direct proof of guilt. As is plain from the passage quoted from Lord Lane's judgment in Lucas, where the relevant conditions are satisfied the lie is "capable of amounting to a corroboration". In recent times the point has been most clearly made in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division in the case of R v Middleton [2001] Crim.L.R. 251. In my view there should be no distinction between the approach taken by the criminal court on the issue of lies to that adopted in the family court. Judges should therefore take care to ensure that they do not rely upon a conclusion that an individual has lied on a material issue as direct proof of guilt.”   

The four relevant conditions that must be satisfied before a lie is capable of amounting to corroboration are set out by Lord Lane CJ in Lucas as follows:  

 “To be capable of amounting to corroboration the lie told out of court must first of all be deliberate. Secondly it must relate to a material issue. Thirdly the motive for the lie must be a reation of guilt and a fear of the truth. The jury should in appropriate cases be reminded that people sometimes lie, for example, in an attempt to bolster up a just cause, or out of shame or out of a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family. Fourthly the statement must be clearly shown to be a lie by evidence other than that of the accomplice who is to be corroborated, that is to say by admission or by evidence from an independent witness.”   

In the family court even where the court is satisfied that a lie is capable of amounting to corroboration of an allegation having regard to the four conditions set out in Lucas, in determining whether the allegation is proved, the court must weigh that lie against any evidence that points away from the allegation being made out -H v City and Council of Swansea and Others [2011] EWCA Civ 195.   

  When making my analysis below, I have also  reminded myself  that The Children Act Advisory Committee Handbook of Best Practice in Children Act Cases 1997 notes that any investigation into child sexual abuse that focuses attention on the statements of the child runs the risk of producing a false result if what the child says is unreliable or if the child’s primary caretaker is unreliable. It is for this reason that it is important   forensically, in a case of alleged sexual abuse, to examine the first point in time at which a child gives an account or accounts of alleged sexual abuse, the precise circumstances in which the account or accounts arose and how those were treated subsequently by those to whom they were made.   

 I have re-read MacDonald J’s judgment  in AS v TH (False Allegations of Sexual Abuse) [2016] EWHC532 (Fam) and in particular paragraphs [33] to [52] in which he sets out the extensive relevant guidance and case law.  In Lillie and others v Newcastle CC, Eady J observed as follows at [407]:   

“It is of course elementary that one should put to one side any notion that an unwillingness to place reliance on a child’s evidence of sexual abuse necessarily imputes bad faith to the child, its parents or any other interrogator. What the research has thrown into stark relief is quite simply that very young children do not appear to have the Same clear boundaries between fact and fantasy as that which adults have learned to draw”   

In Re B (Allegation of Sexual Abuse: Child’s evidence) Hughes LJ (as he then was), alluding to past public enquiries that have demonstrated the point both starkly and repeatedly, stated at [34] that:  

 “…Painful past experience has taught that the greatest care needs to be taken if the risk of obtaining unreliable evidence is to be minimised. Children are often poor historians. They are likely to view interviewers as authority figures. Many are suggestible. Many more wish to please. They do not express themselves clearly or in adult terms, so that what they say can easily be misinterpreted if the listeners are not scrupulous to avoid jumping to conclusions. They may not have understood what was said or done to them or in their presence.”   

The courts have rightly recognised developing psychological research into the nature of memory. In Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd & Anor Leggatt J (as he then was) dealt with these issues at [15] to [22] and observed as follows at [16] to [17]:   

“[16] While everyone knows that memory is fallible, I do not believe that the legal system has sufficiently absorbed the lessons of a century of psychological research into the nature of memory and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony. One of the most important lessons of such research is that in everyday life we are not aware of the extent to which our own and other people's memories are unreliable and believe our memories to be more faithful than they are. Two common (and related) errors are to suppose: (1) that the stronger and more vivid is our feeling or experience of recollection, the more likely the recollection is to be accurate; and (2) that the more confident another person is in their recollection, the more likely their recollection is to be accurate.  

[17] Underlying both these errors is a faulty model of memory as a mental record which is fixed at the time of experience of an event and then fades (more or less slowly) over time. In fact, psychological research has demonstrated that memories are fluid and malleable, being constantly rewritten whenever they are retrieved. This is true even of so-called 'flashbulb' memories, that is memories of experiencing or learning of a particularly shocking or traumatic event. (The very description 'flashbulb' memory is in fact misleading, reflecting as it does the misconception that memory operates like a camera or other device that makes a fixed record of an experience.) External information can intrude into a witness's memory, as can his or her own thoughts and beliefs, and both can cause dramatic changes in recollection. Events can come to be recalled as memories which did not happen at all, or which happened to someone else (referred to in the literature as a failure of source memory).”   

As Eady J also noted in Lillie and others v Newcastle CC at [402] (in a case in which Professor Bruck gave evidence), in circumstances where research into the reliability of children’s recollections is ongoing, and where that research has given rise to differing opinions on the correct interpretation of the data:  

“A mere lawyer has to approach such matters with care, conscious that nothing is certain, and to pay close regard to the evidence in the specific case or cases, without being drawn into taking sides on the more general debate.”   

It is exactly because it has been recognised that human memory is fallible that Report of the Inquiry into child abuse in Cleveland 1987 Cm 412 and Report of the Inquiry into the Removal of Children from Orkney in February 1991 among others and the contents of the current ABE Guidance have been formulated. The following matters can be drawn from that guidance: -  

Within this context, the way, and the stage at which a child is asked questions / interviewed will have a profound effect on the accuracy of the child’s testimony Government guidance applicable in England “What to do if you’re worried a child is being abused” (HM Government, March 2015) (replacing previous guidance published in 2006) states that before referring to children’s services or the police an attempt should be made to establish the basic facts. The Guidance makes clear to readers at [25] that “it will be the role of social workers and the police to investigate cases and make a judgement on whether there should be a statutory intervention and/or a criminal investigation”. Within this context, the following is said at [28]: “The signs of child abuse might not always be obvious, and a child might not tell anyone what is happening to them. You should therefore question behaviours if something seems unusual and try to speak to the child, alone, if appropriate, to seek further information”. And at [29]: “If a child reports, following a conversation you have initiated or otherwise, that they are being abused and neglected, you should listen to them, take their allegation seriously, and reassure them that you will take action to keep them safe.”

In Re SR [2018] EWCA Civ 2738 the Court of Appeal made clear that the principles set out in the statutory guidance Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings (then the March 2011) (the ABE Guidelines) are relevant to all investigations which include interviews of alleged victims of abuse, whether or not the interviews purport to have been conducted under the guidance.  Within this context, and in the context of an examination of the ABE guidance, in Re S (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1254 at [16] the Court of Appeal held that, with respect to initial contact with alleged victims, discussions about the facts in issue in respect of an allegation, as distinct from whether and what allegation is being made and against whom, should be rare and should not be a standard practice. When social workers are speaking to children who have made allegations they must be very careful to consider the purpose of the exchange and whether it is being conducted with a view to taking proceedings to protect the child or for separate therapeutic purposes where the restrictions upon prompting would not apply but the interview would not be for the purposes of court proceedings Re D (Child Abuse: Interviews) [1998] 2 FLR 10.  In Re SR the Court of Appeal reiterated that a failure to comply with the ABE Guidance will often have a decisive effect on the weight to be attached to the evidence obtained. With respect to initial accounts ,the difficulties may be exacerbated in circumstances where in any event, as the Court of Appeal has also emphasised in Re D and Others (Child Abuse: Investigation Procedure) [1995] 3 FCR 581, an “allegation which has not been videoed will inevitably carry less weight because the court cannot assess the allegation itself” and that given “their lack of expertise an alleged disclosure to a foster parent is less likely to carry significant weight in a court than is a statement by a child to an experienced and skilled interviewer”.   

   The second key component of good practice with respect to accounts of sexual abuse given by children is effective record keeping. The Cleveland Report makes clear at paragraph 13.11 that: “We would emphasise the importance of listening carefully to the initial presentation of information and taking careful notes”. Within this context, the requirement that all professionals responsible for child protection make a clear and comprehensive record of what the child says as soon as possible after it has been said, and in the terms used by the child has been well established good practice for many years. Where the person to whom the initial account is given is not a professional, there remain obvious advantages if the account is recorded having regard to this principle. Once again, the ABE Guidelines are relevant to all investigations which include interviews of alleged victims of abuse, whether the exchanges purport to have been conducted under the guidance or not - Re SR. The ABE Guidance re-emphasises the statement of good practice contained in the Cleveland Report. 

   The need for those working with children to record, as contemporaneously as possible, what the child has said has been recognised and endorsed by the courts as vital in circumstances where, in determining allegations of sexual abuse, it is necessary for the court to examine in detail and with particular care what the child has said (sometimes on a number of different occasions) and the circumstances in which they said it -D v B and Others (Flawed Sexual Abuse Enquiry) [2007] 1 FLR 1295. Within this context, it is also important that, when recording an allegation, the child's own words are used and that those speaking with the child should avoid summarising the account in the interests of neatness or comprehensibility or recording their interpretation of the account. Further, and in particular, the courts have emphasised the need for records of conversations with the alleged victim of sexual abuse to include a full note of the questions as well as the answers.

 I have also re-read and reminded myself of the further decision of MacDonald J inRe P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27, cited with approval by Underhill LJ in JB (A Child) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2021] EWCA Civ 46.

When re-reading  Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) referred to above, I have particularly considered paragraphs 5-9 and MacDonald J’s observations regarding “the ill-considered reaction of well -meaning adults to children making allegations of sexual abuse, or a failure by professionals to apply rigorously long-established guidance and good practice in dealing with such allegations can have a deleterious, and sometimes fatal impact on the reliability of the allegations when they come to be considered by the court.  In cases of alleged sexual abuse, there is a significant forensic tension between the need to provide understanding, support and care for children who may have been sexually abused, where the presence of a supportive non-abusing adult who listens without judgment and takes seriously what the child is saying is essential to that child’s current and future wellbeing, and the requirements of the legal process for establishing the truth or otherwise of those allegations in a court of law.”   

Of course, failures by professionals in the investigation of allegations of abuse, and the fact that those failures must be taken into consideration when considering the weight that can be attached to the various strands of evidence, does not of itself preclude the possibility that those allegations are true. There will, in any system that relies on human agency, inevitably be occasions on which there are omissions and errors in the application of good practice. As noted by Baker LJ in Y and E (Children) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2019] EWCA Civ 206the ABE Guidance is extremely detailed and often very challenging for police officers and social workers to follow. Within this context, it is thus important to note that, as the Court of Appeal made clear in Re B (Allegation of Sexual Abuse: Child's evidence) at [40] that:   

 “There is no question of this evidence being inadmissible for failure to comply with the ABE guidelines, and that has not been suggested in argument for either parent. In a family case evidence of this kind falls to be assessed, however unsatisfactory its origin. To hold otherwise would be to invest the guidelines with the status of the law of evidence and it would invite the question: which failures have the consequence of inadmissibility? Clearly some failures to follow the guidelines will reduce, but by no means eliminate, value of the evidence. Others may reduce the value almost to vanishing point.”  

In Re AA and 25 Others [2019] EWFC 64, Sir Mark Hedley said as follows:    

“215.

I want at this stage to say a further word about fact-finding. It is an art, not a technique. Like every worthwhile art, it is, of course, underpinned by technique and science. …Reliability is and remains the lodestar of fact-finding, and that, as we have seen, is underpinned by techniques of investigation and the science of reasoning.   

The art, however, goes further. A lack of reliability may obscure truth, but it does not altogether eliminate its perception. So long as the judge remains alert to the dangers arising from unreliability and exercises the caution due to that, it may be possible to discern flashes of truth or incidents that have about them the ring of truth. Where the judge meets that, and having exercised all due caution, is convinced of it, then the court has not only the right but the duty to act upon it. I make this comment because these allegations of sexual assault, coming uncorroborated from very damaged young people, as is the case here, are just those where what I have described may indeed occur…   

The court, of course, can only travel where in conscience the evidence leads. Quite often the evidence does not, indeed cannot, answer every question in the case. That of itself is not unusual, even if the starkness of the unknowing is not usually quite so evident as it is here.”  

I have reminded myself that in  Re S (A Child: Findings of Fact) [2023] EWCA Civ 346,Peter Jackson LJ said in relation to the approach a court should take when deciding whether the allegations of sexual abuse are made out, Peter Jackson in Re S(above) stated “First, the evolution of K’s statements needed to be charted. The judgment did not do that (so that time during the appeal hearing was spent in constructing a chronology) but instead summarised each witness’s evidence in sequence. It then considered the ABE interview process and placed it against a broad account of the other evidence. It would in my view have assisted the judge if he had identified and focused on the chapters of time covered by the evidence. These might conveniently have been arranged under these headings: the background, the first accounts, the ABE process, K’s subsequent statements. This approach would have allowed the judge to focus on the situation K found herself in at various stages and to address F2’s case effectively”.

Accordingly I have begun this judgment with a chronology which sets out the evolution of D’s allegations and where her ABE’s fits within that chronology as well as making an assessment of each of the witnesses I have heard.

I have reminded myself of Re H-N and Others (children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings)[2021] EWCA Civ 448 . and paragraphs 26, 29- 33 in particular given the nature of the case before me

“26.

PD12J paragraph 3 includes the following definitions each of which it should be noted, refer to a pattern of acts or incidents:

"'domestic abuse' includes any incident or pattern of incidents of controlling, coercive or threatening behaviour, violence or abuse between those aged 16 or over who are or have been intimate partners or family members regardless of gender or sexuality. This can encompass, but is not limited to, psychological, physical, sexual, financial, or emotional abuse. Domestic abuse also includes culturally specific forms of abuse including, but not limited to, forced marriage, honour-based violence, dowry-related abuse and transnational marriage abandonment;

'coercive behaviour' means an act or a pattern of acts of assault, threats, humiliation and intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim;

'controlling behaviour' means an act or pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate and/or dependent by soliciting them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain, depriving them of the means needed for independence, resistance and escape and regulating their everyday behaviour."

……………………………………..

“29.

As can be seen at paragraph 27 above, central to the modern definitions of domestic abuse is the concept of coercive and/or controlling behaviour. Shortly before the hearing of these appeals, Mr Justice Hayden handed down judgment in F v M [2021] EWFC 4 . The judgment followed a two-week fact-finding hearing of domestic abuse allegations centred on coercive and/or controlling behaviour. The arrival of Hayden J's judgment was timely. All parties commended it to the court for its comprehensive and lucid analysis, and for the plea contained within it urging greater prominence to be given to coercive and controlling behaviour in Family Court proceedings. The parties' endorsement of the judgment in F v M is, in our view, fully justified. It is helpful to set out one of the central paragraphs from Hayden J's judgment here:

"4.

In November 2017, M [the mother] applied for and was granted a non-molestation order against F [the father]. That order has been renewed and remains effective. The nature of the allegations included in support of the application can succinctly and accurately be summarised as involving complaints of 'coercive and controlling behaviour' on F's part. In the Family Court, that expression is given no legal definition. In my judgement, it requires none. The term is unambiguous and needs no embellishment. Understanding the scope and ambit of the behaviour however, requires a recognition that 'coercion' will usually involve a pattern of acts encompassing, for example, assault, intimidation, humiliation and threats. 'Controlling behaviour' really involves a range of acts designed to render an individual subordinate and to corrode their sense of personal autonomy. Key to both behaviours is an appreciation of a 'pattern' or 'a series of acts', the impact of which must be assessed cumulatively and rarely in isolation. There has been very little reported case law in the Family Court considering coercive and controlling behaviour. I have taken the opportunity below, to highlight the insidious reach of this facet of domestic abuse. My strong impression, having heard the disturbing evidence in this case, is that it requires greater awareness and, I strongly suspect, more focused training for the relevant professionals."

30.

Whilst the facts found in F v M may be towards the higher end of the spectrum of coercive or controlling behaviour, their essential character is not, and will be all too familiar to those who have been the victim of this form of domestic abuse, albeit to a lesser degree or for a shorter time. The judgment of Hayden J in F v M (which should be essential reading for the Family judiciary) is of value both because of the illustration that its facts provide of what is meant by coercive and controlling behaviour, but also because of the valuable exercise that the judge has undertaken in highlighting at paragraph 60 the statutory guidance published by the Home Office pursuant to Section 77 (1) of the Serious Crime Act 2015 which identified paradigm behaviours of controlling and coercive behaviour. That guidance is relevant to the evaluation of evidence in the Family Court.

31.

The circumstances encompassed by the definition of 'domestic abuse' in PD12J fully recognise that coercive and/or controlling behaviour by one party may cause serious emotional and psychological harm to the other members of the family unit, whether or not there has been any actual episode of violence or sexual abuse. In short, a pattern of coercive and/or controlling behaviour can be as abusive as or more abusive than any particular factual incident that might be written down and included in a schedule in court proceedings (see 'Scott Schedules' at paragraph 42 -50). It follows that the harm to a child in an abusive household is not limited to cases of actual violence to the child or to the parent. A pattern of abusive behaviour is as relevant to the child as to the adult victim. The child can be harmed in any one or a combination of ways for example where the abusive behaviour:

i)

Is directed against, or witnessed by, the child;

ii)

Causes the victim of the abuse to be so frightened of provoking an outburst or reaction from the perpetrator that she/he is unable to give priority to the needs of her/his child;

iii)

Creates an atmosphere of fear and anxiety in the home which is inimical to the welfare of the child;

iv)

Risks inculcating, particularly in boys, a set of values which involve treating women as being inferior to men.

32.

It is equally important to be clear that not all directive, assertive, stubborn or selfish behaviour, will be 'abuse' in the context of proceedings concerning the welfare of a child; much will turn on the intention of the perpetrator of the alleged abuse and on the harmful impact of the behaviour. We would endorse the approach taken by Peter Jackson LJ in Re L (Relocation: Second Appeal) [2017] EWCA Civ 2121 (paragraph 61) :

"Few relationships lack instances of bad behaviour on the part of one or both parties at some time and it is a rare family case that does not contain complaints by one party against the other, and often complaints are made by both. Yet not all such behaviour will amount to 'domestic abuse', where 'coercive behaviour' is defined as behaviour that is 'used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim…' and 'controlling behaviour' as behaviour 'designed to make a person subordinate…' In cases where the alleged behaviour does not have this character it is likely to be unnecessary and disproportionate for detailed findings of fact to be made about the complaints; indeed, in such cases it will not be in the interests of the child or of justice for the court to allow itself to become another battleground for adult conflict."

33.

Having considered what is controlling and coercive behaviour and emphasised the damage which it can cause to children living in a household in which it is a feature of the adult dynamics, it is necessary to move on to consider the approach of the court where the question of whether there has been a 'pattern' of 'coercive' and/or 'controlling' behaviour by one or more of the adults in a family is raised. Although the principal focus in this judgment has been on controlling and coercive behaviour, it should be noted that the definition of domestic abuse makes reference to patterns of behaviour not only in respect of domestic abuse refers to a 'pattern of incidents' not only in relation to coercive and/or controlling behaviour but to all forms of abuse including physical and sexual violence. Our observations therefore apply equally to all forms of abuse.

I have been provided with a note on the law by the mother’s legal team which I accept and which should be read into this judgment.

Within the submissions on behalf of the father, there is the following passage:

Within this section of the judgment, I shall settle the factual narrative and give my reasons for coming to the conclusions that I have reached. In settling this narrative and making the findings that I have, I have reminded myself not to simply work through the mother’s allegations and then consider the father’s allegations or to conduct that process in reverse. I am conscious that which end of the telescope you look through distorts the landscape you view. Accordingly, I have stood back and viewed the evidence as a whole reminding myself always that the burden rests on the shoulders of the party that asserts, and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.

It is the mother’s case that the coercive and controlling behaviour perpetrated by the father towards the mother began in 2006 and has continued unabated to the present day. It is submitted that the evidence demonstrates a sustained and escalating pattern of behaviour characterised by manipulation, control, and intimidation, designed to exert power over the mother and, by extension, the child(ren). Coercive and controlling involves repeated or continuous acts that cause a person to feel subordinate, isolated, or fearful. It is submitted that the father’s behaviour meets this definition, as it has systematically undermined the mother’ s autonomy and well-being over nearly two decades. It is submitted that the father’s persistent actions cannot be viewed in isolation, but rather as a pervasive course of conduct that continues to cause significant harm and distress. I have been referred to Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448, the Father v the Mother [2021] EWFC 4, Re L Relocation: Domestic Violence)[2019] EWHC 219(Fam) (see above). I accept that coercive and controlling behaviour is insidious and operates under the surface. It can have profound and severe long-term consequences. It is for that reason that when making this analysis and settling the factual narrative I do not focus on the allegations of physical and sexual abuse but I look at the totality of the evidence, the patterns of behaviours and consider the “invisible” forms of abuse that are designed to wear down the other party and cause emotional and psychological harm.

I begin with considering the parents themselves. I find that the mother and father are very different people. The mother in my assessment is articulate, intelligent and sensitive. She has a talent for writing. The father is more basic. He is aware of the mother’s tertiary education and her intelligence. I find that he is likely to regard her as his intellectual superior and the more creative and literate of the two. That is not, as is submitted on behalf of the mother, weaponizing the mother’s intelligence or creativity. That is simply a description of her talents and his recognition of them. I find that the father is sometimes infantile and childish (see below). He is tactile and at ease with public displays of affection. When the mother and father met, she was a teacher and he a carpenter. The mother assisted him to become a teacher. Throughout most of the history relevant to this case, the mother and father were both teachers at School X. The mother left School X and moved to another teaching position at School Ys after the parties separated (see chronology above). D and C remained pupils at School X.

I find that the initial coming together of the mother and father in 2006 can properly be described as a whirlwind. The mother says in her police interview that she was incredibly flattered by the romance. In oral evidence she told me that the father was considered in the community to be very attractive. He used to say of all the women who found him attractive, she was the chosen one. Having read the messaging between the parents and seen the father in the witness box, I find that he is likely to have said that or words to that effect. The father, I find, is confident in his appearance and its impact on others. The mother is an attractive woman but has insecurities about her body and her breast size. I find that those insecurities were present from the inception of the relationship. I find that they were not caused or aggravated by the father who told her that he loved her as she was. That was his evidence to the court and is reflected in the messaging. I accept it.

Shortly after meeting, in April 2006 the mother had an operation to her knee. She was in hospital for one night. In oral evidence the mother stated for the first time that when in hospital, the father had stayed in hospital with her behind the bed. The implication of her evidence was that the father was obsessive and controlling. I reject that evidence and the inference I am asked to draw. In cross-examination the mother actually accepted that when the father was asked to leave by a member of staff, he did.

I find that the mother was discharged from hospital and moved in with the father to recuperate. I find that there was no compulsion upon her to do so and that she could have gone to her parents or family members instead. Having heard evidence from a number of members of her family, I find that they are supportive of her and are likely to have always been. I find that she chose to be with the father.

The mother alleges that the father love bombed her and manipulated her. I reject that allegation. I find that the father is tactile. He engages in public displays of affection. I find it is likely that when she was away from him there were occasions when he would message her. I find that this was not to control or manipulate the mother rather it was to display his affection for her and to her. I find that it is likely, as the mother told the police in her interview, that she was very attracted to the father; that physically they had a really good time initially ; that she didn’t have any hang ups and was reasonably confident and fairly open to trying things and enjoying being with a partner who enjoyed being with her, she was telling the truth. The mother told the police that initially there did not seem to be anything untoward in what the father asked her to do and that they had sex on a regular basis and both enjoyed it. That evidence is at one with the father’s evidence and accordingly I accept it.

I find that initially the relationship between the parents is likely to have been intense. They are likely, in my judgment, to have been wrapped up in each other and their desire to be with each other.

I find that in the early weeks and months of this couple’s relationship, there were also tensions. The father had just emerged from relationship of about 7 years duration. The mother’s case is that he still had photographs of that woman around his home and they made the mother feel insecure. The father’s case is the mother is referring to a photograph album he had with pictures of his former girlfriend in. I do not consider I need to determine that dispute. However, based on the evidence of both parents, what I do find is that in the early days, both parents are likely to have had moments of doubt. The mother is likely to have felt insecure that the father still had feelings for his former girlfriend and the father was uncertain whether to commit. He asked the mother to move out which she did for a number of months before they made a commitment to each other. I find that such tensions are often experienced in the early stages of any intimate and romantic relationship. There will be many couples who have experienced similar emotions. I do not consider the behaviours of the father were designed by him to manipulate the mother or make her dependent on him.

During the previous proceedings, the mother exhibited to her statement dated 8 March 2021 extracts from diaries she has kept over the years. They are pages of her diaries selected by her rather than complete diaries. I consider that they have been exhibited to assist in proving the mother’s case and are thus likely to be self-serving. There is an entry from 11 May 2013. It is entitled Dark Day. Within it, she describes the previous day as awful as she had interfered when he was telling D and C off. The complaint recorded is that he retaliated “I am a good dad, I think I got it right. The way you deal with the children, they don’t do a single thing you say”. The entry records that he later apologised for this. The entries capture in 2014 an argument between the parents over a gum shield during which the mother says the father went mad and an example of road rage is given with which the mother interfered which led to the father being angry with her for interfering again. The entry dated 7 March 2015 makes reference to two awful nights and queries – why is he hurting me? It does not specify the type of harm and could be a reference to anything. There is another dated 10 November 2017 – black evening. I have read the full entry with care. In it the mother recounts the father texting her and asking her to wear stockings and a thong. She writes she tried jokey resistance. There is nothing within the entry to suggest that despite that resistance, the father forced her to act in a sexually intimate way with which she was uncomfortable and could be regarded as abusive. The entry captures ill temper and what the mother calls in her own diary latent aggression in his expression and tone of voice but there is no connection to the previous request to wear stockings and a thong. There is then an argument about the animals she keeps.

I find that these diary entries record the mother’s feelings at the time about the events she experienced. They are her perception of events and her feelings about them. In evidence she told me that they did not capture all the allegations for fear the father would read them. I have asked myself rhetorically - if the mother truly believed the father was reading her entries and truly feared his reaction, why would she describe some events which were clearly adverse to him and likely to spark a reaction and not others. I find that the diary entries exhibited to the mother’s statement were exhibited to support her case. Having seen and heard the parents give evidence and read all the papers, I have already found that they are very different people. I find it is likely, just as the diary entry for May 2013 referred to above shows, that they had different parenting styles and would disagree over issues of discipline from time to time. I find that it is likely that the father did not like being criticised and did resent her interfering. I find that the mother felt comfortable to and did criticize the father when she considered his parenting was not as she would wish. I find that the father does have a high sex drive and is likely to have made sexual requests of the mother but there is nothing within the entry to suggest that he did not accept her resistance and force the issue. Had he done so, given this was a diary, I would have expected that to have been noted.

Graphic intimate content removed prior to publication. Pursuant to Table 1 of the President’s Practice Guidance on Transparency.

 The mother alleges that on various occasions the father would tread on the children’s toys and break them, he would shout and swear, he would be jealous of her maternal bond with the children and felt pushed down her list of priorities. The mother says she would try to placate him. The mother says that the father’s interests and hobbies dominated family life. I find that is a false characterization. I find that the family were a sporty and active family. I find that having their own boat and not going to Sailing was simply an example of the family doing something together. I find that sport and staying fit was an important part of the father’s life and the family’s life but that was not to the exclusion of the many animals which the family cared for which were the mother and the children’s interest. It is alleged that the father was financially controlling and in particular would not let her take the smaller animals to the vet. I find that it is likely that there were arguments over money during the course of the marriage. I find that money is likely to have been tight. They lived an active and healthy lifestyle. The children were in private Schools albeit with a subsidy related to their parents’ roles as teachers. They had numerous animals. Ms Venters KC has calculated up to 65 at one time, including 4 horses. Whether or not that figure is accepted to be accurate does not really matter, it gives the court a flavour of the sheer number of animals they had at their home. In that context there were disagreements about how the family’s finances should be used and disagreements over vet bills and the necessity of calling a vet to an animal. I find that it is likely that the mother and father had a different approach to the need to call a vet and had discussions and disagreements about the necessity. However I do not find that the father’s view simply because it differed from the mother’s amounts to him seeking to control her financially. They each had opinions which although different fell within the band of reasonable views and their discourse upon it, in my judgment, can be regarded as an example of normal disagreements between two parents seeking to bring up three children, fund their Schooling and various activities and maintain numerous animals on what was in effect a limited budget.

I find that the father was respectful of the maternal bond. That is clear from the many messages passing between mother and father after separation. The mother alleges that the father isolated her from family and friends. I find that there is likely to have been a clash of personality between F, Z and the father but that does not mean he isolated the mother from her. I have heard evidence of the mother attending parties either at Ms Z’s property or with her. Having heard the evidence, the mother did have friends, G and H, to name but two and the mother did interact with her family during the course of the marriage.

I find that there are likely to have been occasions when the father stood on the children’s toys and broke them or an occasion when he broke a vase that belonged to the mother’s grandmother. However, I do not consider these were deliberate or spiteful acts but rather part and parcel of every day family life in a busy household. It is alleged that the father had outbursts of anger and would be physically abusive to the mother and the children. In relation to the general allegation of him being angry, I am taken in closing submissions by Dr Proudman to the SPECIALIST FAMILY SERVICEAssessment in 2023. I do not consider that the reference given supports the submission made. I find that as the father has stated he does get angry on the hockey pitch. I find that he is a sportsman and highly competitive. The fact, however, that in that environment he can become angry does not necessarily mean that his anger is uncontainable and spills over into other aspects of his life. I accept the father’s admission that when cut up on the journey to School he would sometimes swear in front of the children. The father further admits that when late for School and when either the mother and/or the children would not want to leave the animals, he became irritated and there would be arguments between the parents. These admissions are in my judgment an accurate description of normal everyday life and the stresses and strains thereof. I consider that the behaviour he admits falls within the band of reasonable behaviour of reasonable parents. It is likely to reflect, in my judgment, the School journey of many families throughout the jurisdiction.

I find, based on the father’s own admission, that he did have high standards for his children on and off the sports pitch. He said that he did so in their best interests wanting them in effect to be the best version of themselves that they could be. I accept that in the early days after parental separation both parents remained enthusiastic about the children’s participation in and achievements in sport. They were both rightly proud. That can be seen in the contemporaneous messaging. I have seen no contemporaneous evidence upon which I can rely to support the allegation that during the marriage the children felt under unrealistic pressure to succeed. There is the incident at the campsite which caused F and her wife to intervene because the children in their view had had enough physical activity. They withdrew their own child. That was a reasonable parental act in relation to their own child. But it does not translate, in my judgment, into proof that D, C and E were subject to unrealistic expectations of achievement. This is in my view another example of parenting styles differing between parents. That F and the father fell out over this is reflective, I find, of their different approaches to parenting and their different personalities but it does not make one approach right and the other wrong.

The mother alleges that from between 2016 and 2021 the father would physically and verbally abuse C- allegation 4. In 2018 when C was 10 years old the mother alleges that on the way to a hockey match C became incredibly anxious and refused to play. The mother alleges that the father became enraged and threatened to pull the car over to smack him. The father is alleged to have told C to strap on a pair and stop being a fairy. C in his statement to the court details how he says his father would call him names and belittle him. He would, he says, call him pussy or fanny. As far as C was concerned it was never in jest and was in anger when what he did was not good enough or when he challenged his father. I accept the father’s admission that he would tell C to man up or use words to that effect. He admits that he used insensitive phrases. The father tells the court that he meant it in good humour but accepts, now that it has been pointed out to him, that it was an insensitive way to address C. I accept that admission. It is contrary to self-interest and thus likely to be true. I also take into account the messaging I have seen between C and the father and D and the father. I accept the submission that there is a jocular nature to it. I have analyzed elsewhere in this judgment, D’s messaging with the father and what that in my judgment revealed about their relationship. I find the messaging between C and his father reveals a relaxed relationship. I find that was seen in the meeting between C and his father on 12 April 2023 as recorded by Mr A. There is no evidence before me which substantiates the mother’s allegation that the relationship between C and his father was emotionally abusive. The father has no recollection of ever smacking C or threatening to do so. It is not alleged in this case that the father ever used physical chastisement on the children. There would thus be no purpose in his threatening to do so. I find that it is unlikely that the father ever made the threat as alleged.

It is alleged that the father would squeeze the children’s hands so tightly, he would crush them. The father’s response to this is, I find, simple and natural. He would hold his children’s hands. He 100% would squeeze them as any father does lovingly on a walk to School but that he never squeezed them in anger. I accept his evidence on this point. I find this is another example of an actual occurrence being exaggerated out of all proportion and becoming something it never was at the time.

C in his statement to this court states that “My dad did kick me when I was about 13 years old when I was staying at his house. D and E were there. We were playing with nerf guns in the house in the hallway. I hit my dad with a nerf pellet (spongy thing). My dad reacted angrily and he turned on me and kicked me hard in my thigh. I fell to the floor and cried out in pain. He glared at me and walked off and left me lying there. I crawled to the bathroom as I was unable to walk and locked myself in the bathroom and started crying. I was in so much pain. I called my mum and told her and shortly after just went to bed; I just wanted to hide. There was a big bruise on my leg and it really hurt. My dad did not even bother checking up on me or did not even speak to me”. I remind myself that by the time C came to give this statement, he was polarised and siding with his mother. I take that into account when weighing his evidence. This is the incident about which Ms R gave evidence. I have found her evidence to be credible. She did not exaggerate and accepted that she did not see the kick. She recounted how upset C was. The father admits that he gave C a dead leg on this occasion but says it was accidental. In the SPECIALIST FAMILY SERVICEassessment dated March 2023 the father accepted that it was unacceptable that he had caused C injury and I find it was. He agreed not to engage in horseplay again. He did not accept that the kick was intentional and it has been his case that it was intended to be a playful kick to C’s buttocks during a high octane game involving NERF guns and playfighting. In that context he told Dr Proudman that he meant to kick him. Having heard and read all the evidence, I have concluded that this was a high octane game involving running around, hitting each other with pillows and firing NERF guns. In that context the father meant to give his son a light kick and missed the target giving C a dead leg instead. I find it was not deliberate in the sense that the father did not intend to cause C harm. I find that it is an example of horseplay which began in laughter and ended in tears. I accept that it caused C bruising. I find that the father is genuinely contrite about this incident and that his message to C dated 30 September 2020 is telling. It states I love you darling it's not your fault it was mine you know I meant to kick you but only in fun way it wasn't meant to give you dead leg. I love don't worry it will all be ok just wish I had used pillow instead like you xxx . According to Mr A’s note of the 21 April 2023 meeting between C and the father, the father said how lightly he kicked C and that C acknowledged that. I have already set out that I accept Mr A’s account of this meeting. The father’s account in the meeting is at one with his private, earlier message to C. I find that in that message passing between father and son, which was never intended to be seen by this court, the father told the truth. I accept his account. By September 2023 C’s allegation against the father was that the kick was deliberate and that his father had touched him inappropriately. This is, I find, another example of a kernel of truth being exaggerated and becoming something far more sinister than it ever actually was. That evolution is, I find, likely to be as result of the polarisation of C and his exposure to his mother’s narrative which he has come to adopt.

It is alleged that when C tried to intervene in an argument between his parents, his father picked him up and threw him to the ground. The father in an account of the incident to Mr W on 9 August 2022 described an argument between him and the mother during the marriage in which C began to kick his father. The father picked C up and sat him down on the floor. On the mother’s behalf it is argued that this is a minimisation of what happened as the father seeks to control the narrative. However I consider that it is an admission made by the father against self-interest and is likely to be true. Over time C’s account of this incident has evolved and become more serious. In July 2022 it was that his father took him by the shoulder and caused him to fall on a box of wood and cut his back. In his statement in January 2022 C tells this court he picked me up and pushed me down out of the way into a wooden plant box thing he made, with the corner cutting into my back. I remind myself that this incident occurred prior to separation in probably 2016. The parents did not separate until October 2018 and it is only after separation that this incident took on any significance and grew in fact and stature. Looking at all the evidence I find that there was an incident during the marriage when the parents were arguing and C intervened by kicking his father. I find the father responsibly removed C from the argument and sat him down.

It is alleged that in September 2021 C faced up to his father. This is what has become known in this case as the turkey chick incident. The father says the turkey chicks were inbred and bound to die. The mother denies this. D believed that the chicks would survive. P was, I have found, an honest witness. She did not see or hear the argument between the father, D and C about the chicks but what she did tell the court was what her own daughter told her at the time, namely that the children were shouting at the father not the other way round. She also described that evening. D and C stayed with their father, they all had take out and a pleasant evening. P told the court that the children did not have their mobile phones with them, although the mother says they did. I accept P’s evidence. It provides the context to an argument D and C had with their father who they wanted to intervene to save the chicks and he would not because he considered them inbred and bound to die. It was a disagreement which involved disagreement and the children shouting at their father and was resolved quickly. The next day on 6 September 2021 E gave the School an account which bought into the mother’s narrative. On 7 September 2021, the mother stopped contact.

It is alleged that at a pool party in 2016 the father held D’s head underwater and smacked her- allegation 3. At the time the medical records show that the father had a soft tissue injury to his arm. On behalf of the mother it is said to be significant that the paternal grandmother and the father claim he had a broken arm at the time. I remind myself that they are giving evidence about an event over 8 years ago. The father’s arm was in a sling. Through the lens of memory, an arm in a sling may well, I find, be mistaken for a broken arm. G gave evidence that she had seen the father dunk D under the water by her buoyancy jacket, she did not say he had held her under the water. In this case that difference is not a matter of semantics. The father in the SPECIALIST FAMILY SERVICEassessment says that he was pushing the children under water to help with the functioning of the life jackets but that is all. The father was not working as a lifeguard that day but he had worked at the pool in that capacity. He had the skill and knowledge to ensure the children were safe as they ran along and around an inflatable in the pool. I find that it is likely that he did check their lifejackets that day and did so in the manner which he has admitted. I find G’s account to be exaggerated and distorted. I have asked myself that if the events were as she described then how did others present at the party not notice or intervene and why did she not do something at the time. She told me that she was stood next to the paternal grandfather. He did not witness the event and she did not draw his attention to it. After this event, she continued to permit the father to look after her own children. If she had truly witnessed him holding his daughter’s head under the water in an abusive manner, I have asked myself would she as a protective parent have permitted that. I have decided that she would not. I find R’s account of this event far more credible. It was frank. She did not minimize D’s upset. She described D doing something dangerous, racing along the inflatable. The father intervened to tell her off and removed her to the poolside to calm down. D was upset by being told off in front of others.

I find the evolution of this event and the significance it has taken on to be illuminating. By the time of the mother’s police interview in December 2019 her allegation is that the father got D by the life jacket and held her underwater, thereafter in discussions with professionals it becomes that the father held or put D’s head underwater. It is the mother’s refrain within these proceedings. It is reflected in the dreams D told Ms Dover about. In the story found on D’s laptop after her death, this event has become an elaborate story, the truth about which D herself questions. I find that these reports of dreams and this detailed account in the story entitled Dreams are not recollections of an actual event. They are however evidence of the impact of the mother’s influence on D and what having been exposed to her mother’s narrative D came to believe. It is a vivid illustration of how repeated false accounts can be absorbed into another’s narrative and become part of their reality.

From 11 October 2017 until 11 September 2018 the mother had counselling with H. On 2 October 2018 H sent the mother guidance on coercive and controlling behaviour.  This would have been in response to what the mother had told her during their sessions. H perception that the mother needed that guidance would, in my judgment, have been influenced by the mother’s self-reporting during the sessions and her friendship with the mother. I take that into account when weighing the evidence. In her oral evidence H confirmed that the allegations raised prior to 2021 by the mother related to the father giving her what she perceived as the silent treatment; the father wanting more sex than the mother; the mother receiving lectures from the father; being in a bad mood and using testosterone. Those allegations are actually consistent with the type of matters within the mother’s diary entries referred to above. They are mother’s perception of events.

It is submitted on behalf of the mother by Dr Proudman that father lacked culpability and insight into the emotional abuse he inflicted on the mother. The evidence relied upon is the SPECIALIST FAMILY SERVICEreport of 7 March 2023 wherein the father said what she sees as coercive control is me dealing with things internally. Not me trying to control her in any way, shape or form. I consider that in that passage the father was telling the truth. He did not intend to harm , punish or frighten her and to make her feel subordinate. He felt rejected and withdrew into himself.

I find that as the marriage deteriorated there would have been angry exchanges between the parents. I find that the father is likely to have sworn at the mother and in the aftermath of her infidelity in 2013 may have called her a liar and slut. I find having read the messages in this case that the mother herself when angry can use ripe language and does swear. I have already set out paragraph 61 of Peter Jackson LJ’s judgment in Re L (above) , I find it is apposite here.

From the papers I have read it is common ground between the parents which I accept, that after C’s birth, the parents’ sex life changed.  Penetrative sex became painful for the mother. It is also common ground that in the beginning of their relationship, the parents would watch pornography together. The father accepted in evidence that after the children were born, the mother’s attitude to pornography changed. In his witness statement the father says that the mother regarded his watching of porn as degrading and disrespectful. That evidence is contrary to his self-interest and I find likely to be a true and frank assessment.

Within the course of the fact-finding hearing messages passing between the mother and father have been disclosed. In the run up to the first Christmas post separation the mother sent a message to the father dated 24 December 2018 which included the following:

The above messages are included by way of example. They are the parents’ own reflections on their relationship and its breakdown. They are of course set in the context in which they were written, and I take that into account when considering them the emotions then in play, particularly the anger that is evident in some of them from the mother and the resentment. I find that born of her anger which she herself describes as lava under her skin, the mother’s messages are likely to include hyperbole. I also take into account that, in my judgment, the mother is the more emotionally literate of the two. I also factor in that these messages, and a number of other similar messages were never meant to be seen by the court. I find that they are likely to be true expressions of their individual perspectives on their relationship and its ending. Subject to the caveats I have already set out, I find that the messages provide evidence upon which I can and do rely. Based on the messages, all of which I have read, I find that the parents’ marriage is likely to have ended because of a number of factors which are interwoven, namely the mother’s infidelity with KK and J W as well as a mismatch between their respective sexual needs. In the May message reproduced above the mother writes this:. Intimate and graphic content removed I find that passage captures the mother’s true view of her sexual life with the father. Finding omitted because of graphic and intimate content. However I do not find that he ever made her do anything against her will. I find that both the mother and the father’s messages corroborate the mother’s allegation that he would give her the silent treatment. I find that for the mother sexual intimacy became, as she said, something that she felt she had to do and ultimately did not want to do. I find that that is likely to have been how she felt. I find that the mother withdrew from sexual intimacy with the father. The father, as he states in his June 2022 message above, felt rejected by the lack of intimacy and went what he terms introverted. However, I find that the father did not know that she felt compelled to have sexual intercourse with him or go along with his sexual fantasies. That is the tenor of what he said when she confronted him in April 2019. Having read all the evidence and listened to him give evidence, I find his protestation is on balance likely to be a true reflection of what he knew or did not know at the time. I find that the father did not ever emotionally blackmail her into sexual acts with him. I find the messaging from the father demonstrates that at the time the father did not realise how unhappy the mother now says she was.

The mother alleges that the father gaslit the mother. It is alleged that he went through her phone and belongings without her permission. The example given to support that contention is the discovery of messages with JW in 2013 which is said to have led to the matters pleaded as allegation 9 of the mother’s allegations. The context of this allegation begins with the father’s trip to Everest with the maternal grandfather in 2013. Whilst he was away, the mother spent a night with another man and I find on balance on the evidence before me had a sexual encounter with a man I refer to as JW. I accept that the mother is vague about what happened between her and JW. I also accept that when speaking to her friend G and H she did not mention him. She told me she was not proud of what she had done. I also accept the submission that despite all the conversations that have taken place over the years with her family and friends about her marriage and what did/not happen she has never mentioned to them that on this occasion the father attempted to strangle her. There is no reference to non-fatal strangulation in her diary entries which have been disclosed. I find, on balance, that the reason it is not mentioned is because it did not happen. I find the father discovered the encounter when he read messages on the family laptop/ipad which she thought she had deleted. This was a device for the family to use and he did not need permission to use it. He gave evidence that when using it a message from JW popped up on Facebook messenger from JW. He read it. His account is he went upstairs to the parental bedroom where the mother was and tossed the device under arm onto her lap. He says she half caught it. The mother says he threw a laptop at her which hit her on her arm. The father denies dragging the mother out of bed and assaulting her. The father I find was angry and extremely upset. I find that the mother is highly unlikely to have remained calm. I find that she too was angry and distressed. I find that she is likely to have been desperate that the father should not leave her. The father says he tried to leave the bedroom they were in and she blocked his way by throwing herself in his path. The father gave evidence that the mother was hysterical throwing herself in front of him barring his exit and putting his hands around her neck asking him to kill her. The father accepts, contrary to his self-interest, that in the emotion of the moment he did take her phone. He wanted to confront JW. He tried to get in the car to leave their home and the mother threw herself on the car bonnet. The mother denies this. The father left the family home and went to the maternal grandparents’ home to alert them to the mother’s distress and tell them what had happened. They persuaded him to go home and when he did, K had arrived. He denies subsequently standing over the mother to make her post on Facebook an account relating to this. He denies ever seeing the post but says he was told about it by others. The mother has since taken it down. On the basis of the evidence before me, I accept the father’s account of this event. I find that the mother’s evidence is not credible. I find that had the father attempted to strangle her as she alleges it is inconceivable that she would not have mentioned it at the time. K described the injuries that he saw when he arrived at the family home. The mother had bruising to her arms and legs and bruising to her lip/ a split lip. There is no mention by the mother to him of any attempted strangulation at the time. He has never mentioned noticing any marks to or around her neck at the time. I take into account the mother’s shock and distress at the time but non-fatal strangulation is a serious allegation. The mother would have no reason not to tell her family about it at the time. I find that this omission puts the mother’s whole recollection of the events on the discovery of messages from JW into question. Whilst I accept that there are discrepancies in both parties’ account, this omission goes beyond an inconsistent point of detail. I factor into my evaluation that the father went to the maternal grandparents to alert them to the mother’s distress. He was concerned about her and alerted those who cared about her. I find that his actions after the event are consistent with his account of it. I find that the mother is likely to have injured herself as she tried to stop the father leaving. Further, I accept his denial that he made the mother post an account on Facebook. All the evidence in this case points to the mother willingly using social media and oversharing events upon it. I consider her allegation of threat and coercion by the father to make a post to be unlikely. He is, of the two, far more wary of social media and in my judgment to be unlikely to want to post anything about this event. Thus on balance I prefer the father’s account of this event.

I find that the evidence in this case proves that initially after separation, the parents were largely able to co-parent their children. I find that matters changed when in June 2019 the mother suspected he was seeing other women and then on or about 6 July 2019 the mother discovered that the father was in a sexual relationship with M. I find that on the 10 July 2019 the mother sent the father this message:

I find that the mother was enraged that the father was in another relationship. I also find that she was overwhelmed emotionally. I have set out above C’s message of 9 July within which there is a reference to the mother’s incessant crying. It is in July 2019 that the mother attempted suicide by walking into the sea. The suicide note she left is within the disclosure bundle. Within that note she speaks of her relationship with the father as being toxic and thinking she had escaped it. However, within that letter she also references M- When you The Father started a relationship with XX, teacher at SCHOOL X I saw my redundancy in my own life…. The Father would make what I’d wanted for children and myself with someone who already owns a house………Cant bear my children to be with another women half of the time…………… I find that to be true.

In a long message in the supplemental bundle beginning at 352 and dated 10 July 2019, the mother rants at the father about his relationship with M. Her anger is palpable. She calls M a vapid selfish skank. There is a running theme that the mother considers that the children have been with M when they should, in her opinion, have been with the mother. At one point she writes go and suck her shrivelled tits and know that everytime you touch her you lost your kids for her. In her message of 11 July 2019 the mother threatens to take D out of School. I take into account the shock and distress that the mother experienced on finding out about the father’s new relationship. I factor in that the mother’s mental health was impacted and that later that month she attempted suicide. However I also have to look at the evidence as a whole in this case. Contrary to the submissions on behalf of the mother, this anger was not short lived and endured at least until December 2019. I find that her threats to stop contact and to take D out of School as acts of punishment for the father were acted on by the mother. That finding is borne out by the chronology in this case (see above).

On 11 July 2019 the mother through her then Solicitors sent a letter to the father stating that the children have been afraid of their father since separation. I find that assertion is contrary to the evidence disclosed into these proceedings about what the children said at the time to professionals who recorded the Same. I have referred to a number in the chronology above. I find that the records show that in the early days post separation the children were expressing sadness and concern about their mother’s treatment of their father- by way of example in November 2018 D said she was sad in School because her mother was cross with her father. In September 2019 C wrote down his feelings which he wanted to share with his mother but could not so shared them with his father. On 25 November 2019 D was upset in School because her mother wanted her to see less of her father.

I find that the children were directly impacted by the mother’s emotional lability and distress. D is reported to have said in School on 26 June 2019 that she feels like she is looking after her mum who is crying most nights. The message from C left on the father’s phone in July 2019 shows that he was aware of his mother’s crying. D was impacted because when she returned to School, she could not attend her classes because they were taken by M and her mother forbade it. I find the Nest Cam footage from Christmas 2020 informative. It is a harrowing listen. It shows the mother’s extreme distress at being parted from the children and the children taking responsibility for their mother. I do not accept the mother’s account that it was a one off when she was unsupported and emotional. I find that it is likely to be a snapshot of the mother’s behaviour over a number of years. When all the evidence is put together the picture is of the mother being extremely emotionally labile from July 2019 onwards and the children being aware of it and taking responsibility for her. That finding is supported by the evidence of Ms Q and P, both of whom have given credible evidence about hearing the mother speak to the children on the phone when they were having contact with their father and the mother’s significant emotional distress. I find that the mother did expose the children to her distress . As early as June 2019 D told the School that she feels like she is looking after mum who is crying most nights…I find that on 5 February 2021 , the day after a court hearing, C did tell the father that the mother was in tears in front of them. On 10 May 2021 during D’s initial assessment with CDA it is noted that “Client used to hear her mum cry and would hear her parents fight. Mum had anxiety and depression when married and had cancer. Parents are going to court before the summer holidays.” In June 2022 E told Mr W that his mother expresses her sadness by crying a lot but that it is OK to cry. On 8 December 2023 Ms Pedroza the clinical psychologist from CAMHS wrote in her records that she had witnessed a level of distress from the mother over the police decision to take NFA that caused the professional to make a referral to CAMHS. I find that there is a pattern here of the children being exposed to their mother’s vulnerability, to her evident and continued significant distress, and them feeling the need to take responsibility for her.

I find that the older children C and D are likely to have been aware of the mother’s social media posting on Instagram and Facebook. The mother has accepted that C had access to her social media accounts. I find it is likely that even if D was not directly aware of her mother’s postings others including C are likely to have told her about them.

I find that by June 2021 there is evidence that the mother had actually sought to influence the children’s narrative. The June 2021 CAFCASS report contains the following from D “I do understand why my mum doesn’t want to be friends, if it is true what she says happened I would not want to be friends either, it’s hard for her, it was emotional and possibly physical abuse, I wouldn’t want to spend time with him if I was her either”. That is proof of the mother explaining her narrative to D.

I find that on 25 November 2019 the father reported death threats by the mother towards M from July 2019 onwards. He reports up to 50 messages in one day. I find that that behaviour is similar to that described by P in her evidence to this court. She said and I accept that when enraged or emotionally labile, the mother would deluge the father with texts- 27 on one occasion according to P. I find that the mother’s reaction to M was replicated with venom when the father started a relationship with P. I find that the message the mother sent the father on 4 December 2021 in response to his message about collecting C for contact to be illustrative of the depth and strength of the mother’s feeling. The mother wrote:

It is in the context of her jealous rage at the father’s relationship with M that the mother began to make her most serious allegations against the father. I find that from July 2019 the allegations made by the mother against the father increased in their severity and frequency. In the Same month she raised concern about the children coming into contact with M in School and made allegations to School X about the father. In August 2019 the mother alleged that the father had subjected her to emotional and coercive abuse but that he had never hit her. By 4 December 2019 and her ABE interview those allegations had increased significantly in number and severity.

I find that the mother’s ABE interview of 4 December 2019 is effectively a long , intense narrative which is rarely interrupted by questions and then only towards the end. It is as if the mother is delivering a script. It is in my judgment self-serving and performative. It is not credible.

On behalf of the mother in closing it is argued that the mother’s accounts of sexual abuse have been consistent and that that gives them great weight. However, I find that over time the allegations have grown. The mother’s evidence to me went significantly beyond that in her messaging in 2019 (see above). In oral evidence she told me the fact of the matter is, The Father repeatedly and daily morning and nightly forced sex on me. I find that there is a significant difference between that described in May 2019 as set out above and the allegation of daily morning and night forced sex made in the witness box. That was not a slip of the lip. It was an example of the ever evolving allegations the mother makes against the father.

It is argued on behalf of the mother that cervical smear test result from 2018 supports the mother’s allegation of forced sexual intercourse. I remind myself that I have had no expert evidence on this point and that the submissions made by Dr Proudman are based on the mother’s medical records and a lawyer’s interpretation of them. Further, I record and take into account that even if those assertions are borne out, they would provide evidence of physical signs consistent with abuse but they would not of themselves be probative thereof. There would thus have to be a reliable and credible account with which they were consistent. I find that in this case there is no such reliable and credible allegation. Standing back and looking at the entire evidential landscape, I conclude that the father did not force the mother to have sex with him and did not rape her.

I now turn to consider the allegation that the father raped D when she was a young child aged around eight to nine years old and that he inappropriately touched her over a number of years. The implication is that the inappropriate touching was sexual.

In an email sent to School X by the mother on 9 December 2019 , the mother sets out in that email how she and her brother shared her diagnoses of depression, PTSD and acute anxiety with the children . Within the chronology above I have also set out the evolution of D’s own mental ill health. It is sad to read, truly tragic. What is even more tragic is that D seems to have copied her mother and attempted suicide by drowning. I do not suggest that the mother put D up to that or ever intended her daughter to follow what she did. I accept the mother’s evidence that the SWIM video was intended to be inspirational and emphasise hope. However, I find that regardless of her mother’s intention, D is likely to have been heavily influenced by her. I have already found that D was aware of her mother’s emotional distress (see above). I have watched the SWIM video more than once. It is a powerful piece of cinematography. It is beautifully crafted. There is a dispute about whether or not D was involved in its production. Her name appears on the credit and evidence disclosed by the Coroner supports the contention that she was. On the other hand I have the evidence of K who described how D came to feature in the video when an old photograph was edited into the video. I am not in a position to make a determination on that particular dispute but I do not consider that I need to do so. What is important, as the chronology shows, is that D and C came to know of the video. According to C, the mother told him of the video in the October half term of 2021. I find that by then D is already likely to have been aware of it and its content as it is referenced in her 2021 diary. I consider that the reaction of an unconnected third party to the video such as a police officer is likely to be different to the reaction of the children of the mother who is the subject of the video. I find that they are bound to be impacted by it. I find that it is further evidence of their knowledge of their mother’s despair. It is also evidence upon which they are likely to have formed the view that their father and his behaviour was responsible for the mother’s attempted suicide. That may not have been the mother’s intention but I find it is likely to have been the consequence. I find support for that conclusion in D’s own diary in which she wrote “Mum also admitted the other day that when she first divorced dad and he kept just being around that she also went suicide. She tried to drown herself. She thought it would be better for me, C and E if she wasn’t there so that there was no more fighting……But I am starting to understand how she felt. She wanted to rest in peace.”

I find the evidence shows that D had a close and natural relationship with her father and that initially after her parents’ separation she wanted to retain contact with him. I have already set out in the chronology that in School on 15 November 2019 “D reported that she was ‘ok ish’ today and then spent most of the sessions ‘venting. She explained that she has had enough of all the shouting and arguing at her grandparent’s house, reiterating what she has previously told me about her mum’s family being unkind and unfair to her dad. She became quite distressed when talking about it, she reported that her grandmother calls her dad ‘evil’ in front of her which she obviously finds distressing D is fortunately an extremely emotionally intelligent and resilient young person who would ‘just like the adults in her life to stop arguing’ and think about the impact of their arguing on herself and C”. Later that month the School record states “D had to leave class as crying and upset. She described … that dad hadn’t bought her to School as mum wanted her to see less of him. This made her sad and she wanted her dad. She knew The Mother’s sister was picking her up and said although she was nice to her in front of other people she wasn’t really interested in her when they were on their own. The strength of emotions from D were greater than seen up to this point”. The School’s assessment in early December 2019 was that “Both children have been with the School for a number of years and the observations of the staff have consistently been that they seem very happy to be with The Father, they regularly seek his company and enjoy a warm, relaxed relationship with him”. On 24 March 2020 D sent her father a message- morning dad missing you loads hope you are doing alright C is very pleased about the lego and E says he loves you and see you soon love D (followed by many x’s). Messages of a similar nature continued from D to her father on C’s phone until September 2020. I have reminded myself that children who are sexually abused by a familial figure often do display an attachment to their abuser and want to see them. However, I must also weigh in the balance the inherent improbability that a child, who eventually alleges she was raped, during her parents’ marriage would continue to have such a relationship with him after separation.

I factor in that on 10 August 2022 the police spoke to family members who were present at the camping trip where D then said she had been raped. K and his wife could not remember nor add anything to the investigation. There had been a group of older children on one trip who they had spoken to about their language. They had noticed nothing unusual about D. Equally the paternal grandfather and his wife had seen nothing untoward. F Z and her partner said they had been racking their brains. They had only been on the first camping trip and the only adverse memory was the father arguing with F’s partner. Whilst the allegations made by D has evolved over time, it remains the position that no member of her family can recall anything at a relevant time which would corroborate D’s allegations other than a general memory that on one occasion, and unusually, she wet her pants. Given D’s age when she was allegedly raped, I have to factor in that no one at the time noticed anything untoward.

D made allegations of inappropriate sexual touching on 6 June 2022 in a session with Ms Dover and thereafter. I have already made significant criticisms of Ms Dover and her practice. I take into account that days before D had sent her father an unsolicited text which on its face demonstrates a normal loving relationship between father and daughter. I do not know because of Ms Dover’s poor recording the context in which the allegation were made; the conversation she was then having with Ms Dover etc let alone D’s actual words.

I find that in this case there is a correlation between the making of the allegations and the date of significant court hearings which I take into account when evaluating D’s evidence. On 28 October 2019 DDJ Robinson refused to suspend or vary contact. The order of 4 February 2021 remained in place. D first made the allegations of inappropriate touching on 6 June 2022 when a final hearing was listed on 15 June 2022. D identified her rapist as her father in or around 20 June 2023. A FHDRA was listed on 22 June 2023.

I place into the balance that survivors of abuse may be reluctant to speak about what has happened to them and that the triggers may be many and various. D has said more than once that she wanted to protect E and that may explain the correlation of the dates. I have set out in the chronology what D has said in so far as it is captured. I have read and watched her ABE Interviews and listened to her. However, I also have to ask myself why did D feel the need to protect E. The evidence shows (see above) that in my judgment that D had taken on a supportive and protective role for her mother. I find that role extended to a need to protect E and her mother which was beyond her years. That is evident from her suicide notes.

It appears that D first mentioned the rape on 6 June 2022 in a conversation she had with her mother in response to an email Ms Dover had sent. D was very distressed. I find, given the mother’s inability to contain her own distress, that the mother is likely to have been emotionally labile during this conversation. Within that conversation rape is introduced. How exactly the allegation was introduced into the conversation is not captured - the exact questions asked, the answers given are not known. The note said to be written by D is at GLT7 at 935 of the main bundle. It is simply the word in capitals. According to D it was written by her mother. I take that from a record that shows that on 14 June 2022 the social worker, Ms K, stated during a Strategy Discussion that in the joint police and social work visit D had said – Thinks she remembers something happened to her when she was 7/8- mum handed her a note saying rape on it. That account is hearsay but it is powerful evidence. I have already set out why the mother is not a credible and reliable witness. Thus on balance I prefer the account given in the records of what D said rather than the mother’s evidence. The record is proximate to the event and likely to be true. On 7 June 2022 the mother told the police in a telephone conversation, D has not denied that it was The Father. I find that it is likely that the mother in the aftermath of what D told Ms Dover on 6 June 2022 shared with D her allegations about the father. That is a clear inference that can be drawn from the content of an email the mother wrote to Ms Dover dated 11 June 2022 I don’t know how to talk to her about it other than to say that our experiences are not quite the Same because of our relationship. Yes he did touch me uninvited and persisted when I said stop but his advances to me were driven by a single aim which was to have sex so he felt loved.

In the chronology above I have set out the evolution of D’s allegations. On 4 July 2022 D was ABE interviewed. Within it she positively asserts that it was not her father and gave an explanation about why it was not her father.

The police decided not to take any further action in relation to D’s allegations of inappropriate sexual touching. DC B told the mother about that decision on 21 September 2022 in a conversation summarised above. Within that conversation the mother emphasised that D had not said her father was responsible for the rape but sometimes in her dreams the person who assaulted her had her father’s face. In the Same conversation, the mother asked the officer was she not going to take forward C’s allegations of inappropriate touching. The officer clarified what C was reporting was more that it was that his father had massaged his back low on his lower back and this made him feel uncomfortable. The officer clarified whether he had made an allegation of sexual assault to her or anyone else and she replied no. I find that record to be an accurate note. I find it shows the elision by the mother of touching which made C uncomfortable and sexually inappropriate touching otherwise I ask why would the mother raise the possibility of a police investigation. It also demonstrates that the mother and D must have been speaking about the allegations because the mother knows about D’s dreams and the father’s face on the assailant in some of those dreams. Within the chronology above, the theme of the dreams and her father’s face become a regular feature in therapy. By 26 September 2022 D is reported to have said that her dreams are getting worse. D did not go and see her father on 22 October 2022. The father asked the mother could he phone D. The mother said, D would text him, which she did. There is a text exchange in which the father makes reference to going slow. On behalf of the mother that is said to be an example of the father grooming D sexually. However it’s plain and obvious meaning is simply that the father will take building up contact with D slowly. On 22 October 2022 the mother alleges D advised that the father was raping her in dreams and said that her rapist was probably the father. On 24 October 2022 D had a session with Aimee Dover. The notes record that D misses her father at times but feels sad that the good did not outweigh the bad. She feels guilty about her father’s situation although wondering why she feels guilty when he puts himself in that situation. On 26 October 2022 DC B visited D at home to ask about the dreams involving the father. The mother was present. D spoke about the perpetrator of the alleged rape sometimes having her father’s face and sometimes no features. On 7 November 2022 D had another session with Ms Dover. D is reported to have told her that the recurring dreams are lasting longer and now include versions of real life events in which her father held her under water at a birthday party. On 12 November 2022 D attempted suicide. Two days later, as captured in the chronology above, the mother links the rape allegations to the father.

On 28 December 2022 the police decided to NFA the allegation of rape. On 25 January 2023 the mother emails the police to say that D has asked her questions about ejaculation. In her first interview D had said she did not know what this was and did not think it had happened. I draw from this that at home, D and her mother are continuing to speak about the allegation of rape. I find that over time, D’s account has changed from her rapist positively not being her father to a clear inference from the mother at least that it was the father.

On 17 June 2023 the mother filled in a form for a CAMHS assessment session with Ms MM. Within the referral the mother raises the possibility that the father is the rapist which is different from what the mother had told the police on 21 September 2022 (above). Within the session with Ms MM (set out in the chronology above), Ms MM asked her a leading question to which D nodded her assent. From that the father is identified as D’s perpetrator. Thereafter, when walking with her mother, D made a direct allegation of rape against her father.

D’s second ABE interview was on 22 August 2023. Before the interview the mother was asked if D had any mental health problems. Despite the significant history of mental ill health which the chronology above illustrates, the mother said no. In my judgment she should have told the police so that they could have made the appropriate adjustments to support D and facilitate her to give her best evidence. I agree with the submission of Ms Venters KC on behalf of the father that it is extraordinary that the mother did not tell them of D’s mental health problems. The mother was profoundly aware of D’s mental ill health. She had arranged for D to receive counselling from Ms Dover and was the CAMHS referral which eventually resulted in the trauma workshops which began in November 2023. In her oral evidence to this court DC B stated that the ABE interview would not have been conducted had the mother informed them of D’s mental health difficulties in advance. I accept her evidence on this issue.

Before the interview D says that she had spoken to Ms Dover about her allegations. Thus, intentionally or not, they had been rehearsed. The account given to Ms Dover is not recorded appropriately. The questions asked and answers given are not known. What cues D may or may not have picked up will now never be known. How the conversation with Ms Dover has impacted, if at all, on the ABE Interview cannot now be evaluated.

The accounts of the rape given by D in her 2022 and 2023 are detailed but are different to each other. What D said in her 2023 ABE is inconsistent with her account to her mother as initially described, her accounts to Ms Dover and her first ABE Interview. This is not, in my judgment, a case of an evolving and developing account of rape which become more detailed over time and differs in minor details. This is not an account which evolves with the detail staying essentially the Same but the perpetrator being named. The accounts given in the two interviews are significantly different and cannot be reconciled. I accept the submission on behalf of the father that there is nothing which enables this court to weigh which account, to which person at which time if any is reliable and credible. They all cannot be true.

I have looked at the evidence as a whole. I have traced D’s allegations against her father. I have come to the conclusion that D’s behaviours reflect her mother’s. I find that it is more than a coincidence that both the mother attempted suicide by walking into the sea and later D did too. The mother has made allegations against the father of sexually inappropriate behaviours and rape and D has too. I do not accept the submission on behalf of the father that the mother has deliberately manufactured this replication. However, I do find that D was living in a household in which her mother could not hide her distress and overshared her own allegations and mental health difficulties with her children. I find that D was suggestible and likely to be influenced by her mother. I find, on the basis of the evidence I have read and heard, that it is likely that her mother has had many conversations with D about her father and what she says he has done to her. Ms Dover has in a therapeutic context acted similarly. I find the repeated questioning and the return to the issues of the sexual allegations has rendered what D came to allege against her father unreliable.

Having seen and heard the father giving evidence, I find that he is an overtly and demonstrably affectionate person. I find that he is tactile. I factor into my evaluation of the evidence as a whole that in March 2021 the father was spoken to because of a complaint that he kept touching a female colleague. He was told to desist not least because of the Covid situation. I find that some of his actions are infantile and inappropriate. I find that assessment is made out on the basis of his School disciplinary record. In October 2021 colleagues at School X had observed him having close physical contact with pupils, including rough play with 7 year old, and letting them lie close to him and touch him. I accept that in April 2022 concerns were raised about his playing alongside children during a PE lesson. I find his use of the word retard and window licker were inappropriate and even if that is what the class called themselves, as the teacher and the authority figure he should have known better. However, I do not find any evidence within these examples of the father posing a sexual risk to children.

I take into account his account of his interaction with D to Mr W on 30 June 2022 (set out above). I find that in his conversation with Mr W, the father gave an honest account. He had been racking his brain to think about what D was referring to when she described touching that made her feel uncomfortable. In that context he mentioned the tucking his thumbs into her waist belt. He later retracted that because that was his assumption rather than his recollection. I accept that explanation. As his children grew, I find it likely that they did find his touching irritating and as D said to Ms Dover “uncomfortable”. I find that the only description of touching that could be perceived as sexual was the touching of D’s inner thigh which is recorded as having been said by D during a joint visit on 8 June 2022. I agree with the submission that the record kept on that date does not record the questions asked or answers given. It is thus unclear who raised the touching of her inner thigh. I also take into account that within this conversation D also recounts one of her mother’s friends touching her sexually inappropriately. That is an allegation which is not repeated, the friend becoming one of her father’s friends. Thus even within this one discussion there are issues about the reliability of the recording of D’s account and D’s own credibility.

I have considered whether the father groomed D, crossed healthy boundaries with her and whether he tried to and did engage in an inappropriate relationship and/or sexual relationship with D. Allegation 10 is said to be evidenced by the messages passing between the father and D, by the father’s lack of boundaries as scheduled in the closing submissions on behalf of the mother and the evidence as a whole. I disagree. I have considered carefully the messages disclosed within this hearing passing between the father and D which in closing submissions I am told on her behalf caused the mother to feel physically sick. It is said the messages taken as a whole and viewed in the context of the totality of the evidence are deeply concerning. I do not agree. I have read them as a whole and read and re-read the submissions made about them by Dr Proudman. I find that the fact that D in one message gives her father the finger and tells him to fuck off is in my judgment a response which many a parent might have, on an ad hoc basis, from a teenager. It is submitted on behalf of the mother that such language and behaviour is out of character for D. However, I have accepted P’s evidence which includes that on one occasion D had called P a dog.

In my judgment, having viewed the entirety of the messages, these are messages which fall within the band of reasonable parental communication between a daughter and a father. They are illustrative of a relaxed relationship and communication style between D and her father. The expression of love within the messages is not sinister. There is no sexual intention. I have come to that conclusion not simply on the basis of the messaging but on the basis of the evidence as a whole including the evolving allegations of sexually inappropriate touching and rape which D made against her father which I have already dealt with above. The mother may have chosen to speak (verbally or by messaging) to D differently and is, on the basis of her own evidence, unlikely to have expected D to communicate with her mother in the manner she communicated with her father but that does not elevate these messages to evidence of sexual grooming or inappropriate sexual boundaries between parent and child. They are simply different styles of communication. The messages have plain and ordinary meaning. I find that the intensity of the analysis of the messages by the mother and her reaction to them is illustrative of her overthinking and of her exaggerated responses. It is illustrative of her inferring sexual intention when none is actually present.

I have stood back and considered the evidence as a whole. Having done so, I find that the father has not groomed her sexually and that there is no evidence of a lack of appropriate boundaries between the father and D. I find that D’s account of sexually inappropriate touching by her father and her allegation that he raped her are not made out. Indeed I go further I find that they are the product of the inexpert handling of the allegations principally by Ms Dover and of the mother’s influence. I find that by the time D committed suicide she had come to believe that her father had raped her, an allegation I have found not made out.

I find that in the mother’s statement dated 12 January 2024 she states her true belief - I consider the Guardian and other professionals and the father are responsible for my daughter’s death. Having heard the father give evidence it is clear that he believes that the mother is responsible. I have already given my reasons for declining to extend the scope of the fact-finding hearing to include why D killed herself and who is responsible for her death. I set out their respective beliefs in this part of the judgment not to decide between them but to provide the context for what has happened after D’s death. In my judgment the actions of both parents in the immediate aftermath of D’s death must be seen in the context of intolerable grief and their respective belief systems.

I find that there was a delay in telling the father of D’s death. I find that he was not told by the police until the evening of D’s death. I find that upon being told he was distraught. I accept P’s evidence. I accept that he threatened to go around to the mother’s home. However, I find that with the support of P and his brother he desisted. I find that in the immediate aftermath of her death and in grief, the father did send messages to various members of the maternal family and her friends blaming them for not protecting D from the mother’s lies, as he put it, and for D’s death. I find that these messages were an expression of grief and in grief, anger, but they were not an attempt to coerce or control the mother. I find the text message sent by the CMS to the mother two weeks after D’s death was insensitive but that insensitivity is a product of a computer led system, not the father.

On 12 January 2024 the mother made an application at an out of hours hearing by telephone. The application was heard by Mr Justice Francis who made an order that:

In support of the application it was submitted on behalf of the mother by Dr Proudman that in the context of text messages the father had sent after D’s death, the father’s conduct with the mother’s Solicitor, coupled with the father’s setting out his intention by email that he seeks full custody or residence of E and accusing the mother of parental alienation and blaming her for D taking her own life that the mother felt under enormous pressure and felt coerced to agree to the father’s request to hold a separate and earlier funeral service. The funeral arrangements were actually negotiated through the Solicitors for the mother and father. I have before me the full chain of correspondence between the mother’s and father’s Solicitors in relation to the funeral arrangements. There is nothing within the correspondence which can properly be regarded as coercive or as an attempt to coerce or control the mother. In cross-examination the mother confirmed that the father had never contacted her or any of her family members directly about the funeral arrangements. It is in the records before me that the social worker on or about 12 January 2024 recorded: “The Mother spoke about the recent updates regarding D’s funeral her Solicitors shared the information of this with The Father and a separate ceremony has been arranged for The Father and his family on the morning of redacted date . The Mother spoke of “feeling guilty and like I have failed D by allowing this to happen”. The Mother reports to have made this decision following advice from her Solicitor that not complying ‘runs the risk of me being described as alienating’.” I find that that more accurately reflects what happened and I so find. I find that the mother did not directly or indirectly inform the father when D’s body was taken from the morgue or to which funeral director’s her body was taken. I find that the mother was in control of the decision making.

The manner in which the application was made to Mr Justice Francis out of hours is to be deprecated. I accept the timeline set out in the submissions on behalf of the father. It is as follows:

The father (and the child’s Solicitor) was served at 16.01. It appears from that chronology that he was put on notice of the application at least 90 minutes or so after Ms Tickle knew of it. Late notice to the father meant that he attended the hearing with little time to read the papers and self-represented. The father, like the mother, was in indescribable grief. The mother has been given every opportunity to file and serve a statement from herself and/or her Solicitors setting out why the application was made so late and why, in particular, the father was given so little notice. They were reasonable questions which required reasonable and detailed answers. In the circumstances, the only reasonable finding I can make on the balance of probabilities is that the father was served late to gain some litigation advantage. The late service meant that he received copies of D’s suicide notes 9 minutes before the hearing began. The late service in my judgment infringed the father’s Article 6 rights. The late hearing, which took two hours, effectively deprived the father of any right of appeal.

I am asked to find that the prohibition made by Mr Justice Francis was designed by the mother to alienate the children, C and E, yet further from their father. I do not agree. I consider it was an application borne out of grief and out of the firmly held, but erroneous belief, that the father raped D. I find however that C and E are likely to know that their father was not permitted an opportunity to pay his respects and hold a service for their sister. I find that is likely to reinforce their now negative image of their father the origin of which I have set out in detail in this judgment.

On 3 December 2024 I heard the mother’s restored application for a non-molestation order. In effect it was an application to prevent the father visiting D’s grave. I gave a brief written judgment in relation to that application which I dismissed as an order was unnecessary. I accepted the father’s assurance that he would not visit the grave without the prior written agreement of the mother. Since that hearing the father’s Solicitors have written to the mother’s Solicitors seeking her agreement to such a visit. Through Solicitor’s correspondence a visit was agreed and took place on 13 January 2025.

On behalf of the mother it is submitted that the father has engaged within this fact-find in litigation conduct which is described on her behalf as egregious. However, the application that D’s laptop be investigated was not in my judgment a fishing expedition. It arose out of the Guardian’s position statement in relation to outstanding evidence which included D’s laptop. That position statement reproduced, in so far as is relevant, and set out the basis upon which the disclosure was required. The application for the laptop to be produced was grounded in the disclosure that had been made by the police which established that it had been seized and investigated by the police but no download was available. The mother had stated that she had seen something of concern upon it. In those circumstances I accept the submission by Ms Venters KC that the application in relation to the laptop was focused and relevant. The application for a witness statement to be obtained from KK was an application properly made. The fact that I did not consider it necessary to obtain the statement does not mean that the application was unreasonable. KK and the part he played in the parents’ reasons for separating has been an issue before me. There was a good reason for seeking the statement, just as there was a good reason for me ruling in the context of all the evidence I had that I did not require it. Case management applications are made all day every day in the Family Court, where they are opposed the court rules and one side succeeds and the other does not. That is what happened here and that does not amount to unreasonable conduct. There is no evidence that the application was pursued to cause distress and anxiety. It was pursued because KK and his relationship with the mother was one of the issues in the case.

The application for the press to disclose who informed them of the hearing on 12 January 2024 was never formally made. Secondly full argument on it was never heard and thirdly, it was never determined. I suggested that rather than pursuing an application the information sought could be pursued in another way and that included by way of cross examination. However, as the hearing progressed, and as the issue of when the father was notified of the hearing on 12 January 2024 came into focus I made enquiries with the local Family Court and the Royal Courts of Justice to obtain the court file. The court file in the Royal Courts of Justice was disclosed and led to a timeline being established. At no point was any journalist put under any pressure to reveal their source, indeed I intervened to ensure that did not happen. What happened in this case is that information was obtained from proper sources which enabled a timeline to be established. That is not unreasonable litigation conduct.

Within these proceedings, the mother has alleged that the father has weaponised her mental ill health. I do not agree. Having read and heard all the evidence I find that what the father did was raise at appropriate points in the chronology his concern about the mother’s actions and presentation and the impact that was having on the children with social services and the police. He reported concerns about the SWIM video to the police because he was worried about how viewing that and, in D’s case, possibly participating in it would impact his children. I find that the father has shown over the years genuine concern for the mother and her mental health. That is the tone of his message to Ms Y in 2018. He went to look for her when in July 2019 she stated an intent to kill herself. The tone of his messages to the mother throughout the years has consistently been one of trying to understand and appease. However within these proceedings the allegation that the father weaponised the mother’s mental health against her has been made and the father has responded. Her mental health over the years has thus become a feature of this case.

The mother has attempted suicide as the chronology shows and suffered mental ill health. The mother has sought support from appropriate sources. The mother blames the father for her mental ill health and points to the allegations she and the children have made against him which she says have impacted on her. I have made findings in relation to those allegations above. I have found many of them not made out.

In response to the mother’s allegations, the father has asserted that the mother’s attempts at suicide have been to control and coerce him. I do not agree. I consider that they have their roots in the mother’s mental health and the reasons for her actions are likely to be more complex than the father asserts and are better dealt with by appropriately qualified mental health practitioners.

I now stand back and have considered all the evidence in the case and the findings I have made and have not made in this judgment. I have looked at the totality of the evidence for patterns of controlling and coercive control exerted by the father upon the mother. I have reminded myself of the insidious nature of emotional and psychological abuse and how it may have accumulative affect. I have reminded myself that abuse in whatever form may be intentional but that action and inactions can also be abusive even where there is no intent. Having done so, I have concluded that there is no pattern of controlling and coercive behaviour in this case which is attributable to the father.

I find that in this case the evolution of the children’s reaction and relationship with their father from the date of separation to date is instructive. It is set out in the chronology and has already been analysed by me. It is thus not repeated in detail here. I find that up to December 2019 all the children had a positive relationship with the father. By October 2020 D’s perception of her father as written in the records before the court has changed. In a School X record dated 8 October 2020 D is reporting that she feels she has to choose between her parents and that C gets angry a lot of the time as her father does. In the S47 assessment completed on 19 October 2020, after contact had been suspended in September 2020, C is reported to be ambivalent about contact with his father and D in the S17 assessment dated 11 November 2020 mentions that her father has done a lot of bad things and worries about his angry reactions. Despite that, D is also recorded to have said that she would be fine seeing him if she felt nothing would go wrong with him. The then CAFCASS guardian Former Guardian met with the children on 22 June 2021 at that time C stated “I asked C how he was finding the current arrangement? He said, “it is working for me, I like it, I do want to spend a bit more time with my mother, I enjoy it at home with her, it is more relaxing and it is close to my friends.” C said he felt the holidays should be shared between his parents…” In terms of the other comments and allegations made by C during this section 7 report, I note that C also said: “I have deliberately forgotten some of my childhood, I’ve blocked it out…” and “C said his mother has helped him remember things as he has grown older.” Within the Same report it is reported that : “I asked D about the current pattern of time she spent with each parent, she said “I am happy, it works well, I know I don’t want to spend any less time with dad, but also an extra night, like the Wednesday night on the alternate week would be a good idea.”…” I find that it is telling that the day the report was received by the parents the mother wrote a lengthy letter of complaint in an email to Former Guardian, asserting that C was afraid of the father’s reaction to the S7 report. After a conversation between C and his mother, C emailed his teacher in similar terms. The content of the email is different to what C is recorded as saying in School the day after the CAFCASS interview, namely that he was not afraid of how his dad would react to the interview but was concerned about the emotional pain this may cause.

I find it significant that when a social worker spoke to them about their father on 16 September 2021 their views about their father had dramatically changed. The full account is at Disclosure bundle 1776-77. It illustrates that by this point the children are making allegations against their father and speaking about him in negative terms. I take into account that this meeting with Former Guardian is about the Same time as their father moved in with P and they are likely to have been unsettled by that. However that does not in my judgment explain the very different way in which C and D speak about their father. The only conversation E had was about the turkey incident (see above). Former Guardian next saw the children in preparation for her report dated 22 October 2021. Former Guardian noted that D presented very differently from the first time they had met. C told her that he did not trust his father or his family. C felt the court should not make any order about him because of his age. Within his conversation with Former Guardian, C confirmed that he knew that the mother was alleging the father had been abusive to her. C stated that he wanted his father to destroy the recording he has of him saying I never gave permission for this recording. I was vulnerable when this recording was taken and I feel its abusive that it shown to people. That demonstrates that C was aware that the father was relying on the recording within court proceedings. In a message to his father C demanded that his father stopped relying on the Nest Cam footage or I am going to side with Mum. The likely source of that information about the recordings being before the court is the mother. It demonstrates the over involvement of C and probably the other children in court proceedings. I find that it is likely that this over sharing is continuing. That is why C is reported at the ICPC to have read the ICPC report and the coroner’s report.

On 15 November 2021, Former Guardian emailed the social worker, expressing very real concern about the mother’s actions and the drastic change in the children’s expressed wishes and feelings: “I wonder if you have time to chat with me about this case. I am very worried about the children’s emotional wellbeing, and increasingly concerned about mother’s actions. I think the father may withdraw his application due to the pressure he is feeling and the worries his has about D’s mental health (it is reported she is self harming). But this will leave the children without a relationship with their father and paternal family, which up to a few weeks ago they were telling me they wanted. D in her CDA assessment dated 10 May 2022 stated “Mum and dad divorced 2 years ago, dad “wasn’t nice to mum physically and emotionally”. Client feels confused and wants things to go back to the way things were when mum and dad were together but she understands mum’s position. Spends equal amount of time with both parents but wants her dad to understand how she feels. He’s not the easiest person to talk to, sometimes scared of him. She felt angry but doesn’t show it. Reads when she is angry. She is concerned about her older brother because he is angry and the situation. Client used to hear her mum cry at home and would hear her parents fight. Mum had anxiety and depression when married and had cancer. Parents are going to court before the summer holidays.” I find that Former Guardian was right to be concerned and to raise them again, as she did, on 14 June 2022. By September 2023 when C and D are seen by the social worker their views have hardened considerably. By November 2023, even E, is now saying he is not sure whether or not he wants to see their father. I find that over time that which the Guardian had been concerned about in November 2021 came to fruition. I accept the submission on behalf of the Guardian that by tracking through what the children said to professionals from July 2019 onwards and comparing that with the messaging that continued between the father and D and the father and C a significant disconnect can be seen. I have already found that the children were aware of the mother’s significant distress and upset at being parted from them and felt the need to take responsibility for her. The Nest Cam footage is evidence of that but it is only one example. I have already set out others above. I find that they were living with the mother who I have already found overshared with them her feelings, shared with C and probably D information about the court proceedings and exposed the children to her negative views of the father directly. I find that C is likely to have been aware of the mother’s social media postings, and I find that D is likely to have known of them too. As a consequence of these acts I find that the children, particularly C and D were impacted and their view of their father changed. I find that they became polarised and adopted their mother’s negative views of their father.

I find that when professionals such as Mr A and Former Guardian challenged the mother’s narrative by forming a view different to hers, their access to the children was restricted and stopped.

I find that the chronology I have set out at length demonstrates the escalation in the mother’s allegations against the father. I find that each time the police decided not to proceed with an allegation or an allegation(s) did not prevent contact going ahead, the allegations made by the mother escalated. I have already found that the chronology establishes a correlation between anticipated Children Act proceedings and D’s allegations against her father.

I find that over the years the mother has taken steps which have the effect of excluding the father from the children’s lives, particularly D’s life. He and the paternal family were not informed of D’s suicide attempt in November 2022 at the mother’s request. She instructed CAMHS not to share with the father the care plan drawn up in response. The mother asked that the father not be informed about the Tesco incident. In January 2023 the mother told the social worker that she had told C to block the father on the phone. The father was not informed that D was not being sent to School and was being Homeschool until July 2023. The father was prevented from having a funeral for D and now, because the mother will not agree, is prevented from visiting D’s grave. The father has been excluded from C and D’s life. He now plays no effective role in E’s life.

Having reviewed all the evidence over a very significant chronology I have concluded that C and D came to be resistant to and reluctant to see their father and have a relationship with him. That resistance and reluctance evolved overtime and is not as a justified reaction or consequence of the father’s actions and omissions but is as a result of the mother’s behaviours about which I have made findings in this judgment. I find that, as the chronology shows, E’s attitude towards his father has notably changed (see chronology) from positively wanting to see his father and being confused that he cannot see him to now being in alignment with his siblings. I find that that is likely to be as a consequence of the mother’s behaviours and the circumstance in which he lives. E has, when you view the chronology, suffered a number of significant adverse childhood experiences. I will on 2 May 2025 when this judgment is formally handed down, consider what directions need to be made to further E’s future welfare. In the meantime this judgment has been circulated in draft on 16 April 2025 to the parties and their lawyers. To enable the hearing on 2 May to be productive, I permit this draft to be shared with the parties and their lawyers. However it MUST not be published by anyone.

I will be grateful to receive suggested typographical, grammatical and other minor suggestions for amendment by close of play on 30 April 2025.

At the hearing on 2 May 2025 I will consider what directions are necessary to further the private law proceedings which relate to his Child Arrangements. I will also consider the ambit and remit of any publication of this judgment.

Ms Dover is invited to attend the hearing on 2 May 2025. Given the criticism made of her in this judgment, I will at that hearing consider whether she should be named in any published judgment. She should know of those criticisms, hence she may have a draft of this judgment BUT only that section which refers to her. That section of the judgment as disclosed to her must NOT be published. She is advised to seek legal advice.

That concludes this judgment.