Devon County Council v M & Ors

This is a Fact-Finding hearing that has been heard in the context of the welFare of Four children: E, now aged 15. Her mother is M and her Father F;

H, now aged just 9. Her mother is also M and her Father is F2;

K,is now 8; and J , she is now 9 months old. The mother of both is B and their Father is F2.

This Fact-Finding was prompted by the Fact that in April of this year H underwent a SARC examination. The results of that examination opined that H had experienced Full penetrative sex. At the time of the SARC examination H was living with her mother, M, in Exeter but spending each weekend with her father in B’s home in Devon. She had prior to that, For a period of about Four years, been living with her Father in B’s home in Devon and seeing her mother – For a period of two years living with her Father and seeing her mother when her mother spent Four nights and two days at the B’s home in Devon .

This has been a complex case and I consider that it is helpful to identify the individual parties and intervenors who have Featured as the main players in this Fact-Finding hearing. M is the First respondent and is a woman who was previously married to F. However, it is what has happened in her life since the starting of her relationship with F2 that has concerned this court. She is the mother of A, B, C, D, E and H. It is as a result of her action in seeking medical attention For H that a train of events occurred that has resulted in the various allegations being made.

B is the daughter of M and F. When she was 16 years old she conceived a baby with F2, her mother’s partner. When she was 24 years old, she again conceived a baby with F2 being the father. There is an issue between them as to how old she was when they First had sex but they are in agreement that they tried to keep the times that they had sex a secret From all, including M. B makes allegations against F2 of sexual and physical abuse and also allegations of sexual abuse against her brother, A.

F2 was the partner and Fiancé of M. He is now a man of 53. Since 2009 he has been part of M’s household, until February 2019 when M left him believing him to be in a continuing relationship with her elder daughter, B. He is the birth father of H with M and the birth father of K and J with B. He has taken on the role of stepfather of A, B, C, D and E. He faces allegations of physical abuse against all the children in the house and sexual abuse against B, E and H. He also faces allegations of grooming and coerciveness and control. He himself makes allegations that B sexually abused E.

A is the son of M and F. He has lived with the family as a whole and also with B when she was living apart from the rest of the family with her first baby, K. He has also lived apart from the family on his own and then with M and D and H. There is a limitation to his cognitive abilities but he was able to attend court and give instructions and give evidence. He faces allegations of sexual abuse made by B and E and also allegations brought by the local authority in relationto H. He alleges that F2 physically abused him. He is an intervenor.

D is A, B, C and E’s full brother. He continues to live with his mother, M, and his girlfriend, Chloe. He is not an intervenor. He gave evidence that although F2 was sometimes good to him; that F2 physically abused him over a number of years and was controlling. He gave evidence in court.

C is another of the brothers and he lives with his boyfriend away from his siblings. He gave evidence via video link and confirmed that he tries not to think of the times that they lived together because of the bad memories. He confirms that F2 was kind to him when he, C, came out as gay but he also makes allegations of sustained physical abuse and control at the hands of F2.

E is the daughter of M and F. She has made allegations against F2 and A. A Re W hearing decided that she would not give evidence. It is accepted by F2 that he acted in a sexually inappropriate way towards her when she was 13. She alleges much more extensive abuse of F2 against her.

F is the father of B, C, D and E. He has not been an active part of their lives for some time and was not around at the timing of these allegations.

For clarification, the parties at this hearing were as follows. Devon County Council is the local authority who seek the Findings. The respondents M, B, and F2, like the Local Authority are represented by junior and leading counsel. F is represented by His solicitor. The intervenor, A, is also represented by junior and leading counsel. H, K and J appear through their guardian who is represented by counsel and Ehas her own guardian represented by counsel.

It can be seen from the short thumbnail sketches above that this has been a complex case. The complexity is due to the serious nature of the allegations, the number of the allegations, the period of time over which the allegations cover, and the fact that there are eight parties in this case. When this case started, positive allegations of sexual abuse were being made against all of those parties. It is a case where the local authority say that there has been intergenerational and intrafamilial sexual abuse over a period of time, as well as physical abuse. The evidence base is extensive.

When considering this case, I need to consider in detail the evidence concerning each allegation that is made but I also need to consider the totality of the evidence. In doing so, it is helpful to see what was happening when alleged behaviour is said to have taken place. In order to show the fuller picture of what was being alleged to have taken place in this household as a whole, I propose now to set out the background facts.

M was married to F and they lived together with five children. A was the product of a previous relationship. In around the end of 2008, M and F separate. There has been evidence that both parties drank too much and this led to domestic violence. Although I have heard some evidence about this, I make no specific findings. It seems that it was accepted by both that there was an unhappy end to the relationship, which included M perceiving that she was under threat From F and feeling vulnerable and taking pills that meant she had to have a short visit in hospital.

What is accepted is that F2 met F first and through him became aware that F was married to M and that F and M had children. F2 accepts that he had seen B in the pub before the parents broke up and then aged 14, that she was likely to have been in her school uniform. His own evidence was that he saw M with a black eye and so ran back to M’s house and there he saw the children. It seems that His intention, which he did not carry out, was to confront F.

It seems that literally within days of her break-up with F1, M invited F2 to come to stay. She says that it was only to be for a few days and her intention was that as an ex-bouncer, F2 would act as a protector from F. As I say, I make no Findings that protection was needed. I just record that this is the agreed position of both F2 and M. Whatever the intention, when he moved in the relationship between M and F2 develops and he does not move out.

Within a short time F2 and M and the then five children moved to Northampton. According to B, there is an early indication that F2 is focused on her. She says in her statement that he is angry with her when he finds out that she has been out with friends. The detail of that is not agreed by F2 but it is accepted that very soon after he arrives, B runs away and lives with F1 for four weeks. It is clear that F2 wants her back home and, according to B, M asks her to return and talk to F2. F2 does agree that there is a discussion with B, that he reassures her that he is not like her father, F, that he is not a drinker but a family man. B comes home and it appears that those early days are good days for these children.

There is a common theme in their evidence that at first F2 was a good step-father but it is the evidence of all the boys that right from the start, F2 made it clear that there were rules and one of those rules were that the boys, all three boys, should not be left alone with any of the girls. It seems to be agreed evidence that A, who has a condition of ADHD, was at times not able to control His temper and would lash out. It is F2’s case that the only time he assaulted A was to restrain him when he, A, lashed out at M. This is not A’s recollection. He states that From an early time F2 would lash out at him without real excuse.

At this time, M’s own mother is able to visit more frequently but a big problem for the household is the issue of contact with F. F had started proceedings to see the children and M said that there were many times when contact was agreed but he did not turn up. I make no findings about that but for whatever the reason, the family moves to Birmingham. There are two addresses in Birmingham. The First was for a short while. According to B, it is apparent that F2 was feeling more confident as she says in her interview and in her statement that when she is 15, F2 asks her to show him her breasts. This is something that F2 has always denied.

In about 2010 the family moved to Birmingham. While the family live in Birmingham, M is pregnant by F2. At around this time B realises that her many changes of school have meant that she is unlikely to achieve good results and she accepts that she consequently comes to the decision that she wants to be a young mother, like M. She says that she approached a boyfriend to father the baby but that he did not agree.

It is B’s evidence that she would talk about the idea of getting pregnant without any continuing ties with a boy she knew and that F2, having overheard her, offered his services. It is F2’s evidence that she asked him to be the father of the baby and had to ask him three times. It is the evidence of both F2 and B that they kept their sexual relationship secret from M and initially from all the family. B says that they first started having sex when she was 15, about the summer of 2010. F2 has consistently said that he never had sex with her before she was 16.

H, the child of M and F2, is born in late 2010 and a month later, B is pregnant with K. There is an issue between B and F2 as to the extent that they continued to have sex after B conceived K. It is accepted by both that they put on an act for M when she is told about the pregnancy: F2 pretending to be horrified. After K is conceived, B says they continued to have regular sex. F2 has within these proceedings conceded that he did have sex with her a few times in the intervening years before they conceive K.

When H is about 6 months, F2 accepts that he head-butted M. At the start of this case he claimed that it was an accident but within this case accepts that he probably did it as a result of having been drinking that evening. The context of this assault is that it was difficult for either of them to settle baby H at night. M says that it is the one and only time that he assaulted her.

On 2^nd September 2011 B gives birth to K. There is a repeat allegation against F2 insofar as B says that the first time that he assaulted her was when she could not settle the baby and on her evidence, out of the blue F2 kicks B on the shins and tells her to get I to shut up. This is denied by F2. There is another incident concerning F2 meting out punishment concerning K. This is when he sees D throwing a rolled up sock at C when the latter was carrying I. F2 accepts that he slapped D on this occasion across the head.

F2 has family in Plymouth and is keen for his family, with M, to move. This is the impetus for the family to move to another village in, Devon. It is now about 2012 and there are now seven children in the family and F2, unbeknownst to all, is the birth Father of the younger two.

It is the evidence of M that this move coincided with a shift in the dynamic in the home. According to her, she says that F2 started to undermine her. She says that this took the form of criticising her cooking and putting her down in front of the children. The children would follow his lead and refuse to eat anything that she cooked. He then took over the cooking. Her viewpoint was that she was shouted at more than the children.

The view of D was that this move coincided with F2 physically abusing her. In his oral evidence and his statement, he refers to a violent episode on the part of F2 when he, D, could not learn how to tie his shoelaces. F2 accepts that he only hit D once when the latter threw a pair of socks at C but D says that from this time he was the subject of regular beatings.

B applies for a housing association property for herself and I. Her evidence was that F2 was not keen on this development but that when a property in a nearby village became available and she moves in, it is her evidence and that of A that F2 directs that A should move in with her. There is not complete agreement about how long just B and A were the only adults living in her property as the witness’ dates do not completely agree but there is no suggestion anywhere that B expressed any concern about feeling at all at risk about being the only adult with A. This is relevant when dealing with the specific allegations against him.

There is a change in 2014. There are accommodation problems for M and F2 and the other children which results in them being made homeless. The other change is that M starts paid employment outside the house which means that F2 takes on more responsibility for the children, including H. They are offered B&B accommodation in Exeter and although the children move to that accommodation, F2 starts to spend more time with B and within a short time, by July 2014, M, F2 and the children have moved in Full-time with B. This is a two bedroomed property now housing nine people.

C says that he spends only one year in that house. He says that he moves out in 2015 and straight in with his boyfriend. Others, such as A, remember that C lived with F2 house for a while before moving in with the boyfriend. It is clear that whatever time C spent with F2 made an impact on him to the extent that he does not like to think about his time there. In his statement he referred to the fact that F2 would not allow people to cry. C’s evidence was that if he saw you crying, F2 would say that he would give you something to cry about and would then beat you. F2 in his oral evidence, whereas he denies the beatings, accepted that he encouraged any crying. In tears, he said that it was because of his own experiences in his childhood.

The sleeping arrangements initially meant that M and F2 slept in the bedroom at the top of the house but by 2015, B has received a letter informing her that the number of people living there is a breach of her tenancy. Soon afterwards, M is offered B&B accommodation in and the family is soon then offered a house in Devon . It seems that throughout this period the children – that is E, H, K– remained with B and F2 as it was more convenient for schools but the evidence is that all is not well.

There are four separate incidents reported between October 2015 and May 2017 of H soiling herself at school. The entry of October 2015 refers to her being sore when she is being changed. It seems that it is realised by the family that if they do not move into the house being offered , that they will lose it. It is decided that A will move in and it makes sense for M to move in as well as it is nearer to her work and after C has moved out from B’s home, she is the only one producing an income and her work increases, so from this time she would stay at B’s home for four nights but two days. D does not move out of B’s home with M but remains until the end of the year. His evidence, which I accept, is that on a fishing trip F2 told him that he was K’s father but then threatened to beat him up if he told anyone.

It is the evidence of M that F2 was highly sexed and although she was now not sleeping with him each night, when she was there he would follow her up the stairs and have sex with her, indicating to her that he was very pleased to have sex with her rather than to masturbate as he had to do in her absence. M’s evidence was that when they were having regular sex – she says that it stopped in 2018, he in 2017 – that they would have anal sex about twice a week. F2 denies ever having or desiring to have anal sex.

When M was there, she would care for H but it was B’s oral evidence that in her absence she did most of the care for H and E. It is apparent that by the end of 2016 the only people living in B ‘s home were B, F2, D, E, K and H. How successful was this regime of care for the children? It is ironic that when E later vehemently says that she wants to stay with B and F2 rather than move to M, B believes that this is an indication that she has done something right. The reality is that both E and H were suffering.

The CPOMS notes of E’s school from this time suggest that she was giving concern. There was a suggestion of an inappropriate sexual suggestion to boys; of her possessing drugs and that her schoolwork was being neglected. The CPOMS suggest that the school had real difficulties trying to contact any carer to discuss the problems. From any view, E as a young girl, then 12 going on 13, was very vulnerable. If there had been a sexual predator in the home she had very little, if any, support system.

F2 accepts that some time in 2017 when E was 13, so that would have been after February 2017, he squeezed E’s buttock in a sexually inappropriate way and kissed her on the lips. He says that he immediately told B, who he had expected to get angry with him but had said nothing about it. He relies on this account for feeling that B had something over him. E’s account was that this hugging was just the start of a progression of sexualised behaviour and that it continued and developed into more regular kissing after she was 14. In 2017 H is wetting herself and by June 2017 H’s attendance at school is down.

In mid 2017, F2 has a heart attack. When F2 is discharged from hospital, he returns to live at B’s home claiming that he now can no longer climb the stairs to share a bed with M when she was there. He would now sleep in a big, black chair in the kitchen. B, F2 and M all agree that in order to help F2, B should sleep near him and this means sleeping in a camp bed in the same room as him. This sleeping arrangement would necessarily mean an enforced intimacy because of sleeping together in the same room. Of course for F2 and B themselves, this would not have been awkward as they were having sex together, as even on F2’s account they had had sex a few times between conceiving K in 2010 and July 2017. However, one can only wonder what on earth M was thinking in condoning a situation where her 23 year old daughter would sleep with her 51 year old Fiancé.

F2 had said in his evidence that between his heart attack in 2017 and his surgery in 2018, that he was in and out of hospital. No one has contested that with him. However, the evidence of B, who in her evidence complained about the continuing physical violence that she received from F2, says that there was only a difference in his presentation in the three weeks after the operation in 2018. She says that for those three weeks he was weak, that he did not hit her and that he was lovely.

F2’s account was that around the time of his heart problems and his operation, it was B more than anyone else who was there for him and on his own evidence, this is when he and B fell in love. For B, her evidence was that she had fallen in love with him years before when he first started having sex with her. There is evidence in B’s medical notes that by the end 2017, she wanted to try for another baby. F2 himself accepts that at that time he and B started trying for another baby.

In the end of 2017, a teacher at E’s school starts her CPOMS notes with the words, “Still think there is something odd with this family situation”. She notes that M, the mother, is uncontactable and F2 does not want to be contacted and has been very rude, that they never attend parental surgeries. In December 2017, E’s school is raising concerns about the situation in E’s home and is concerned to note that B and her child have taken F2’s name.

On B’s evidence, it has taken her some time to become pregnant on each occasion. On this occasion it took eight months, November 2017 until June 2018. F2’s evidence is that it was in 2017 that he stopped having sex with M, giving his heart problems as an excuse. M’s evidence is that she was having sex with him until December 2018 but it is of note that her oral evidence indicates that at that time she felt it was the last straw, that F2 and B were taking advantage of her by taking money from her account that she was saving to go to her father’s funeral. The evidence suggests that she was aware that there was an alliance between them of sorts.

In December 2017, H tells the school that her Dad is hitting her older teenage sister with a hitting stick. This is denied by E and in January 2018, the school notes its concerns about E and comments that her basic needs are not being met, such as being provided with food and getting to school.

In 2018, E is 14. In her first ABE interview she states that just after this birthday F2 was kissing her more than three or four times a week. Despite F2 informing the court that he had fallen in love with her, it is B’s evidence that after three weeks after his operation, which would be around April 2018, he had started hitting her again.

During this time in 2018 before B was pregnant there were, on F2’s account, three occasions, and on B’s account two occasions, when the two of them with E became involved in a sexual encounter. Although it was F2’s account that he was more of a voyeur, E says that there was one encounter which happened when B was heavily pregnant but all three accept that it was F2 who brought E to B for the encounter, although F2 says it was at the behest of B. After that incident F2 says that E came to him and repeatedly asked for him to have sex with her on her 15^th birthday but that he refused.

When F2 was arrested on 12^th April and informed that the allegation was penetrative sex with H, he told the arresting officer that it was a mistake for many reasons, which included that he had trouble achieving an erection. His evidence is that this problem stemmed from this time, that after the operation he suffered erectile dysfunction. B accepts that she was with F2 when he mentioned this concern of having erectile dysfunction with the doctor but claims that she herself had never seen any evidence of it.

In July 2018, B becomes pregnant with K. The emerging pregnancy bump is noticed by M but when she questions her about it, she is satisfied with B’s answer that it is due to stomach problems. There is an issue as to whether M should have known what was going on in this household but I am clear that she was not specifically informed by B about being pregnant with J until she was sent a text in February 2019.

In her ABE interview, E says that she first started having sex with F2 in around October/November 2018. It is of note that in November 2018 B is out of the house for a week as she is in hospital due to high blood pressure. This, affects her eyes and the court notes that she only tells M that she is in hospital because of her eyes, not because of her pregnancy.

The routine of this extended family continues with M staying in Exeter where she worked and spending days and nights when not working in B’s home in Devon. On Tuesdays she and B had the routine of doing the school run together but things are falling apart. On Thursday, 31^st January 2019 the school report that B has twice informed them that M has walked out on them on Tuesday. It is B’s evidence that this date is wrong and I accept this, as from phone records it would appear that all is still cordial between B and M until 4^th February and further it is the evidence of M that it is what happens on 4^th February that changes everything.

4^th February is a Monday. It becomes apparent that although M has not been told of the pregnancy, certainly H has because she tells M and then she asks M not to say anything. B is in the bath. M does not confront B but goes straight to see F2 and says, according to her police statement, asks “What the hell is going on? Why didn’t you tell me that B was pregnant?” She says that he replies, “It was meant to be a surprise for your birthday”. It is due on this birthday. This court has had to consider a vast amount of evidence but that comment, which I accept was made by F2, is just extraordinary. One wonders in what world he would have viewed the birth of B’s baby in the category of a surprise birthday present for M. However, he said something else which has a far greater impact on M. He says, “Are you accusing me of being the dad?” to which M replies, “Well, there is no one else”.

On Tuesday, 5^th February, bizarrely B, F2 and M have a day out in Paignton. It seems to be agreed that nothing is said. M’s evidence is that she wanted to discuss the news but that F2 and B just wanted to play on the arcades with money. It gives an insight to the dynamic between B, F2 and M that although M has grave suspicions as to what was going on between F2 and B when he was supposed to be her Fiancé, M says nothing.

By 10.24 am on 6^th February, M is contacting B For F2’s mobile phone number so as to sort things out. The response from B is extreme. She effectively goes into fight mode. She threatens M that if M takes the children off F2, that M will never see K or J, her unborn child. M’s response is also revealing. She says:

“All I wanted was his phone number but I’m not allowed it. We can't talk and sort things out between ourselves as we don’t have any privacy to talk and nobody thinks how I feel. I know he doesn’t love me, hasn’t done for a while but I still have feelings that I have to get over. We all need to be happy.”

For the court, this indicates the control, emotional control, that F2 has over M. She still has feelings for him but B is vitriolic against M, telling her that she is no mother to herself and that she will call the police if M takes H. This nasty exchange continues into the evening with B eventually confirming that not only is F2 the Father of her unborn baby but also the father of K. I am satisfied that it is after this exchange that B goes to the school asking for the school not to allow M to collect H. It is a direct consequence of this exchange that M does not see E or H for nearly two weeks.

Meanwhile on 7^th February, M starts her persistent attempt for the authorities to recognise that the children were at risk in F2’s household. She explains her worries to the school about the possible risk to E and H and a MASH referral is made. The consequence seems to be that E is kept off school. She does not attend school on the 13^th or 14^th February. M is now concerned that F2 is a physical risk to the children. She says that she has spoken to D who has told her that he has been hit by F2 with a shoe and a belt. In her evidence to this court, she says that she reports that H has also been bruised but she exaggerated this in order to get action.

On 19^th February M, at last, goes to the police and there is no doubt that she exaggerates the situation insofar because the police had the impression that F2 has, in fact, taken the children to B’s home in Devon from her rather than he is keeping them there. The police visit F2 and B and on their account speak to the children. They decide not to take any action, at which F2 burst into tears. The police informs M who now tells them of the reported violence. This visit seems to have settled B and F2 and when M arrives on 21^st February, they are able to negotiate that she could take H on the basis that H will have regular weekend contact with B and F2 but that E will stay with them, although they will encourage E to visit the M. On 26^th February, M tells H’s school that H is now living with her.

The first weekend of H’s weekend contact with F2 takes place but at the end of that day the school notes that H is very upset and does not want to go to see F2. She gives a lot of reasons: that K tells lies on her; that she is made to do chores; that he does not listen to her but she is so distressed that the school notice that she is struggling For breath. That first weekend, H is sick and B notices that her genitalia are very red. She asks F2 to mention it to M. It is of note that it is F2’s evidence that on at least two occasions during these weekend contacts, that H sleeps in the same room as him on a camp bed.

It is also of note that it is only once these contacts have started, that M becomes aware that the sleeping arrangements for E have changed within the B’s home in Devon home. H reports back to M that E is like Harry Potter in that she now sleeps under the stairs. This arrangement whereby a bed is placed for E under the stairs on the same floor as F2 is known to B but she believes that it was agreed by F2 and M but M says not.

It is also of note that it is the evidence of F2 that when he goes to E’s room to collect her for a sexual encounter with B, he goes to her in the under stairs room, where he says she is naked and ready and the court notes that it is E’s evidence that when this encounter happens, B is heavily pregnant. The evidence of E and M therefore seem to suggest that the timing of the sexual encounter between E, B and F2 is more likely to have taken place in February after M left.

On 4^th , Diana Yates the initial social worker, visits B and F2 to speak about the allegations of sexual risk and she arranges to see E on 4^th April. On 12^th , the school notes that E is very distressed, saying that M has said that she has to live with her when E wants to be with F2 and B. The school allow E to go back to B and F2. M is very upset. On the evening of that same day, M takes H to A&E because of concerns that she has a bladder infection. She is prescribed antibiotics and a urine sample is taken. On 15^th , H is again crying at school saying that she does not like being with daddy but wants to be with mummy.

At the time of the fourth weekend, on 22^nd , B says she notices bruising on the top of H’s thigh. She tells F2 about it. F2 says that he would not look at it because of its location on H’s body but tells B to report it. B does so. On 22^nd she contacts social services and tells them that she has noticed that H had fingerprint bruising to her inner thighs, bruising to her shin and elbow and that H had said that D had caused this as he keeps pulling and pushing her over. However, later when F2 is arrested, B talks of the bruising and says that she and F2 believe A had caused it. The routine continues.

On 4^th April, Diana Yates speaks to E at school. She says nothing to alarm Diana Yates but has a presentation of being closed and was of concern. E tells Diana Yates that she goes fishing sometimes and that B never goes out. On 9^th April, the GP asked M to bring H into the surgery as unusual bacteria had been grown on the urine sample. During the consultation she was informed about H’s soreness and examined her genitalia. She considered that the vaginal opening looked too large or a girl of her age. She spoke to Diana Yates and an urgent MASH referral was made.

A SARC examination takes place on 12^th April which suggests that sexual abuse, anally and vaginally, had taken place. That same day, F2 is arrested. From the bodycam footage of the arrest it is apparent that F2 is saying that the top bedroom is his room and that he sleeps there when, in fact, he sleeps in the kitchen. He says also that he has erectile dysfunction and he says to B, “Can't believe your mum has stooped so low”. F2 is taken to the police station but becomes ill and is taken to hospital.

B is taken to the court where the local authority explain that the SARC evidence suggests that H has been the victim of the worst category of penetrative abuse. The court determines that the children in B’s home need to be removed. There is no option but J, who was only 2 weeks old, has to stay with B but it is suggested that K will join H at home with M. B is obviously unhappy about that and says she believes that it is A who is living in M’s household who is responsible for the sexual abuse. She is invited to explain her concerns and says:

“I cannot have them in M’s house because the person that lives there is a concern. He’s also been… he has always been. He is the person who’s done this.”

She identifies him as A. She says that he has autism, that he has been in trouble for looking up under-age girls and talking to them but he is not, however, in trouble with the police. She says :

“We had a neighbour knock on our door before because he was messaging her young daughter who was 12 at the time and we raised concerns about A .”

The court notes that as J was to remain with her pending the court hearing on 17^th May, B gives an undertaking to the court not to communicate with F2 until the next hearing; F2, whose whereabouts were then unknown. She gave that undertaking. The interim care order was made on 17^th April and as a result of that order, all of the children were taken into care, although E for a time remained with M. On 18^th April there was a further court hearing to see if there was a mother and baby unit prepared to take B with baby.

On that day, Diana Yates was contacted by E whilst she was in court and E spoke to her of having sex with F2. Her ABE interview took place that same day and in the interview E mentions the progression of sexual contact with F2 and the fact that he had penetrative sex with her on three occasions. That same day, B found F2 in her home and the court has been told within these proceedings that they went off to Torquay for a weekend, putting the authorities off the scent by leaving F2’s car in the car park at a Railway Station in a different town.

E, H, K and J were all made subject to interim care orders. A full police investigation was rolled out and the following allegations were made as a result of the interviews: E stated that F2 had had sexual intercourse with her starting sexualising when she was 13; B said that F2 had sexual intercourse with her when she was 15; B said that F2 was violent to her and violent to E; E stated that F2 was violent to herself and B; K stated that F2 would physically assault herself and her full sister.

There are further allegations as a result of the statements. In A’s statement, he states that F2 hits him. In the statements of his brothers, they allege that F2 hit them. F2, in his statement, stated that B sexually abused E while he watched. B, in her statement, alleged that when she was 10 her full brother, A, was sexually inappropriate with her and there is a further statement, a further interview by E.

The Findings

As a result of all this evidence, the local authority seek a number of findings. The findings sought against M: that she either knew about the sexual and physical abuse of F2 against B or should have known and failed to protect her from it; that she either knew or should have known about the sexual and physical abuse of F2 against E or should have known about it and failed to protect her; that she repeatedly hit K. Her overall response is one of denying those allegations.

A summary of the Findings sought by the local authority against B is that: she either knew that F2 was sexually abusing E or should have known about it and failed to protect; that she knew that F2 was a violent man and failed to protect E from physical abuse; that she either knew or should have known that H was at risk of sexual abuse by F2 and failed to protect; that she should have known about H and K sleeping with F2 and failing to protect; that she knew or should have known about Hand K being physically assaulted by F2 and failed to protect. Her overall response is one of denying the allegations.

A summary of the findings sought against F2 are that in relation to B, who was a child in his care from the age of 14, that he was sexually abusive to her; that he sexually abused her, that he physically assaulted her, that he exerted abusive control over her.

In relation to E, who was a child in his care from the age of 4, that he sexually abused her by full sexual intercourse; that he physically assaulted E.

In relation to H, of whom he was her birth father, that he sexually abused her by full sexual intercourse, vaginally and anally; that he groomed and exercised inappropriate control over H and K; that he groomed them for sexual abuse; that he physically assaulted H and K; that he physically assaulted A , C and D.

The local authority seek Findings against A that in relation to E, his full sister, he sexually abused her.

That in relation to H, His half, he sexually abused her.

That in relation to B, he acted in a sexually inappropriate way. His overall response is one of denying those allegations.

The Law.

I now propose to deal with the law. I am most grateful to counsel for providing a full analysis of the appropriate law. I adopt that. However, for the purposes of this judgment, I summarise the following. In determining this, I remind myself that first of all the burden of proof lies on the local authority. The Local Authority has accepted that even with regard to the allegations that F2 has made with regard to the sexual encounter between himself and B, that they adopt the responsibility for all of these allegations and that the burden of proof lies with them, the local authority.

The standard of proof the Local Authority has to achieve is the balance of probabilities. If the local authority proves on the balance of probabilities that the injuries were inflicted, then this court will treat that as a fact established and all future decisions concerning the future will be based on the findings that that fact happened. Equally, if the local authority fail to prove any of the allegations, the court will disregard the allegations completely. That summarises what Lord Hoffmann says in Re B as follows:

“If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (that is a fact in issue), a judge must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are 0 and 1.”

Findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence. As Munby LJ, as he then was, observed in Re A (A Child) (Fact Finding Hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12:

“It is an elementary proposition that Findings of Fact must be based on evidence (including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence) and not on suspicion or speculation.”

Further, when considering cases of suspected child abuse, the court must take into account all the evidence and, Furthermore, consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. As Dame Butler-Sloss, then President, observed in Re T [2004] EWCA Civ:

“Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases has to have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put Forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof.”

The roles of the court and the expert are distinct. It is the court that is in the position to weigh up expert evidence against other evidence (see A County Council v K, D and L [2005] EWHC 144). Thus, there may be cases iF the medical evidence is that there is nothing diagnostic of non-accidental injury where a judge, having considered all the evidence, reaches the conclusion at variance from that reached from the medical experts.

Further, in assessing the expert evidence, I bear in mind that cases involving allegations of shaking and involve Multidisciplinary analysis of the medical information conducted by a group of specialists, each bringing their own expertise to bear on the problem, the court must be careful to ensure that each expert keeps within the bounds of their own expertise and deFers where appropriate to the expertise of others.

Next, the evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. They must have the fullest opportunity to take part in the hearing and the court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence and the impression it forms on them (see Re W and another (Non-accidental Injury) [2003] FCR 346).

Further, it is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie For many reasons such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, Fear and distress and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything. That is the Lucas direction. Further, that as observed by Dame Butler-Sloss, then President, in Re U, Re B (Supra):

“The judge in care proceedings must never forget that today’s medical certainty may be discarded by the next generation of experts and that scientific research may throw a light into corners that are at present dark.”

I remind myself also that there is no pseudo-burden upon a parent to come up with explanation for anything and further, and finally, when seeking to identify perpetrators of non-accidental injuries, the test of whether a particular person is in the pool of possible perpetrators is whether there is a likelihood or a real possibility that he or she was the perpetrator. That is North Yorkshire County Council v SA [2003] 2 FLR 849.

In order to make a finding that a particular person was the perpetrator of non-accidental injury, the court must be satisfied on the balance of probabilities. It is always desirable, where possible, for the perpetrator of non-accidental injury to be identified both in the public interest and in the interest of the child. Although where it is impossible for a judge to find on the balance of probabilities, for example that parent A rather than parent B caused the injury, then neither can be excluded From the pool and the judge should not strain to do so. That is Re D (Children) [2009] 2 FLR and Re S-B (Children) [2010] 1 FLR.

This case is fact-rich. The allegations cover significant periods of time. Much evidence has had to be read and heard.

The evidence is set out in 24 lever arch files. The documentary evidence includes: the statements of the parties and the intervenors; police logs and transcripts of the interviews; telephone downloads of M, B and F2 and texts to and from those phones; social work notes, I have read every document that I have been taken to and more; foster care logs of E, H, K; medical records; school CPOMS records from E’s school, and also from H’s school.

I have also viewed the videos of the interviews: two from E, two from B and one of F2. I viewed footage from the bodycam when he was arrested; of the CCTV of F2 making a gesture in the street on 7^th May; of the private CCTV footage provided by the friend of B, showing F2 with B in May 2019. I have also read the opening note and the chronology on behalf of the local authority, together with the consolidated schedule which sets out the evidence and I am very grateful for all the written submissions.

I have heard oral evidence from: Dr Hobbs, consultant paediatrician; C ; a friend of B; t; D; DC Bolt; the family practitioner; Diana Yates the initial social worker; B; M; F2; A . Reminding myself of Re W above that I should form a clear assessment of the credibility and reliability of the parents and carers of the children, I identify those individuals as follows: M, F2, B. I did not hear from F and although represented he has taken no active part in this Fact-Find.

M

I start with my assessment of M. Her presentation was loud and excitable. It is apparent from listening to M that she does not live in a world of suggestion and nuance and reflection. She sometimes embarks on a course of behaviour without properly considering the consequences. This was most apparent when hearing of the breakdown of her marriage to F and the speed with which F2 was allowed to stay and become a permanent feature of her family. The breakdown of her family involved F going of with a friend. M took pills and had to go to hospital for a short while. There can be no doubt that she was feeling low.

M’s immediate problem was that she was worried about the domestic abuse at the hands of F and she asked F2 to stay in order to have a man about the house but she looked no further than that. She told the court that F2 had previously gone out with someone that she knew and that there were good reports on him. I do not accept that any such reports were properly scrutinised by M. She was, in my view, just pleased that a man was interested in her and that he wanted to be part of her family. She was vulnerable and weak at the time that F2 came into her life.

Within this court case, there have been telephone downloads of the phones of M, F2, B and E. It is of note that of all these individuals, it is only M that has not deleted any of her messages. That fact suggests an openness that this court has noticed in her evidence. M’s viewpoint is that F2 has come into her family and abused his position and, worst of all, has forced himself on their 9 year old daughter. One can only imagine her resentment, yet when the issue of F2’s violence has been raised, in the full knowledge that the evidence of all of her children, save H, is that F2 physically abused them, she has been very restrained in her own accusations of physical abuse by him, referring only to one occasion when he head-butted her.

Her whole presentation does not have the air of someone who is prosecuting this case against him at all costs. It supports the view that there is an integrity to her evidence. The court also reminds itself that when M says that she was made aware that F2 was, in fact, the father of K, M went to the school, the local authority, the police, the Citizens Advice Bureau and the social workers in order to raise the alarm that she considered both H and E were at risk.

A key bit of evidence that M provides is that F2 was keen on anal sex. It becomes relevant in this case as the penetrative injuries that H suffered included, on the medical evidence, probably repeated anal penetration. When she was asked about it, she said that F2 asked for anal sex, that it was uncomfortable for her the first time but that F2 told her that it was usually uncomfortable For the first time so she tried it again. The court asked her how that second time went. Her response was, “It was Fine”. Here again was an opportunity for her to stress the discomfort in order to underline that F2 was pressuring her to do something that she did not want to do but, no, she just smiled and said it was all right.

Her evidence was convincing. It would be a very sopor a witness to underplay such evidence. I am satisfied that M is not a sophisticated witness. She sees things in black and white. The view of this court is that to a great extent, M is a reliable witness and her evidence is credible.

F2

A number of inconsistencies occurred in His evidence. He confirmed that in only one of his three previous relationships did he suffer domestic abuse, yet to Dr Asekun, the psychologist, it is noted that he had reported that he had said that all three had bullied him. His account of that mismatch of facts was that Dr Asekun could not understand him. Another example of is his claim that Dr Asekun misunderstood him is when he noted that F2 said that he used his belt. Another example is the fact that he had told medical staff that he was an army veteran, having been in the Forces for nine years when, in fact, he was in the part-time army.

In answering questions of the local authority, he accepted that E loved him and wanted to get back with him but only on the basis of her viewing him as a Father, yet in his evidence he confirmed that he had told Dr Asekun that E had approached him to have sex with her, therefore accepting that E did not, in fact, see him as a father-figure. In his oral evidence, he maintained that he refused E’s request to have sex with him as it did not appeal to him and that he knew that he had done wrong in having sex with B and he did not want to go there again. However, Dr Asekun reports him as saying that F2 had said that he probably would have had sex with E if she was 16, therefore indicating that sex with E had appealed to him. Further, he said that he had not shed a tear since he was 14, yet the police note of their visit on 19^th February was that he burst into tears in relief.

Although he has had the same opportunity as everyone else to provide statements to the court, there were occasions when he changed the evidence. Firstly, in his interview he said he had only had sex with B on two occasions in order to get her pregnant with the baby that was K. However, within this hearing he accepted he had had sex with her a few times after that. Secondly, in his statement he denied head-butting M on purpose but by the end of his evidence he accepted that it may have happened as a result of his drinking.

There were also times when he gave significant evidence that he had not included at all in his statements. I refer to three examples of this : First: His evidence that unbeknownst to the court and during the occupation order, he had spent the Easter weekend with B in a hotel in Torquay. Second: that as a result of informing B that he had groped E’s bottom in 2017, he understood that B had something over him and that consequently he had no option but to do her bidding. The example of how he says he did her bidding was when he says that on B’s instruction he got E From her room to bring her to B so that the two girls could engage in sexual intercourse. Third: His evidence of the sexual encounter between E and B was that it was apparent that it was not the first encounter between them.

It is of note that on two occasions he got completely confused in his evidence. For example, when he was giving evidence about how he came to grope and kiss E, he gave as an explanation of why E wanted the encounter was that she had got the attention from one and now she wanted it from another. What he meant was that as she had had a sexual encounter with B, now she wanted it with him but, of course, on F2’s case the time that he says that he groped and kissed E was well before the sexual encounter between E and B rather than after it. When this was pointed out to him, he said, “I jumped the gun”. I believe that he was trying to say that he was confused but he was, in fact, of course on oath and giving a context to the groping and kissing incident. Because the timing makes the explanation impossible, the only inference that can be drawn is that he was making it up. My concern is that he was trying to give the evidence his own spin.

More than once F2 said that he was ” thick”, indicating that he was stupid. I do not accept that. A plan of leaving a car at Crediton Station to put the authorities off the scent that he was with B is not the act of a stupid man. My impression was a man who at times was thinking on his feet. His case before the court was that he accepts he has done some wrong, that is by having a sexual relationship with B when he was acting in a parental role to her and, secondly, by groping E’s bottom and observing her with B.

He said that he was now prepared to go to prison for what he had done. He kept saying that he had nothing to lose, he had lost everything. I believe that he was suggesting that there was therefore no need now for him to lie or mislead the court because he had nothing to lose. I do not accept his statement. He has a great deal to lose if a finding is made against him that he had penetrative sex with his own birth daughter. Such a finding would have significant consequences upon how he is able to lead his life and I am quite clear that F2 was well aware of that.

F2 held at least two secrets about B, that B thought he would keep secret. One was about the fact of their Easter weekend together and the second was about the sexual encounter with her sister. The latter, B suggests he held over her as a threat and disclosed as late as September. The former, he revealed after his statement so that it could be used to be put to B within her evidence thus placing B on the back foot within the court proceedings. Both incidents suggest someone who has not been completely open throughout the court process. My overall impression of F2 with reference to the exaggeration and the inconsistencies is someone who was trying to control the impact of the evidence and the court process and therefore has questionable reliability or credibility.

B

There can be no doubt that in the process of becoming pregnant by a much older man, B was very much the victim even on the account of F2. From the very start of these proceedings, this court recognised that fact and articulated its concern that although arrested, F2 would be likely to seek her out and that in the context of a pending Fact-Finding, it would not be in her interest to go back with him.

It was against that concern that when B made an application for an occupation order in order to keep F2 away from the property, that an occupation order was made. However, it is apparent that B has been misleading her legal team and the court. The same day that the occupation order was served on F2 she was back with him, sharing the house together. The account that she gives is that she could not leave him, that he had her phone, that she was frightened he might commit suicide. The evidence of F2 is that she just did not want him to go.

My view is that for B, her dilemma has been that she continues in this same limbo even today. There have been obvious times when she has tried to walk away from him, possibly the time of her first interview, definitely at the time of her second interview when she seemed to want to give every possible detail of when F2 had been violent against her. She has told the court that he does not care who he destroys to save his own skin.

It appears that B is still going through a learning curve in finding out the ends that F2 will go to in getting his own way. I am quite clear that B had no idea that F2 would inform his legal team that they spent Easter together and without advance warning B was seen to lie. I am also satisfied that B never thought that F2 would reveal her sexual encounter with E and I am satisfied that B was completely unaware that F2 was going to present her to the court as holding some power over him as a result of knowing that he had groped E’s bottom and kissed her but this court has real concerns as to whether she has been fully truthful.

She has told of the fact that F2 had sex with her when she was 15, she has told of his violence but what she has not done is put F2 in the frame for H’s abuse. Her evidence, which, if believed, would help F2, is her evidence that he was never interested in anal sex. This is at complete odds with the evidence of M. Whether or not F2 abused H, this court finds it odd that B’s evidence is so opposite to M’s. This court has already indicated that it finds M a generally credible witness and it prefers M’s evidence on this point.

The court is concerned that whatever the evidence, B does not want F2 to be found to be the perpetrator of the abuse on H as although B is currently in a relationship with someone else, she has still not been able to lose her wish or the hold that F2 has over her. This continuing link, misguided loyalty, makes the court question her credibility and the reliability of some of her evidence.

The schedule seeks findings against F2 as physically abusing B, E, A, D, C and H. In the context of allegations of physical abuse against F2, I look first at what is known of his history. His account to Dr Asekun of his childhood makes for very sad reading. He says that he was emotionally and physically abused. He was composed through giving much of his evidence but he was obviously very affected when asked to confirm the facts of his childhood. His GP records state that in September 1989 he was referred to counselling as he had diFFiculty controlling His temper.

F2’s position is that he accepts that he hit the children. In his police interview of 28^th May when he is asked as to what a good parent should be, he says:

“Punish them if they're wrong, but don’t hit them, which I did do. Which was wrong of me.”

The children brought up in the home with F2 say that he hit them a lot but within his interview he paints a very different picture. He denies hitting E. In his interview, he says he only hit B once, that post his operation in February 2018 he never touched any of them, M, E, B, or the boys as he was too weak.

By his statement of 23^rd September, he said that concerning D, he only hit him once when he threw a sock at C who was carrying K. He said that he had hit A twice when he lashed out the girls or M, including once in Northampton when A had kicked M and once in B’s home in Devon. He said that he had hit C once when he slapped him when C had landed a carp without using a landing net. He denies hitting H or K. By the time of giving his oral evidence, he accepted that he had hit B a Few times.

The first suggestion from one of the children that this was a household where there was a lot of physical violence comes From H on 11^th December. She tells the school that:

“F2 has been hitting her older teenage sister, who is E, with a hitting stick last night. She says that E is regularly hit with a stick because she is really naughty. She says she and I don’t get hit because daddy loves us.”

E is spoken to by the school about this on 25^th February and she denies being hit with a hitting stick but also cannot remember how she got the bruise that she then has on her face.

At the time of this interview, E is living with F2 and B. On 18^th April, she speaks to Diana Yates. There has been criticism of Diana Yates concerning her note taking but concerning this issue, that of physical violence, there seems to have been consistency. The handwritten note of the interview with E concerning physical abuse was as follows:

“F2 used to hit us quite a bit and moan when I was getting into trouble with school about twelve months ago. F2 tried to quit smoking and he hit us more, that he hit B, C, A, D and E.”

At F233, the case note of Diana Yates refers to “today” and so, therefore, on 18^th April she notes that E has said to her:

“F2 hits us often. It started when I got into trouble at school. I think it was worse when he stopped smoking, that when she said ‘F2 hit us’ she means C, A,B and D.”

And Diana Yates repeats this account of what she was told by E on 18^th April in her statement of 13^th May.

In E’s First ABE interview of 18^th April, she says, “F2 will sometimes hit, then he could be really nice the next minute”. My observation of E in this interview is that she was a reluctant reporter. For much of it she was sitting on her hands. The account had to be dragged out of her. I did not get the impression that she was willingly reporting on F2. It was reluctant and, as such, it was more believable.

In her evidence in her second interview of 15^th September, her presentation was different. At this time, she had been in foster care for some time. She seemed more relaxed. However, it is of note that at the moment she starts talking about F2 hitting her, she becomes distressed.

The court knows from the foster care notes that soon after this interview, she says that she is regretful of saying anything against F2 as she misses him and still loves him. It is difficult to see in the context of those feelings that she was expressing, that she was fabricating this evidence. It is to be noted that she expressed regret that she had spoken about sex with F2 as she has only done so in the hope of getting the children back with their mothers. At the time of the second interview, however, she can have had no hope that the children would, as a consequence of her interview, be reunited with their mothers. I therefore dismiss that as a motive for her giving the account that she does of F2’s violence towards her.

In her second interview she describes that she was in the caravan bedroom, that they were packing ready to go home and because the night before she did not wash the tray properly, when he pulled it out he told her off. She was asked how and she replied:

“He just hit me.

Did he say anything?

Just told me not to lie to him, that I should have washed it.

How did he hit you?

Just whacked me around the head.

Do you remember what he used to whack you around the head?

Just his hand.”

When she was asked what happened after he hit her, she says:

“Then he just got in the car. We got told to go in the car and it just drove off. I had a bruise on my cheek but I told everyone I fell down the stairs.”

She says it was not long before K’s 6^th birthday, so E would have been 13.

When asked about whether there were other occasions, E just shrugs and says, “Just whenever I wasn’t doing anything properly”. When she is asked, “What was the first occasion you remember?” she says, “There were loads of them. I can't remember”. She remembers the caravan one because she said B was watching. When asked when he started hurting her, amidst a shrug of her shoulders that peppers most of her interview, she says:

“I remember one time when I was having a tantrum because I couldn’t sleep and it wasn’t dark enough in the room so he just threw me on the bed. It was in the second Birmingham house.”

And when asked, “How long does it go on for?” she said, “Quite a while”. I Find her evidence clear and with context. It was not from someone who appeared to be prosecuting her case. It is said with reluctance and with sobs. It appears credible.

What of her siblings? I have read what K’s foster carer has noted and I remind myself that there is no statement of truth alongside these recordings, so they do not have as much weight but they are still of relevance:

“K says daddy punched her on her arms and back and pulled her hair really hard and shouted at her a lot, that he also did this to H and E and had been really mean to the boys.”

So this comment, as well as chiming with those of the other siblings, mentions that she and H are also included in the hitting and she says:

“And daddy had made her promise something, that if she told anyone mummy would get hurt and she wouldn’t ever be able to live with mummy again.”

This comment chimes with the threat that E says F2 made to her in the context of her allegations of sexual abuse against F2 when she says that F2 threatened her that if she told anyone, the young children would not see him and therefore be upset. K continues:

“She says that daddy punched her on the back and arms and this made bruises that the children at school had teased her about as they saw them when she was changing For swimming.”

Here, the fact that she refers to the children being nasty to her because of the bruising makes these allegations more credible. However, the court needs to balance this with the statement of H when she expresses worry about E. She says she and K“don’t get hit because daddy loves us”.

The court, however, also notices that it was the understanding of B and F2 that F2 treated the girls, that is K and H, differently. However, it is apparent from B’s evidence that she had no idea that F2 had made K promise to be quiet about something under threat that she, her mummy, would get hurt. The court considers it was a revelation to B, part of the process that she is going through when realising what F2 might do.

I note that K says at U11 that “everyone in the house was scared of Daddy” and she wants to hit him. K says at U15 again, Daddy was mean to everyone, she just wants to hit him. I also read the following note. It is noted on 11^th August:

“K decided to tell me in the car about an incident when they all went fishing with her family and her dad threatened E with a hammer and K was recalling how scary this was.”

K speaks about this in her ABE interview of 2^nd October. I have seen the video recording more than once. My view was that she came across as a bright, interested, articulate, little girl. Her account was consistent with what she said to her Foster carer:

“She said when in the house, she was sad, ‘My daddy would also kick my mum and also when we went fishing, then also my dad put a hammer to E’s throat.’

She says,

‘I don’t know why he did it. I think because E had done something wrong and didn’t put something else properly. I think he was threatening her.’

She is able to give context as to when it happened and where she was when she saw it happen. She says they were just fishing,

‘And E was putting like making the rod out and then I think E done something wrong for the rod, so then she just had the hammer up her throat. Well, not up it but on the throat, that he was really mean to her.’

She says,

‘Was in the fishing shed, then also my dad pulled E into the shed and then he did it.’”

I find this evidence credible. From the history, I am satisfied that of all the children, K was the favoured. She was F2’s child, she was bright but I am satisfied that even she could see the unfairness of the violence that was occurring, not only to E but to herself, to B, to H.

I heard From C. He is a full sibling of E. In his statement of 8^th August, he also refers to the two sides of F2. He states at paragraph 5:

“I always felt I had a good relationship with F2. He was understanding when I came out as gay and felt able to confide in him.”

Then at paragraph 6 he says:

“Despite all this, he regularly used physical chastisement on B, D and I if we were naughty. There was always one of us on any day that could annoy or wind him up and resulting in him hitting us. It could be prodding, hitting, or a slap. He would punch me to the chest to wind me and then when I struggled to breathe, he would talk calmly to me saying, ‘Keep breathing.’”

He said that he lived in B’s home in Devon For about a year but M never seemed to be in the same room when he was hit, that the house was small and so if you were upstairs you could hear F2 raise his voice downstairs and the slap hitting and, on occasions, D crying and he would be told to go upstairs and wash his Face. F2 would say if you cried, “I’ll give you something to cry about.” In his oral evidence he confirmed that if you were on the middle floor you could hear clearly what was happening but not so clearly – this is what was happening on the ground floor but not so clearly if you were on the top Floor. That when F2 would say, “I’ll give you something to cry about,” he would then beat you. He also described that he would be able to feel the atmosphere in the house of everyone being quiet in case F2 would suddenly erupt; of everyone trying to keep out of F2’s way.

This oral evidence from a young man via a video link was very compelling. He had memories, he said, of life with his family that were awful. When I asked about this, what he recalled as being so awful, he said the beatings from F2 and the mental put downs from M. It was put to him that he had received a message from M out of the blue and that that message was suggesting that he should support M. I do not accept that he was giving evidence to support anyone. The fact is that he feels badly done by by both F2 and M. I am satisfied by the fact that he is still able to credit F2 with being sympathetic to him when he came out as gay, that he is still able to see the good in him. It is not suggestive of someone who is fabricating or exaggerating evidence to do harm to F2; rather, that he can see the good and the bad in him but the bad including the beatings that he suffered.

I heard evidence from D. He is a full sibling of E. D in His statement of 12^th July set out statements of when he says F2 would hit him. He, like C, also gave an account that F2 could be nice one minute and aggressive the next. It was put to him that his statement was incorrect at C78 where he stated that F2 hit him regularly. It was put to him that F2 only hit him once when he, D, threw a rolled up sock at C who was at the time holding K. He accepted that that incident had happened but that it was one of many occasions.

It was put to him that his statement that F2 whacked him in the face with one of his shoes did not happen. D then gave an account of how, when F2 was trying to teach him to tie his shoe laces and D could not do it, that F2 grabbed him by the throat, slammed him against the bathroom door, spat in his Face and head-butted him, calling him a waste of space like his own Father, F1. He said that F2 would often say that he was like F and that F was a waste of space. He said that F2 carried on punching him in the stomach and that C then came to help.

I note that this incident of being hit in the face by a shoe was information that M gives the school as early as 12^th April, saying that she had just been told by D that he had been physically assaulted by F2. There is a consistency within his report of F2’s view of F and I note especially that F2 was disparaging about F in His interview, referring to him as a loser. There was a certainty and a clarity to this young man’s evidence. The context of the evidence adds credibility to his account. Why would a young man create a lie based on the fact at 14 he still could not tie his shoe laces, something that might be embarrassing to bring to public attention unless it was true? Further, the context he describes is consistent with someone becoming frustrated with him because he was not learning quickly enough. It is likely that anyone who is prone to lose their temper and hit him might do so in those circumstances.

When it was put to him that he wanted to change his name to the surname of F2 so that it was the same as F2, he said that he accepted that he had proposed that because he had hoped that it would please F2 and that F2 would start treating him like a son rather than a punch bag. He kept repeating, “I was scared of him”. I found this evidence very compellable. This was not a confident, young man. He presents in a modest way. He accepted that he struggles with his reading. I accepted his evidence. I noted that in his statement he said that it was only since these proceedings having been issued that he has had the opportunity to consider the other evidence filed and come to the conclusion that F2 physically abused not only himself D, but also A, C and B. This chimes with the evidence of B and M.

I note the evidence of A of 15^th May in his interview. At the time of this interview, his communication problems had not been identified but he had an appropriate adult with him and when asked about F2, his first response was that he was his step-dad and he did not want to say much more about this. This reluctance to speak about F2 is not consistent with someone making false, gratuitous allegations. When asked, he said, “I just don’t like him,” again not forthcoming and then when asked how he was, again he had positives to say. He said he was quite good for a while and helped him to calm down with ADHD, so again A is not pushing his accusations. A then has to be prompted, so it is after a number of prompts that A finally says, “He used to hit us as well”.

In his first statement of 8^th July, he says, “F2 used to hit all of us but I never saw him hit H or K”. Again, this is consistent with his brothers. He said, “If you didn’t do things his way, he hit you”. In his final statement of 3^rd October, he said it is true that F2 hit him and that it began a couple of months into his relationship with his mother. In his oral evidence, he said that F2 gave him a black eye and punched him more than once on his chest. He also said that “mum was angry quite a lot because he hit all of us,” but also said that he did not know that F2 was beating C or D.

Turning now to B’s evidence, the first time that B makes mentions of F2 being physically violent is in her first interview. She says:

“He first hit me after K was born because she was crying in the night and I couldn’t shut her up, so he came in, kicked me in the shins and he told me to shut her up because he wanted to sleep and that’s when the abuse started happening and it just slowly got worse.”

Later in B’s interview she remembers that it happened at Birmingham. I note that this account chimes with the evidence of M. M’s evidence is that she did not know that F2 was a violent man and that she says he only assaulted her once. The occasion she refers to is when H is only a Few months old, that H was hard to settle and that F2 took H From M. Her evidence was that he was trying to Force the teat of the bottle into H’s mouth and that she took H from him, that he knelt up on the bed and head-butted her. As I have said, at the start of His evidence F2 claimed this was an accident. By the end, he was saying he had some drink that night and could not say if it was deliberate or not. The similar facts between this incident and that of B’s adds credibility to B’s account.

B goes on to say in her interview, “As time went on, he just got angrier and more violent and then slaps led to punches. I don’t know why,” that she had black eyes from him, that her mother, M, never asked, that when the Family moved the violence got worse:

“Like he started hitting me in the kitchen if my mum was in the front room and started becoming more picky with the housework. He’d get angry if it wasn’t done and if you didn’t hoover properly.”

That it started off just now and then but increased, that the worst was when he punched her in the face, that he had stopped her from wearing makeup but that after he had given her a black eye, if she had to go anywhere he would tell her to cover up.

In her second interview, her presentation is of a woman on a mission. She was determined to put her case across. Was it the evidence of a woman coming to terms with the fact that the man that she believed loved only her might have been having sex with two of her sisters? To what extent can I rely on her evidence? I have also already referred to the account of the assault when she was trying to settle K.

The other incident that I consider has real context is her allegation that he pushed her up the stairs when she was pregnant and started bleeding. The context that she gives that assault is that he becomes angry as a result of receiving a letter about debt. She spoke of the efforts that she would go to avoid him seeing the post when it was delivered and getting upset for fear of his reaction.

This chimes with the reports of C and E concerning how F2 would change his mood. I note also that A says in his evidence that F2 could get angry about everything.

I remind myself of the oral evidence of B where she says that she was repeatedly physically assaulted. She made it plain in her oral evidence that it was she who got the worst of it. The others were only hit as specific punishments. It seems, like the others, she has only realised the full picture within these proceedings.

I recall the evidence of M that she did not consider F2 a violent man, that he only hit her once. However, I note that this contradicts the evidence of A that she would get upset about F2 hitting them. The general flavour of this evidence is that although people were aware of others being hit, they rarely saw it. I remind myself that C says that M never seemed to be present; that he does not see A assaulted but believes he was, because of hearing M remonstrating with F2. C says he was aware of B, D and himself were assaulted. That seems to be from him hearing such assaults, he talks of hearing D rather than seeing him. D’s evidence is not really of others being assaulted.

The evidence of all these witnesses is that it seems that F2 did hit the children a lot but managed it so it was rarely in front of others but sometimes it would appear that it could not be hidden.

E talks to Diana Yates in her interview of the fact that B, C, D and herself would be hit. K tells her foster carer of B being hit. The friend of B speaks of seeing a black eye on B. I found B’s friend to be an observant witness who obviously took an interest in what was going on with B and although claiming to be a friend of B. I found that her evidence as a whole was not wholly supportive of B, for instance where she says that B was living in B’s home in Devon with F2 there against her own advice. As a result, I give her evidence more weight than if she had been partisan.

This court can have no doubt that B has lied within these proceedings. She has admitted the same but has she lied about the assaults that she suffered? The evidence that she gives has real context and the similarities it has with the evidence of her siblings is too much to be sheer coincidence. Dealing with E, B, C and D, I look at the evidence of each of the witnesses and that there are common themes. There is no real alliance between any of them, save perhaps that D says that he has always got on with A. This lack of alliance means that there cannot have been the suggestion that the parties have put their heads together to make this up. The closest suggestion that was put to this was the suggestion that M had asked C to support her.

I do not accept that M was asking C to fabricate evidence and I am satisfied with C’s antipathy towards M meant that even iF she had asked, he was most unlikely to do anything to please her.

I note that all of them say that at times F2 was sympathetic to them – in other words, their experience of him was not entirely negative. This factor is important. It means that evidence from each witness is not one dimensional.

It adds credibility to their negative evidence, that all of them talked of repeated beatings, that they did not see the others being beaten, that they were fearful of F2, that F2 was in charge, that F2’s rules were the rules of the house, that each of them is able to give credible context to the beatings that they suffered.

I remind myself that in considering each allegation, I need to look at the evidence pertinent to that allegation and the evidence as a whole. Here, when looking at the individual reports and the reports in the round, I need to consider whether I can be satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the abuse took place. I do not have doubts about the credibility of any of the above witnesses, save for B, but on this issue the common themes are so obvious that the court takes the view it is highly likely that B was abused in the same way that her siblings were.

Therefore, dealing with the issues of physical abuse, this is a picture of F2 administering general abuse to all of those in the house, save M. I have heard all the evidence and am aware what is to come in this judgment. I am content that, if anything, the further analysis supports the findings that I make at this stage in relation to physical abuse.

I therefore make Findings in relation to 1.5, 1.6, 1.7. These are the physical assaults of F2 on B.

I make findings at 2.14, 2.16. These are the physical assaults of F2 on E.

I make findings at 4.4 concerning H and K, at 5.1 concerning physical assault of F2 on A, 5.2, physical assault of F2 on C and 5.3, physical assault of F2 on D.

The issue with regard to the physical assault on H, I will refer to later as well. I now come to the issue of the sexual abuse.

I now address the issues of sexual abuse. Before I do so, I set out the medical evidence pertinent to the allegations. There were SARC examinations – this stands for sexual assault referral centre examinations – of H, E and K and J. No untoward Findings were made in relation to K or J. The evidence from the SARC exams, that is in relation to H and E, were not contested and I summarise them as Follows.

H’s SARC examination took place on 11^th April and at that time the examiners were of the opinion that she had been sexually abused and they believed that they had found what appeared to be highly significant findings. However, they considered that a further examination was needed and this took place on 24^th April where it was confirmed that H had a full thickness transection of the hymen at six o'clock. They opined that this was a highly significant Finding. Deep cleft or notches in the posterior half of the non-fibriated hymen have only been reported in prepubertal girls with a history of vaginal penetration, whereas here deep posterior clefts or notches can be clearly visualised using two different examining techniques and penetrative abuse should be considered.

She was also found to have a dynamic dilation of the external anal sphincter. An external anal dilation is associated with anal abuse in one very large study.

Concerning E, her SARC examination took place on one occasion on 9^th May. She was found to have a deep notch in the Five o'clock position of posterior of the hymen. Statistics show that in pubertal girls deep notches are reported more often in those girls with a history of vaginal penetration than in those that deny it. That is 33 percent as opposed to 7 percent. The opinion was that this was supportive of her allegation with her interview that she had been vaginally penetrated on three occasions.

I now consider the medical evidence of Dr Hobbs. Concerning his medical evidence for his report on E, he viewed four videos, three of the genital examination, one of the anus. Having viewed those, he confirmed the SARC examiners’ findings of 30^th April and opined that the injury that E had sustained was a hymenal transection, that it was usually the result of blunt force causing sheering stresses and over distension as occurs when a large object is inserted in or through the hymen into the vagina, that it commonly occurs with penal penetration, that a degree of force would be required to produce the injury, that it was not possible to age this type of injury. The information suggested the conclusion that E has suffered sexual abuse.

I do not refer to K’s because there was no adverse findings.

For his report after H he viewed the four video clips. Concerning the examination of 11^th April, he viewed the Four video clips and the 27 still images. He noted a suggestion of a deeper notch at six o'clock, states it is not easy to be sure on this examination, that he could not see the scar. He notes that the anus shows diffuse venous congestion and that the anus dilates and he agrees with the opinion that this is abnormal.

Re the examination of 24^th April, he notes that the posterior hymen has a line running vertically at six o'clock which is more suggestive of a laceration/transection but the separation of the edges is again not visible. He sees a pale swollen area which was felt by the examiner to be a scar. It looks swollen and smooth but he cannot be sure by looking at the images and in giving his opinion in his report, he stated that the presence of the unusual organism served as a warning of possible sexual abuse but it would not be strong evidentially.

He opined that the anal Findings are consistent with there having been anal penetration, possibly by a penis and that the hymenal findings as described by the examiner indicated a degree of forceful penetration of the vagina. He further opined that dilation of the anus results from multiple single or multiple episodes of anal penetration and that the hymenal transection can result from a single episode and that both are likely to have involved a degree of force. He stated that such injuries cannot be aged and comments that the evidence is consistent with sexual abuse. For completeness, I will say that with regard to J and K he agreed with the SARC Findings that nothing was untoward.

With regard to His oral evidence, I have been very much helped by counsel with regard to their agreed schedule of his evidence and just to confirm that Dr Hobbs in his evidence confirmed his expertise as a paediatrician of some 30 plus years. He has been working in child protection during that time, has been involved in the production of the document by the Royal College that sets out signs of abuse. I am very grateful for the agreed schedule.

I propose to read from a considerable part of it to set out what the agreed evidence is. I start:

“When interpreting signs it is only in very particular circumstances that signs or symptoms are diagnostic of sexual abuse in isolation. Diagnosis is a much wider process but occasionally physical signs allow Firm, strong conclusions but you look at the broader picture as well. When looking at H it is important to look at the broader picture. Sexual abuse usually doesn’t occur in isolation, especially when it is inter-familial. It occurs in the context of difficulties in the Family and often where a child has particular difficulties. The manner and content of the SARC examination was not called into question in this case.”

He adopted the findings of the SARC examination relating to H and E. He deferred to their assessments as clinicians, using the naked eye can make a better assessment than relying on colposcopy recording due to factors such as the position and lighting and the child moving away from the camera.

With regard to genital soreness and redness, I read that Dr Hobbs considered that there was no conclusive evidence that H had a urinary infection even though the treating medics worked on that basis. With regard to the hymenal injuries to H he said:

“On the balance of probability this was a penetrative injury to H caused by a penis. Penile penetration is more likely to cause injury than digital penetration. A finger would not be likely to cause this degree of serious injury due to the angle of the injury, that is a tear posteriorly. A single finger inserted in a child that age wouldn’t produce as obvious injury as transection through the hymen, it would produce anterior tears but with penile injury, then penis pushes backwards which is why you get posterior injuries. A posterior tear is more likely to be penile but it is not a precise science.

That is the pattern [he said] that has a positive association with penile injuries. This is due to the angle of insertion of a penis as opposed to a finger or fingers. It is possible it would be caused by two fingers roughly the same size as a penis but it is less likely due to the posterior position of the tear. An anterior tear is more likely to be caused by digital penetration. The nature of the injury indicates that it is caused by distension essentially by forcing something that’s too big into an opening that’s too small. The hymenal injuries may be caused by one occasion of assault but further episodes of abuse cannot be excluded. As a general proposition the degree of injury can be influenced by the force used, the angle and the width of what is to be inserted For penis or fingers. At the time H suffered injury, it would be apparent to a perpetrator that she was being caused pain, there would be likely to be bleeding which would carry on for a day or two in all likelihood.”

He thought H would be very unhappy and not right and would expect someone who is looking after her to pick up on something not being right. He thought it probable she would be in considerable discomfort when she went to the toilet as it would be a very sore injury and when urine got on the area, there would be extreme discomfort and pain. It is possible that the injuries were caused by one occasion of sexual penetration but the injuries are consistent with H having been sexually assaulted on more than one occasion. With regard to scarring, it takes some time to form a scar so it is unlikely to have occurred immediately beFore the examination.

He is unable to give a timescale for the scarring in terms of weeks or months. With regard to venous congestion, From Dr Hobbs’ own experience and research, it is a highly significant finding but he accepted that this is not reflected in the last version of the standard evidence base. Dr Hobbs said that the irregular anal margin was a sign of sexual abuse he Found in His research.

With regard to timings, he said that the injury cannot be dated with any precision. With regard to anal findings, he said the anus was dilated abnormally, it was a significant finding. It is an adaptive response that the child develops to protect its anus to reduce the pain Felt. It is not possible to put a timescale on the anal symptoms resolving. Anal dilation is a sign of chronic sexual abuse rather than a one-off assault. It is children who have been assaulted anally repeatedly who describe this sort of symptom. He is unable to say a minimum number of times but a single recent session of anal abuse would be expected to produce more acute signs of redness than has been seen. It did not look like a single episode of abuse and was more likely to be a recurrence of anal abuse but it was impossible to say for how long it had been occurring. The findings were characteristic of ongoing abuse, not possible to say how many episodes of anal abuse had occurred.

The evidence base at the time of the RCPCH report of 2015 did not include his own research which came out after that was completed. An external anal dilation is associated with sexual abuse and in his experience it resolves with time once the child is safe. There is an uncertainty about the rate of resolution. He said:

“My experience is that anal Findings resolve and from looking at the videos, they are resolving between the two examinations of H which would suggest that whatever anal abuse was taking place was Fairly close in proximity to the Forensic examination.”

When questioned on whether his Findings were consistent with all such abuse occurring within the time frame after H’s visits to F2’s home commenced , Dr Hobbs said he would be hesitant about that.

With regard to the timescales of the hymenal injuries, the features of urinary Infection, genital soreness and bruising demonstrated in Hare consistent with sexual abuse occurring in April 2019. He could not say it was more likely than not the hymenal or anal findings occurred within that sort of timeframe. He said that this is a complex picture including other factors such as soiling and wetting and sexualised behaviour and such factors can be associated with sexual abuse. Dr Hobbs said that in his experience of soiling in girls is that this is a strong association with sexual abuse saying,” we do not see it in girls very often. School-age girls that are soiling, there is a high risk that there has been some kind of abuse, usually sexual.”

With regard to the bruising to H’s thigh, he said the bruises cannot be aged. This is not likely to be caused by a fall straddling the bath. The bruising is high up near the genitals. He said that baths are benign unless they fall on a tap, so the chances of a child injuring themselves in a bath is fairly low but if a child banged down, then you may get a bruise or a graze but not several bruises. There is no real description of the incident:

“It seems to me [he said] to be an unlikely explanation. The position of the bruising is unusual and that kind of bruising is often associated with sexual assault as the perpetrator forcibly opens a child’s legs resulting in a grip mark pattern and looked like four fingertip bruising just below the genital area. The number is unclear from the photo given by B on her phone.”

He was later shown the photo taken by the police when it became available later in the day and he indicated it did not cause him to alter his opinion.

With regard to the effect of puberty on the hymen and vagina, he said in a prepubertal child the hymenal tissues are not so robust or elastic. The vagina is much smaller, he said almost transparent in the prepubertal child. With puberty everything becomes more elastic and the hymen thickens and folds becomes redundant so it is possible that it may tear on first intercourse but it is much less likely because the vagina is larger, there is much less likely to be an injury to the surrounding tissues than in a prepubertal child.

In relation to E, he agreed that in relation to the child of any age, digital penetration was less likely to cause an injury than penile penetration and that penile penetration of the vagina was likely to cause injury to the posterior fourchette and hymen. He agreed E’s injuries could be caused by one episode but after a hymenal tear further episodes would make the hymen more accessible and injury less likely.

He answered my question about timing and the fact that E’s hymenal injury was not as significant as H’s and said he would expect more to be visible if the injury had happened prepuberty but that it was a fine point and he did not know. He said it weights it to some degree being a pubertal injury that E may have started puberty at 11.

So that completes the evidence that I heard and was accepted that was given. I now deal with the sexual abuse allegations against F2 in relation to B and E.

Firstly in relation to B, let me first consider what is agreed by F2. F2 comes to the court saying that he is a paedophile because he groped E’s bottom in 2017 when she was just 14. He also says that he watched as E and B fondled each other and had oral sex with each other and that E inserted her fingers in B.

A starting point is that he agrees that he had sex with B in order for her to conceive K. Although in his response to the schedule he does not set it out plainly, his oral evidence was that he was clear that he accepts that at the time that he had sex with her, he was acting in a position of loco parentis as he was her step-father. Therefore, allegation 1.1 is therefore conceded.

Allegation 1.2 deals with the allegation as to B’s age when F2 had sex with her. In the statement that was read out on behalf of F2 before the time of his interview, F2 says that they had sex on two occasions before B became pregnant in November 2010 and both occasions were after she was 16 . Dealing with that date that they started to have sex, B says in her interview on 17^th May that she knew they had been having sex for some months, so that pinpoints it as being 15 and still in education.

Her oral evidence was that it had taken some eight months to conceive J and that it always takes her a long time to conceive, thus supporting what she says in her first interview. Later in the interview she gives an account that she had sex with two boys when she was 15 before she had sex with F2. In her oral evidence she states that she remembers that she was 15 because she had a boyfriend at the time that she decided she wanted a baby and had asked the boyfriend whether he might Father the baby and the boyfriend was not keen. Her memory was that the boyfriend was 16 and she was 15.

Also in that interview she states that she remembers sneaking back to a caravan to have sex with F2 during the holiday in the August, which was before her 16^th birthday. In her oral evidence she says where the holiday was and when M and B and the rest of them went off, F2 would go off to the pub but that she would make an excuse and go back to the caravan where she would meet up with F2 and they would have sex. I asked her about the timing of this supposed holiday and without a pause, she said she knew it was in August because they would always go away in August for F2’s birthday. The court notes that F2’s birthday is, indeed, in August.

I heard evidence From M about that holiday and she agrees that it was correct that although F2 would often be with the family, there were a few occasions when she took the children swimming that F2 would not be with them and there were also a few times when B would say that she had forgotten something from the caravan and be gone for about half an hour,. The court noting however that M said that to her recollection when B later reappeared, she seemed to be carrying with her the article that she had gone to the caravan For. This is persuasive evidence. This is a believable context to B’s evidence as to why she says her sexual relationship with F2 started when she was 15.

The court is concerned that F2 is trying to minimise his error in having sex with B by saying it only happened when she was 16 and considering this, I look at his evidence as to how many times he says he had sex with B. In his interview, he says he had sex two times. In her interview B is asked whether she continued to have sex with F2 even after she became pregnant. She says, “Yeah, it never stopped”. She is then asked as to how she felt with the sex continuing. I find her response very compelling. Her response is:

“I just felt loved and it just .... I thought he was the only person that was there for me and, at the time, I didn’t .... I knew it was wrong in a way cos I knew that he was my mum’s partner but, I don’t know, I suppose I was blind at the time. Just thought somebody’s showing me love and affection and I, I liked it cos I’ve never had it before.”

That explanation has no hint of malice about it. She is being asked as to how she felt and if she had been determined to overplay her hand, she could so easily have said that she felt abused or used but, no, here I am clear that B is being truthful she felt loved. That explanation gives weight to the truth of the extent of the relationship but there is another source of evidence which is suggestive of B having an ongoing sexual relationship and those are her GP records.

The representative for the guardian for the younger children took B through her GP records at length. B was able to confirm that those records show that soon after K’s birth she was seeking contraception on a regular basis because she was in a sexual relationship with F2. There is mention in May 2013 that she told her doctor that there was not a change in her partner, B confirming in her oral evidence that the partner she refers to is F2. There is mention in 2014 of having no relationship worries. In her oral evidence, she confirms that the relationship she refers to is with F2. There is mention in 2016 of her referring to her four year long partner who she confirms in her oral evidence is F2. In November 2017 she is recorded as asking for her contraceptive coil to be removed as she would like another baby.

All this evidence is highly suggestive that B was having frequent sex and was in a relationship but if I look at the evidence, there is no mention of B seeing anyone else. E tells Diana Yates that B never went out and F2 in his evidence accepts that B was not seeing anyone else, so the inference has to be that according to B’s evidence, she was having an ongoing relationship with F2. What is extraordinary is that even in the face of such evidence, F2 would not accept that he had an ongoing relationship with B throughout the years between conceiving K and trying to conceive J. He will only accept that he had sex with her a few times. He only accepts that they fell in love after his operation in February 2018 when she started looking at him.

When considering this evidence, I am satisfied that F2 has a tendency to try and minimise his actions and I am satisfied that B and F2 did continue to have a sexual relationship from the conception of K right through to May of this year at the very least.

I refer to the persuasive evidence I set out above and in referring to that evidence, I also accept on the balance of probabilities that B was 15 when F2 first had sex with her and in doing so, I accept that F2 has tried to minimise his continuing sexual relationship with B.

I now consider sexual abuse in relation to E. I first consider the medical evidence and the evidence of the notch on the hymen at Five o'clock is suggestive of penetrative sex. There are a number of allegations of sexual abuse against F2. However, here, like the issue of the allegations of physical abuse, F2 has made admissions. I consider it very helpful to consider exactly what F2 has admitted and my starting point is to examine what he has admitted in relation to E.

The court has heard that the first time that E mentions F2 acting in a sexual way to her is when she spoke to Diana Yates at M’s home on 18^th April. Diana Yates has been criticised for not providing a full note but within a few hours, E gives her ABE interview. I have already mentioned the presentation of E in the interview in the context of the allegations of physical abuse. She presents as very reluctant to say anything. At numerous times throughout the interview she smiles with her mouth tight shut and is almost pleading with her eyes not to have to answer. It is a most compelling interview.

As I have noted, after that 2nd interview she states that the reason that she said F2 had been sexual with her was to try to get the little girls, H and K, back with their mothers so I need to keep that in mind. Was E making this up just as a ruse to get the little girls back to their mothers? The other factor that I keep in mind is that E makes it clear by the time of her second interview that she loves F2 and wants to be back with him. I keep that in mind also because if she was in love with him, would she really make up untruths about him?

Within E’s first interview on 18^th April she gives a clear account of the progression of her sexual encounters with F2 and she says that it starts with the following. At J160 she says it started off as hugging and it moved up to his “touching my arse”. This, she says, leads to progressively more active sexual abuse but I am interested in the account that F2 gives about this incident. In the statement that is read out to the police just before his interview on 28^th May, he states, “I fully deny ever having sexual contact with E at any time”. However, within the actual interview he is asked when the hugging with E started. He says:

“No, I hugged her once and once only [he continues] and I gave her a hug [and he demonstrates the hug] and she said I told her it’s all right, it’s safe I’m not breaking any rules by doing that and I said don’t worry about that.”

This account in itself is odd. Why would he, a step-father, need to even mention whether something was safe or not? When he is asked whether he has ever touched her “bum” or kissed her, he denies doing either. In his statement in September, however, he says:

“I have not sexually assaulted or groomed E as alleged, nor injured or assaulted her, save once when I pulled her by the hair.”

Then in October, in his statement he makes admission. He says:

“I did once hug E when she came home from school upset and I touched her on the bum and kissed her.”

So it is an admission, but what he says in his oral evidence is so much more. His evidence is as follows. Initially he just says that he accepts that he groped E. Then he says that E was upset, that she asked for a hug, that he held her shoulders and said to her that he could not move his hands lower than that, that E said to him, “Where can you put them?” He said he put his hand on her back. He said he could put his hand there and that then he put his hand on her bottom and squeezed it. He says, “I looked at her and she looked at me and I kissed her,” and that when he squeezed her left buttock she smiled, that the kiss was on the lips, that when he put his hand on her buttock he says, “I can't put my hand there,” that she looked at him, he looked at her, realised what he had done and that he pushed her away.

This is yet another extraordinary piece of evidence. Reading that in isolation, one might be forgiven for imagining it to be part of a seduction scene in a film. What is being described is a teasing, a testing as to what might be allowed or not but the court reminds itself the people involved in this scene are not the adult sexual partners one might imagine, but a man of 51 years of age and a young girl of 13 whom he has treated as a daughter since the age of 4 years old. This is evidence of the most serious blurring of sexual boundaries and it is evidence that is given by F2 himself. The court notes that this is not a situation of F2 putting His hand on E’s bottom, squeezing it and then taking away. This placing of his hand was part of an interactive sequence between himself and E. He was engaging with her directly. The court infers from this that he was interacting with E to see the extent to which she would tolerate his touching her. It was a test.

The court reminds itself that there was a similar interaction that happens according to B. I remind myself that B is someone that F2 actually ends up having sex with. Even on his account, she is only 16 when he has sex with her. She says that when 14 or 15 he asked to see her breasts but she refuses to show him, that he then taunts her by telling her to tell M what has happened. F2 has always denied that this has happened.

B’s account of this is that he, F2, knew by this stage that M was not interested in her and so he did not expect her to report it. In the context of his own evidence of what he does with E, I find it highly probable that he tested B in exactly the same way that he tested E, that he was seeing what B would do and so, on the balance of probabilities, I find that he did ask to see B’s breasts when she was 14 or 15 and that was part of his testing her willingness to have sex.

Returning now to the issue of E, he has consistently denied the allegations that she makes in her first statement. There is context that she gives to her account and a progression of what she says that he was doing to her. At J160 she says it starts off as hugging, as I have said, moves up to him “touching my arse”. At J161 she says the kissing was more often with tongues, it took place just after her 14^th birthday. At J162, they would be kissing three to four times a week when the others had gone out.

At J163, that the first time they had sex was either in October or November. At J163 again, had sex with him three or four times. At J164, in October time it happened in the kitchen in his chair, that she was on top. At J167, that she thought it was love. At J167, he made her feel wanted; she thought it was love, she describes the three occasions. This is very compelling evidence on its own.

It is supported by the fact that in the second interview where E has made allegations now against A, even though she accepts that she is in love with F2 she still agrees that she has been intimate with him, or he has been intimate with her. To her foster carers she says that the sexual encounters were far more frequent than the three times that she refers to in her statement. In her interview, and to her foster carers she says that F2 would often come into her room for her to perform oral sex on him. This evidence is not tested and the court is careful not to give it the same weight as if it had been sworn as being the truth but the court has not heard any reason why such recordings would not be accurate and therefore they are relevant to the considerations.

So this court summarises, this is a man who accepted that he had offered his sexual services to, he says, a 16 year old girl, B, for whom he had a parental role. He accepts that he had a scene with E when she was 13, a sexual scene with E when she was 13, for whom he had a parental role since she was 4, which on any interpretation shows a most serious blurring of sexual boundaries. Yet for five months of these proceedings he kept quiet about any further involvement. However, on 12^th September he changes his tune. On that day he tells his legal team that on three occasions he watched E and B have sexual encounters. It was a sexual encounter between E and B in which he was involved, he says to a lesser degree. In court, he says that as a result of the groping and kissing scene with E and watching her sexual encounter with B, he is a paedophile.

What he says in the first piece of information that he gives to his counsel is that he was suffering from erectile dysfunction so B had suggested that he get E to see if that helped, which he did. The fact that he comes to collect E chimes with the account that E gives the foster carer and DC Bolt after her second interview. She says, E says, that F2 woke her up and asked her to come with him to B. The fact of him bringing E to B accords with B’s account that she was the passive one in this encounter and that he had said wait while he absented himself and came back with E. F2 introducing this piece of evidence so late has been a high risk strategy. If he was the instigator of this incident, it must suggest that he knew that E was sexually active.

However, F2’s oral evidence was that he was effectively doing what B wanted and what F2 says is that after he groped and kissed E, which he now admits that he did in 2017 when E was 13, he immediately told B and in telling her he expected her to explode with anger but that she did not and from that time onwards he had to do her bidding for fear that she would report him for groping and kissing E. F2 says that in going to E’s room and bringing her to B he was doing B’s bidding, that he did not want to do it but felt that he had to as B was holding something over him. In his oral evidence he said that from that time, from the time that B knew about his groping and kissing of E, B was the one in control.

I look now and remind myself that I need to see this in the context of the evidence as a whole. What was taking place in that house generally, the evidence of the boys is that it was F2 who ruled that house, he was the one doing the beatings. The evidence of M was that she was the one being sidelined. He made himself very comfortable within this family and all the evidence is that it was he who was asserting control. He started devaluing M, encouraging the children to criticise her cooking. I accept her evidence that when she criticised F2, the children would end up standing up for F2, they were supportive of him. I entirely accept the evidence of the boys: D, his favourite, and C, who accepted that F2 could be kind but they were frightened of F2, that they would never know how he would be, that he could be kind or he could beat them.

Concerning B, it is clear that for some time she loved him and perhaps still does. It is also clear that she could be vitriolic and bullying when it came to how she dealt with her mother in February 2018, but in her relationship with F2, I am clear that he has always been in charge. B’s friend describes seeing B with a black eye. I accept E’s evidence that B did not go out. It is B’s evidence that she did not go out, she was not allowed to, but why would she not? She was here a healthy young woman, she had no antisocial traits that would make her shun company. It is clear to this court that why she did not go out was because F2 did not want her to and I accept her evidence in this interview that he sent A to live with her because he wanted to make sure that she kept to herself. I accept the evidence that she was not allowed to wear makeup, save when she was ordered by F2 to put it on to cover an injury that he had given her.

What, therefore, is the likelihood of B being the one who instigated and directed this sexual encounter with E? B’s presentation on describing this sexual encounter with E is palpable mortification. What are the chances of her suggesting it? My view is that they are very slim. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that F2 was the instigator of this sexual encounter between E and B but the moment I accept that he is the instigator, further questions arise.

However, before I go to those questions, I note at this stage that the vocabulary of blackmail and threats is something that is familiar in this history in relation to F2. I have already referred to the fact that has indicated that he threatened E that her mummy would get hurt if she did not keep her promise. The court notes it is part of E’s evidence that F2 threatened if she told anyone, that the little girls would suffer from not seeing him. It appears from this that F2 is not, in fact, the victim of threats but the one usually making them.

I refer to the fact that F2 sent the following text to B on 20^th May. He sends this message to B soon after spending days with her and nights with her at B’s home in Devon and after she has given her First interview to the police and told them of her sexual relationship with F2. The text or message reads:

“Hi, do not show this to anyone. If you do you will never see the girls again. Will tell the police everything. Don’t shit on me. Ring me now.”

I take the words “will tell the police everything” as a threat and, of course, he does end up telling the police something. He tells the police about the encounter between B and E. F2 did not dispute that he sent this message but he did not accept that it contained a threat. There can be no doubt, according to the court, that this contains a threat. He was threatening that he was considering telling the police something about B. I am satisfied that this is the language of blackmail and threats. It is not, therefore, surprising that F2 has tried to persuade the court that the context of his going to get E for the sexual encounter was because he himself had been blackmailed or controlled by B.

Returning now to the evidence about the sexual encounter between B and E, B’s evidence that F2 was urging herself and E to do sexual things to each other. When I deal with B’s evidence I remind myself of the Lucas direction that just because she has lied about one thing, does not mean she lies about everything. The lasting impressions I have indicated, having heard from B, is the sense of her utter mortification of what took place between herself and her sister. There was a mismatch in her evidence. She expressed her upset that F2 had told her and E to do things and the fact that she wanted to report it and the fact that F2 had sworn that he would never mention it. However when she was pressed as to what actually happened, all she would accept is that she was kissed by E. Her horror and mortification is not consistent with her confessed action. It was suggestive of her doing more with E than she admitted.

What B described was that on the first occasion she and F2 had been having sex and that he left to bring E back and that when she kept covering herself, F2 got angry with her, hit her and then raped her. B says that F2 was very active in one of these encounters, at one point penetrating B whilst E touched him. It is impossible for this court to be satisfied about exactly what did happen, who did what to whom within this encounter but I am satisfied that something happened, that E was active, sexually active, that B was sexually active, that F2 was very much part of the encounter and at the very least brought E into the room knowing what would be expected of her.

I am persuaded that on the balance of probabilities that it took place as per E’s evidence when B was heavily pregnant, because I accept M’s evidence that only after M had left and B was heavily pregnant, was E in the under stairs cupboard as her bedroom. It was the evidence of F2 that E was waiting for him there when he went to get her. The reason that I have referred to this as a high risk strategy is that as a result of knowing this encounter and having determined that F2 was the instigator, the court has to ask how would F2 know that E would be game to engage sexually with her own sister? On his own evidence, he had conducted a seduction scene with E of the groping and the kiss but they were fully dressed during that. He had not seen her naked, she was not performing oral sex in that groping scene.

Does this court think that on the balance of probabilities, that having had this one romantic scene with his step-daughter, that F2 would just go to her room and expect her not only to be naked in Front of him but be prepared to be naked in front of her sister, see and engage physically and sexually with her sister’s genitals; that he would expect her to know how to perform oral sex and engage sexually? This court does not see this as probable. It is clear that it could not have happened like that. E would have to have been prepared. That is the inference of the court.

It was F2’s own evidence to this court that E seemed to know what she was doing. He told Dr Asokan that E loved having sex with her sister. He was implying that E looked as if she had done it before but I do not accept that E had had sex with B before that first time. How did she become so sexually experienced? Is it not more likely that the gradual grooming that E describes in her first interview of first hugs with groping, then kissing, then requested kissing, then sex for this 14 year old led her, by grooming, to a position where F2 knew that she had knowledge and experience and willingness to deal with such an encounter?

In the first interview on 18^th April, E says that she had sex with F2 on three occasions. If one looks at opportunity, by the time that this matter comes to court in April, E has been living in the space under the stairs. This is an accepted fact. B is pregnant with J. There are problems with the pregnancy which means that for the week in November B was in hospital, she was not at home to see what was going on. However even if she was there, she starts to take naps upstairs and eventually takes over M’s room. There was ample opportunity for F2 to have sex with E as she describes.

As for E’s willingness, she tells the school when asked about the hitting stick that even if it were true, whether she would still wish to live with F2 and she responded that she would. I have no doubt that F2 knew that E would be willing to engage in this encounter with B because of the sexual abuse that had taken place, his abuse of her.

The conclusion of this court is that looking at all the evidence on the balance of probabilities, F2 sexually abused E as per the totality of her allegations against him. I make this finding on the basis of the analysis I set out and consider the fact that F2 had sex with B when she was 15 as supportive of that.

There is a consistency and logic to those findings that I make the findings on the allegations on the evidence themselves but for completeness, there is further support of a relationship between E and F2. Firstly, the telephone evidence that regularly late into the night E would be contacted by F2 when there can be no reasonable excuse for such constant messaging, save that there was a covert relationship between them and, secondly, that F2 fancied E as can be inferred in his comment to Dr Asokan that if she had been 16, he would have been tempted to have sex with her.

The court has already expressed its concerns about the extent to which B is still caught up with the wishes of F2. There have been glimpses since these proceedings started that I have already referred to that indicate that B was apparently putting a marker down and going against F2 but I am satisfied that before these proceedings, B was caught up in a dynamic of keeping F2 happy at all costs. She wanted to be with him, she knew he treated her badly but still she wanted to be with him. I am satisfied that she did engage in the sexual encounter, that she felt she had no choice. I accept she believed that if she resisted, that there would have been an adverse consequence for her. I am also satisfied that from the time that F2 brought E naked to the kitchen, she knew that E had been sexually abused by F2.

I have now considered the evidence in the round, the evidence of the physical abuse, the evidence of the sexual abuse against E and B by F2. Before coming to a final conclusion, I need to consider also the evidence of sexual abuse against B and E by A. I go to the background facts. A was seen as a more difficult child as he had temper tantrums that were difficult to control. It seems the accepted evidence of most of his siblings at B’s home in Devon, that it was his temper that had been a problem. The first time that A has a particular role in this chronology is when F2 requires him to go and live with B in her new home in Devon. At that time B is 19, he is 20.

The second time that A’s name comes up in the chronology of events at B’s home in Devon is in relation to the bruising that B says she sees on H’s thigh on 22^nd . It is B’s case that she sees bruising on H’s thigh on 22^nd when H has been collected by F2 after school for her contact with them. It is F2’s evidence that B tells F2 about the bruises but F2 does not look at them. He tells the court this is because of the location on H’s body, implying that they are too close to her genitals for him to be comfortable to be looking at them. F2 says that he tells B to report them and she does, she reports to the local authority. At C31, on 22^nd there is a note stating:

“When B brought her back to the house this afternoon she noticed that H had fingerprint bruising to her inner thighs and bruising to her shin, knee and elbow. B asked H how she got this and H told her that her elder brother, D , keeps pulling and pushing her over. It is the understanding of F2 that D had caused the bruising and he says that M is unhappy about B having reported it.”

It is not B’s case that she was present when the bruises were sustained, so it would appear to the court that the best information that she could have as to the cause of those bruises would be what H says, that D was in some way involved. However, when the police come to arrest F2 for the allegation that he had sex with H, B makes a point of telling DC Driver, who was present, that around three weeks prior H had bruising on her inner thighs and that they, which I assume refers to herself and F2, believe that A did it.

The document at J99 is redacted on one name on one sentence. The sentence is, “In her reaction to F2’s arrest For the offence she stated that it would have been xxxxxx” the redacted name, not F2.

It is possible that that redacted name was A but even if that was not the case, it is clear that she is putting A’s name squarely in the frame for the allegations about H. Why would she do that? It is a worry for the court.

It is B’s case that at the time that F2 is arrested she has information about A about him wanting to put his penis into her vagina, so why is she giving false information to the police at this stage? The court reminds itself that it is not to speculate, that it has to examine all the evidence and this is evidence of B giving false information about A. At this stage, it is clear she wants the police to be looking at A.

By the time she gets to the court later that day, B is therefore aware that there are allegations that H has been sexually abused. She knows that F2, her partner, has been arrested for it. When she arrives at court, she, like everyone else in the court, hears the fact that there has been a SARC examination of H and that the view of the local authority is that she has suffered serious sexual abuse.

The application is an EPO, an emergency protection order, and there is discussion as to where the children should be housed. B is breastfeeding J and she hears that J will be able to stay with her for the time being. However B is made aware that the local authority are suggesting that for a holding position, that K should join H at M’s house.

B makes it very clear to the court she is very unhappy with the suggestion. She says that she considers A a risk. The court invites B to inform the court about her worries. The court reminds itself that B is aware at this point that F2 is being looked at for the alleged assault on H; that the court is treating this very seriously and that for the first time in her life the court is suggesting that little K should live away from her, B, K’s mother.

There could not be more at stake. One can only imagine the stress that B felt. If she knew or believed that A was a serious contender for this allegation and that she had evidence that could help show that it was likely to be A rather than F2 with whom she had had her second baby, then one would expect that any mother would have told the court in precise terms exactly why A was such a risk.

It is B’s case that as at that time on 12^th April, when contemplating K being taken away she knew that A was responsible and she knew because he had behaved in a sexually inappropriate way towards her when she was 10 and he was 11. Her case was that she was not to blame in any way and according to her first interview, she was watching a video when he asked if he could put his penis into her vagina and that he showed her his penis and walked away. That is what she told the police on 17^th May.

Surprisingly, that is not what she tells the court on 12^th April. When, I keep reminding myself , that she must have been desperate for the court to know that A was responsible all she says is something about A that he accepts in the main that he has contacted under-age girls.

That omission is worthy of comment. Just examining it, as I have said, A accepts that there was an occasion when he was messaging the girl next door and that the girl’s father came to visit and complain that his daughter was under-age. A’s account was that the girl was, in fact, 14, not 12.

Why didn’t B mention that he had suggested to her putting his penis in her vagina? The court has to consider why this is the case. Is it because it did not happen? On behalf of A, it is put that she did not mention it because it was not true.

The court also looks at the interaction between A and B together. Her interview of 17^th May is very revealing. A is mentioned in two sections of that interview before she volunteers her allegations in the extra time. Firstly, he is mentioned in the context when she tells the police that she realised that F2 moved A in with her with into B’s home in Devon because he, F2, did not trust her. Just looking at that, her evidence in her interview is that F2 would often visit B’s home in Devon on some excuse and would sleep with her there. She says that F2 told A to live there because she understood that F2 wanted to keep an eye on her. It is hard to believe that when looking at the actual facts that when F2 suggested A to live with her there and that therefore they would be the only two adults alone together with little K, that B did not say to F2, “Absolutely not. I don’t trust A. A is a risk,” or express it in some way. It is also hard to believe that when the police were asking about A within that interview, that is what was A’s understanding of why he moved in, that she did not mention to the police then, “Oh, by the way, he is a risk,” or, “I didn’t say anything to F2 but I was worried”. There is nothing like that.

The second time that A is mentioned is even more surprising by the omission, as when A is mentioned at J222 where she discusses why they moved A out of B’s home in Devon, she says:

“We moved A out because he was violent and he’d like just eat everything and break everything and I just couldn’t afford to keep replacing everything.”

So here, she was actually talking about the risk that A presented. She explained the problems of having A around but all she can come up with is his violent behaviour. There is nothing about sexual risk and I remind myself at this stage that she knew that the most serious issue were the injuries, the sexual injuries, to H. It is as though in this interview she comes to the interview to give a discrete piece of evidence about A which she does at the end of the interview but there is no internal consistency within the interview that shows she regards A as a sexual risk.

Although there is an occupation order, it is now known that B has had days and days and nights and nights with F2 between his arrest and her interview on 17^th May. I have to remind myselF of the Lucas direction again when dealing with B’s evidence. She has lied to this court, she has come to the court ready to keep a secret with F2, the secret being that they stayed with each other over Easter. She kept secret the fact that there was an encounter which involved F2 and her evidence to this court was that when she saw F2 with E, she knew that there had been some sexual interaction between the two.

My view of B is that she has been playing a double game for some time , even after April when she spends time with F2 in May. This, the court reminds itself, is after the occupation order has been made and made on her sworn statement that she needs protection from him. She says she had no option but to stay with him, but it is clear that there are times during that period when she was out and about on her own and I have seen the CCTV which shows the two of them looking companionably at papers. The court heard from her neighbour that she warned B not to return to the house with F2. She ignores that. She contacts the neighbour to contact F2 who is in the house and when he leaves on 15^th May, what does she do? She asks her neighbour to give him a lift.

This is information that the court has of the time she is actually physically with him but the court has also heard that both B and F2 had the use of phones over this time that were not scrutinised by the police. When she comes to court, as I have said, she tries to keep secret that she has been seeing F2. When the court looks at the motivation of the allegations that B makes about A, it keeps coming back to the Fact that B was trying to be loyal to F2.

The court heard evidence from A. He had an intermediary on hand but my view of A is that he dealt well with the process of giving evidence. I consider that he understood the questions put and that at times he was freely able to concede certain points. He accepted in relation to B’s allegations that he had sent a photo of his penis to a girl but that was to his girlfriend and her phone has been hacked, that he had kept it a secret ; that F2 had opened his post and found out about it. He accepted that he had got into trouble for messaging a neighbour’s daughter but that the girl’s father had complained and said she was 14, that at the time he had a girlfriend of his own who lived in B’s home in Devon.

He accepted that he used to lose his temper a lot, that anything could make him angry, that it stopped when he got to Exeter, although he accepted that he had kicked off once when he heard about what had happened to H and E when he ended up kicking D. I found that his evidence, although in response to short, simple questions, had an unpractised air. He made concessions that did not put him in a particularly good light but it seemed that he wanted to have his day in court and he wanted to help the court. I found him a credible witness.

The court again looks at all the evidence, the context of how B behaves towards A. If A did behave like that towards her, as she claims, one would expect her to behave in a very different way especially with regard to his moving in with her. There is no consistency in her behaviour towards A. There is nothing to suggest that when she lived with him and K on her own, that anything worrying happened or that she was worried.

The fact that she tries to blame A for the bruising to H undermines B’s credibility. The court has concerns about her loyalty to F2. The lack of an internal consistency within her comments and behaviour all create doubt in the court’s mind of the veracity of her allegation on its own but the court reminds itself that this evidence should not be looked at in isolation but considered in the round.

Now I look at E’s allegations against A. What is the context for them? It is accepted that E loves F2, even he accepts she loves him and wants him back albeit as a father. So the inference that the court can draw is that E has a real loyalty to F2. She has, according to her, been sexually abused by A. The allegations that she makes against him are that there are three occasions. Firstly, that it happened in the Birmingham house when she was 7 or 8, that he came to her room, that he sat on her bed, that he explained what sex was, that he showed her a video of a woman sucking a man’s penis and that he stopped doing so, that he started to rub her vagina on the inside, that he then walked off, that F2 questioned her about it and she thought he was going to speak to A. The second occasion was that it was in the second Birmingham home a few months later, that he walked into the bathroom after her and started rubbing his penis, that he did not touch her but is penis was erect and, thirdly, this was in the B’s home in Devon house, that he was playing with himself, that he touched her and himself and that he ejaculated, that she was with him for 15 to 20 minutes and that she was about 12 years at the time. So this is what she says happened between herself and A.

When the interim care order is made, E is living with M. E sees her two little sisters being taken away on the evening of 17^th April. She is herself expecting to be moved but, in fact, there is a delay and she stays. So what does she do? She rings Diana Yates at court who goes round to see E and sees that E is in floods of tears wanting to tell her about the sexual abuse. E gives an ABE that same day.

I have already referred to her demeanour in that interview. She is a very reluctant interviewee. It is very compelling evidence but why doesn’t she talk of A and what he did to her? Unlike her allegiance to F2, it is apparent that she does not have a close relationship with A. As she says in her second interview, “I don’t really see him. We never really did see each other properly”. So there is no real loyalty to A, so why does she not mention any allegations about A to Diana Yates or in her interview on 18^th April?

It is important to know why, because H has been living in the house with A For over six weeks by the time of the SARC examination and E has been sleeping next door to A, so why doesn’t E say, “A did this to me,” yet she felt able to reveal very intimate details about having sex with F2? The answer is perhaps in the notes that the foster carer makes on 13^th July which read as Follows:

“E has said that her brother, A, has autism and her sister, B, has said he raped her when she was about 13 and she has also said it could be him who did that to H. F2 has apparently told sister, B, that if she doesn’t back him up, he will tell everyone what she was doing. E said that they are all wondering now what sister, B, could have done. E did say that sister, B, has since admitted, not sure who to, that she knew all along about F2 and E and she has been told all this by mum. E said her brother, A, never did anything to her.”

So is this the reason that she did not make allegations earlier about A, because A never did anything to her?

The court is aware that there have been other phones used by B and F2. The foster carer makes mention of the secrecy of E and who she communicates with and the deletions of messages. The foster care notes on the same day her concern and worry as to why E is wanting another phone but does anyone contact her? This court cannot speculate but the court needs to consider this evidence.

On 2^nd August, E’s foster carer contacts DC Bolt as E wants to speak to him and when he arrives, E indicates it would be easier to write everything down. It starts, “I heard E made allegations about A. “”In a way, I do believe A done it to H””. It is clear that she has been told that B is making allegations about A and she wants to communicate her belief that he could have done it.

When this issue of the reliability of E’s allegations about A comes up, various points are made. One is that she should be believed because she is not actually withdrawing her allegations against F2 and here she says, “But I also understand the possibility that F2 could have done it”. The other point that is argued is that if the court generally believes most of E’s evidence, and here so far the court has believed her allegations against F2 of physical and sexual abuse, then it needs to be careful to suggest that it does not believe all she says.

My approach on all allegations is to view the context and the consistencies. E does not make allegations about A when there seems to be no reason why she should not in her first interview, but she actually says to her foster carer that A has done nothing to her.

There is also a further reference where she says to her foster carer that she considers that it must be F2. The comment that she makes to her foster carer, however, of, “E says her brother, A, never did anything to her,” is not a solicited remark. By that time, she has been with her foster carer for nearly two months and seemed comfortable with her. Why would she say that he had not done anything to her if he had?

Her written statement to DC Bolt says, “I believe this because when we lived in Birmingham A, introduced me to it,” and then she inserts, “This was the same time B said it happened to her”. I read this as meaning that when she, E, says she was abused, she was at that time told by B that she too had been abused. Yet B’s evidence in her interview is that it was only in interview that she was telling for the first time about the allegation about A, and that she had never told anyone before she told the police.

E is asked at the start of her allegations if she has been told that there is some mention about a possible intimate relationship between A and her sister. She nods. When she is asked, “How do you know anything about that?” her response is that she shakes her head and says no. She is then asked specifically, “Do you know if he’s done anything similar to anyone else in your family?” She says, “I don’t know”. This is not consistent with what she has put in her statement of 2^nd August.

F2 in is evidence, was very keen to give as much detail as possible about what he knows of A being a sexual risk. One such piece of evidence was that he said that C had told him that he had once seen A and E in bed together. I do not view that C had any particular loyalties to anyone in this family – in other words, I do not see that he was particularly allied to A but he denied absolutely either seeing such or saying that he had seen such and I accept his evidence but why would F2 say that? The other concerning evidence of F2 is that he claimed that he was aware that E had been aged 4 at the time when C said he saw her with A. This does not accord with anything that E has said.

A himself was able to accept a context for at least one of the occasions when E said he abused her. He said that sharing a room with the other boys in B’s home in Devon, he had to go upstairs to M’s room to get changed and that when he was half dressed up there, E did come up to the room. Again, I found him completely engaged with the court process and trying to help the court. He explained that when she came into the room, he covered himself. The very fact of him going to another room to change does not suggest someone who is free and easy about nudity. Again, I found his evidence credible. What this court notes is that these were allegations that were being put to A about E against a history where for a few weeks she had been living in the bedroom next door to him at M’s, yet nothing untoward was mentioned about his behaviour or reported about him or mentioned about him as being a concern when she was there.

Again, all I can do is consider whether the local authority, who has assumed responsibility for proving these allegations against A, have proved them on the balance of probabilities. I accept that I have accepted much of what E has said but when considering the probability of her speaking the truth in her second interview about A having seriously sexually abused her, I have serious doubts:

All this court can do is consider the allegations on the balance of probabilities and the view of the court in considering this allegation and the allegation that B makes about A is that these allegations have not reached the standard of proof required to make a Finding.

So I now come to the sexual allegations concerning H. The finding sought is an either/or allegation: either it was F2 on his own, or it was A on his own. The position of the local authority has changed. Initially B and M were included. This is not a case, however, where the court is being asked to say that there was a joint enterprise together but the court is being asked to determine separately whether there are reasonable grounds for believing that either caused the injuries by sexually abusing her. There is no timing to H’s injuries but there is evidence of the expert that the anal dilation would have been likely to be caused over a period of time.

Again, the starting point is the medical evidence. Here, the evidence is stark. The evidence is suggestive of a prepubescent girl who has an injury to her hymen and anus which are consistent with penetration by a penis. In April she was found to have a dilation response in her anus which seemed to be an adaptive response to something penetrating that. H does not give an ABE interview and therefore there is no direct evidence from her as to who caused her injuries. However, the court is able to look at all the evidence before it, consider whether there is enough evidence to say, on balance, the probabilities as to who caused the injuries.

There is no dispute that she suffered the injuries found in the SARC examinations. I accept the medical evidence totally as I have read out of Dr Hobbs’ evidence but I remind myself of the particular features that Dr Hobbs said in his evidence that indicate abuse.

He said that it is expected to happen over a period of time but usually it was an ongoing process, that even if there was one incident that caused the hymenal injury that abuse is usually the cause of repetitive action and that with the anal dilation this is the case of ongoing abuse, that girls soiling as H was known to have done was evidence of a high risk that there was sexual abuse. Here, there was anal dilation, there was soiling, there was a history even in 2015 when H was sore but I need to consider what other evidence is supportive of sexual abuse.

I look at her behaviour that caused concern for the foster carers. On 21^st April she was seen washing her dolls and washing her dolls expressing that she was washing the dolls’ butt and boobs. On 5^th May the foster carer notes that she was putting her toy T-Rex towards her Foster carer and the note reads:

“She made it come towards me with its mouth open. I said, ‘Oh, no, I hope it’s not going to bite me’. She said, ‘No, he’s kissing you’. I said, ‘I don’t want him to kiss me with his mouth open, you don’t kiss with your mouth open,’ and she said, ‘You do if you're good friends.’”

On 12^th May it was noted as Follows: that H attempted to kiss David, the male foster carer, on the lips. It is noted:

“She often hovers very close at his face and has no sense of personal space. I feel she’s been working up to try to kiss him. She lunges towards David saying, ‘I want to kiss you,’ and lunge towards his mouth. She kisses him on the mouth but immediately says again, ‘On the lips next time’. She kisses him on the cheek but immediately says again, ‘On the lips next time.’”

The Foster carer notes that:

“David says no and she got upset, felt rejected, asked him, ‘Why not?’ He said, ‘Because I’m a grown man and you're a little child, you don’t need to kiss me,’ to which she responded, ‘But I want to make you happy’. David replies, ‘You don’t need to kiss me to make me happy,’ and H says, ‘It makes dad happy when I do it to him, he likes it. He is sad, he is often sad. He sits in his chair sometimes and cries. I kiss him to make him happy’. David said, ‘You don’t need to do that to make me happy, I’m happy with you being you. Children do not need to kiss grown ups on the lips,’ and she said, ‘But I kiss my dad on the lips and my mum. I do it to both of them.’”

That same note refers to H being happy and playing and dancing:

“She said that she loved David and got up to do a little dance for him. She turned away and waggled her hips and bottom at him. She calls her bottom her ‘booty’. She was dancing, shaking at him, asked if he liked her booty.”

On 2^nd June, she again tries to kiss David on the lips. On 4^th August she says that all the girls helped F2 have a shower, then she changes it to just B and mum and then mum. On 8^th August she tries to kiss the female foster carer and male foster carer again on the lips and on 18^th August she squeezes the breasts of the female foster carer.

All of the above suggests practised behaviours, behaviours that she did not think twice about because she is used to behaving this way. The court considers that her opportunity for such practised behaviours is much more likely to have happened over the months and years in F2’s home rather than with A. There is also the fact, of course, that H refers to dad, F2, in the context of kissing. The sexualised behaviour is an indicator to the court that she has been exposed to sexualised blurring of boundaries. Certainly this is supportive information about H being exposed to sexualised behaviour and, at the very least, not a contraindication that she was sexually abused.

I take note that these are foster care notes and they are not sworn evidence but the court needs to look at where H was living and what the opportunities were for abuse. She was a girl of 9 when the injuries were Found. She had been living with her mother for about six weeks but returning each weekend to live with F2 and B. At her mother’s home, the evidence of M and A is that she slept in her own bedroom which was on the same floor as A for two nights and after that she insisted on sleeping with M until E came to join them. Even when living at M’s home she still had regular contact with F2 in his home and prior to that she was living with him for about five years.

This court is satisfied that within F2’s home there was physical abuse and sexual abuse, that he ruled the house, that the children within that household were scared of him. This court knows that even on the evidence of F2 himself, there was a blurring of sexual boundaries. There was a keeping of secrets. It is apparent from the court’s analysis of the physical abuse that F2 was able to keep some of His behaviour away from people.

In A’s home, save For the allegations by B and E that I have referred to above, there is no evidence of blurring of boundaries. The only mention that H makes of A is in relation to feeling scared when she comes into a room. H, as I have said, does not give an ABE interview. The court is helped, however, by notes that are taken. On 18^th June, she is seen by Tracey Bailey. She says, “Sometimes A comes into my room”. She talks about A’s bedroom being very close and that, “Sometimes A comes into my room”. She is asked, “Does that make you feel safe?” and she laughs and says, “No, he turns the light on and scares me”. She talks about sleeping in mum’s bed, that she sometimes goes into D and Chloe’s room.

A in his evidence Disputed coming into her room at night but agreed that when she was in there in the morning, dressed and ready to go to school, he would sometimes go in and say hello. He agreed that sometimes she would go into his room to play with his Xbox and he would shout down to M that she was playing with his Xbox and that he let her play a bit and then she got bored but this only happened twice. He said that after the second night, he went up to M’s room to speak with her and that he did disturb H who was sleeping with her and that after that he would get M’s attention by waiting for her at the top of the stairs. There was no guarded or practiced air, as I have said, to his evidence.

H herself does not say much about A but she does say about F2. Concerning F2, on 18^th June she says:

“I asked her if she knew where Daddy lived and she said with B and K and J. She went on to say, ‘Mummy used to take me there two or three times a week to see him’. She also mentions that he liked to play the tickling game, especially if he was angry or upset. She said, ‘I didn’t like this game.’”

It is of note that B was unaware of this game, although F2 expanded on it saying that he would become a tickling monster.

This judgment is extensive in the recital of facts. I consider at this stage it is appropriate now to list the evidence in support of the findings and not in support of the Findings in relation to A and F2.

What is the evidence supportive of findings against A? It is that, according to B and E, they were victims of sexual assault. However, I have already indicated my concerns about that evidence but, further, that there is the problem of the redness and soreness of H’s genitals was only noticed and acted on by M when H was in her care where she lived with A; that H was for some weeks before the SARC examination living most of her week with M where A also lived; that H’s room was next to A; that H mentioned to the social worker A coming into her room and scaring her.

What is the evidence suggestive that A was not responsible?

(i) H is exhibiting sexualised behaviour that must be the result of repeated behaviour and that she had only been living with A for six weeks rather than for the years with F2 and

(ii) that she mentions F2 in the context of that behaviour;

(iii) that save for the mention of A scaring her there is no evidence that A has worried H: this is a similar point with regard to B and E’s allegations.

So I now go to F2. What is the evidence suggestive that it was F2?

(i) She lived with F2 For years.

(ii)F2 has, by his own admission, blurred sexual boundaries, the most startling being that he accepted that he acted in a sexual way to E when she was only 13 when he had acted as a father towards her since she was a very little girl of 4;

(iii) that F2 has on his own admission had an ongoing sexual relationship with another of the girls in the house with whom he also had a parental relationship

(iv); that on two of the occasions when H was to have contact with F2 she becomes very distressed at the prospect of seeing her Father;

(v) that F2 himself accepted that on two of the weekends that H had contact with him she slept in his room with him;

(vi) that M’s evidence that F2 is highly sexed;

(vii) that M’s evidence is that F2 encouraged her to have anal sex and continued to have it with her and that this is relevant as H was seen to have a dilation response to her external anus which is thought probably due to repeated penetration by a penis;

(viii)that F2 accepted that as a child he himself was sexually abused; that H suffered from repeated problems of wetting and soiling herself;

(ix)that the expert evidence is that soiling is highly unusual in girls and suggestive of abuse;

(x) that the whole picture in relation to F2 is that he hands out rules but there are no rules for him;

(xi) that on E’s account he woke her up and brought her to her sister with the expectation that she have a sexual encounter with her; the court being satisfied that he was the instigator of this and that it shows he has no boundaries and

(xii) that after being penetrated, H would have been bleeding and the court knows that if M was aware of that bleeding, she would have acted on it and so there is the suggestion that it did not happen in M’s home.

The evidence that it was not F2 is:

(i) that it is, in a way, inconceivable to most that a birth Father could contemplate having sex with his own child;

(ii)that F2 stressed in his own interviews that he made a distinction between his relationship with his step-daughters and his birth daughters;

(iii) that B’s evidence is that F2 did not seek anal sex with her and did not wish to try it. I have already referred to the presentation of M as a witness and her evidence about F2 wanting anal sex and the fact I prefer her evidence to that of B whom I do not find a reliable witness on this.

(iv)and that even on the court’s findings above in relation to the sexual abuse of E, the earliest the court accepts that that happened was when she was 13 and here the court is considering allegations in relation to a prepubescent child.

The allegations of sexual abuse against H are very serious. The court accepts the medical evidence. It is satisfied from her demeanour in B’s home in Devon, her soiling, her sexualised behaviour in foster care, that she has been subject to sexual abuse. The standard of proof that the local authority has to achieve in this allegation, like all allegations, is the balance of probabilities. I apply that standard and in considering the above balance sheet, it is the court’s view that it is not satisfied that A sexually abused H. He had less opportunity. The court is also not satisfied that, on the balance of probabilities, he has a history of sexual abuse.

Whereas with F2, there is his own evidence to show the extent to which he is prepared to blur sexual boundaries. It is different that H is his own child but the court reminds itself that even on his own account to Dr Asokan he was tempted to have sex with E if she had been 16. On his own account, he included her in a sexual encounter with B. Ewas a little girl of 4 when he first knew her ; he should have seen just as his daughter and she see him as the father but he treats her as a sexual partner on his own evidence by groping her and kissing her. The findings that I make concerning his sexual abuse of B and E are supportive of this finding but it is his own evidence which has been the most persuasive For this court.

I deal now with the allegation of F2 specifically physically abusing H. She does not say it happens, in fact she says it does not but in the context of this finding and in the context of K’s allegation that H was also physically abused, I find it probable and on the balance of probabilities I make the finding that H was also physically abused by F2. So those are the most serious findings I make.

With regards to the bruising on H, I am not satisfied that even on the balance of probabilities I am able to name who caused those injuries. H said that D was responsible but F2’s behaviour that he could not look at the bruising but wanted to report it is suggestive that perhaps he knew more about it than he said but I do not feel that the standard is reached.

With reference to the evidence that I have already set out, I make findings that: F2 exerted control on B insofar as he did not allow her to go out and socialise and he prevented her from wearing makeup as set out, that is 1.8; that F2 threatened E that the little girls would lose their father if she told anyone about their sexual encounters; that F2 threatened D that he might reveal the news that F2 was the Father of K.

I now deal with the findings with regard to the knowledge of those in the home and failure to protect. Concerning M, I am satisfied that M did not know that B was sexually abused by F2 when she was 15. I am satisfied that B and F2 kept that secret but that I am satisfied that M should have known that there was an inappropriate relationship between B and F2 by 2017 when they were sleeping in the same room and I am satisfied this is why when she heard that B was pregnant with J, that she went straight to F2.

From 2017 she also should have known that E was at risk and she Failed to protect her from sexual abuse and it follows, therefore, that she also would have known that H was at risk of sexual abuse and she failed to protect them both.

Concerning physical abuse, from the moment that M was head-butted she knew that F2 could be violent. I am satisfied From A and C’s evidence that she knew that F2 was Indiscriminate with his hitting. Her own evidence was that she would question matters but the children would back F2 up. That is no excuse. She failed to protect all her children in F2’s care, that includes B, From the physical abuse that they suffered.

Concerning B, she knew that F2 was violent from when she was 16 when he kicked her in the shins when she could not keep K quiet. I am satisfied that she takes on responsibility to be in loco parentis of E and H when M moves to her house in 2016 and from that time she has the responsibility to protect them from the physical abuse and that she failed to protect.

I am satisfied that she knew that F2 had been interested in her for sex when she was 15 and my view is that from the time that she stood in loco parentis from 2017, she should have protected E and H.

I would add this concerning B. She has findings against her for failure to protect. I believe that she is one of the three main victims of F2, the others being E and H. I do not believe that she has yet extracted herself from the influence of F2 but, as I have already indicated in this judgment, there are glimpses that she has tried to pull away and I hope that she continues to try to do so. That is the end of the judgment.