Plymouth City Council v M & Ors

The mother of all three children is M. She has attended throughout and she is represented by counsel.

The father of A is F1. He has engaged in these proceedings, save that in relation to A’s upbringing he has not been involved. No findings were sought against him and upon the application the court granted him permission to be absent from the fact-finding on the balance that he attended unrepresented by a solicitor.

The father of B and C is F2. He has not attended every day but has been represented by leading and junior counsel.

The vast majority of these findings are sought against F2. In summary they are that F2 physically and sexually abused A; that the sexual abuse led to her being pregnant, which then led to his organising for her to have an abortion. The alleged physical abuse includes allegations that he kicked and hit and pinched her; yanked her hair and that he tied her up. Further, that he encouraged his young sons to hit and physically abuse A. There are also allegations that he verbally abused A, made her sleep on the floor of the room that he shared with the mother without bedding and also that he forced her to eat, including forcing her to eat food which he had ruined with unpalatable additions.

The findings sought against the mother are that she was present during F2’s physical assaults on A but did not prevent or protect her from those assaults. That she slapped A and threatened her with violence. Further, that with F2she forced A to eat revolting food combinations; that she physically chastises her sons by smacking their bottoms; that she was concerned that F2was a sexual risk to A but did nothing to prevent it.

There are a total of 27 findings sought and in the main the mother accepts the truth of all of them. In the main F2 denies them.

With regard to the law that I am very grateful for the schedule of relevant law that has been brought to my attention but I highlight within this judgment the main principles that I consider.

First of all that the burden of proof lies with the local authority, it is the local authority that brings these proceedings and identifies the findings that they invite the court to make. Therefore, the burden of proving the allegations rests with them and I remind myself that there is no pseudo-burden upon a parent to come up with an explanation for things.

The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, which is Re B (Children) [2008] KHL 35. If the local authority proves on the balance of probabilities that a child has suffered non-accidental injuries inflicted by one of his parents, this court will treat that fact as established and all future decisions concerning his feature will be based on that finding. Equally, if the local authority fails to prove the child was injured by one of his parents the court will disregard the allegation completely. As Lord Hoffman observed in Re B:

“If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (a ‘fact in issue’), a judge or jury 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 a fact must be based on evidence (including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence) and not on suspicion or speculation.”

Further, the inherent probability of an event remains a matter to be taking into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether on balance the event occurred. “Common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question regard should be had to whatever extent appropriate to inherent probabilities.” That is per Lord Hoffman in Re B at paragraph 15.

“The burden of disproving a reasonable explanation put forward by the parent falls on the local authority.” That is Re S (Children) 2014 EWCA Civ 1447. “The inability of a parent or carer to explain an event cannot be relied upon to find an event proved.” That is Re M (A Child) 2012 EWCA Civ 1580.

In findings of fact these cases must be based on evidence. As Munby LJ observed in Re A (A Child) (Fact-Finding Hearing : Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 1, “It is an elementary proposition that findings of fact must be based on evidence (including inferences that can properly drawn from the evidence) and not on suspicion or speculation.”

Whether the facts in issue have been proved to the required standard must be based on all the available evidence and should have regard to a wide context of social, emotional, ethical and moral factors. When considering cases of suspected child abuse the court must take in to account all the evidence and, furthermore, consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence.

As Dame Elizabeth Butler Sloss (then President) observed in Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558:

“Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases must 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 findings by the judge must be based on all the available material, not just the scientific or medical evidence and all that evidence must be considered in the wider social and emotional context.

In assessing the expert evidence the court must bear in mind that in cases involving multidisciplinary analysis of the medical information conducted by a group of specialists, each bringing their own expertise, the court must be careful to ensure that each expert keeps within the bounds of their own expertise. The roles and the court and the expert are distinct. It is the court that is in the position to weigh up expert evidence against the other evidence.

There has to be factored into every case which concerns a disputed aetiology giving rise to significant harm a consideration as to whether the causes are known. That affects neither the burden nor the standard of proof, it is simply a factor to be taken into account in deciding whether the causation advanced by the one shouldering the burden of proof is established on the balance of probabilities.

The court must resist the temptation to believe that it is always possible to identify the cause of an injury to a child. That the wide range of matters that the court must consider includes the expert evidence but must also include, for example, its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the inference that can properly be drawn from the evidence.

“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 of them.”

That is Re W & Anor (Non-accidental Injury) [2003] FCR 346.

I remind myself that caution should be used by judges in assessing credibility and reliability. There are a number of issues for the court to consider when assessing the credibility of a witness, including the use of contemporaneous documents or incontrovertible facts.

It is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the court of the investigation and the hearing. The court must always 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.

When considering the issue of a pool of perpetrators, to state the obvious, the concept of the pool does not arise in all the normal run of cases where the relevant allegation can be proved to the civil standard against an individual or individuals in the normal way, nor does it arise where only one person could possibly be responsible. In that event the allegation is either proved or it is not, there is no room for a finding of fact on the basis of real possibility, still less on the basis of suspicion. There is no such thing as a pool of one.

A finding of failing to protect can lead a court to conclude that the children’s best interests will not be served by remaining with or returning to the care of that parent, even though that parent may have been wholly exonerated from having caused any physical injuries. Any court conducting a fact-finding should be alert to the danger of such a serious finding becoming a bolt-on to the central issue of perpetration or falling into the trap of assuming too easily that if a person was living in the same householder as the perpetrator such a finding is almost inevitable.

The evidence was comprised in three electronic bundles. The main bundle had 1,908 pages and comprised of many of the statements of the witnesses, reports, including medical Part 25 expert reports and SARC reports. It also included the child protection minutes and police disclosure, including police logs and some medical disclosure. There is an updating bundle of 117 pages where further police disclosure and school records were included. There is also a core bundle of 451 pages which comprised the core medical records.

The court has also seen records from the ambulance crew who attended F2 on the fourth day of the hearing and reports and records from the emergency department on F2’s attendance.

The court has read all the documents that it was taken to and more. Although not evidence, it has also read the forensic chronology and case summary filed by the local authority and the written submissions filed on behalf of each party.

The court has seen the videos of the numerous interviews in this case. The court has also viewed the short videoclips of F2, showing him walking on a staircase, walking on and off a bus, playing a guitar on a table and also has heard the audio recording of F2 ringing the police to complain about someone attending at his home.

The court has heard oral evidence from Dr Wimalendra, who completed the safeguarding examinations on all three children and Dr Eleanor Thompson, who was the treating consultant paediatrician from Exeter who undertook the SARC examination. It also heard from Q, cousin of F2 and DC Tucker, who conducted many of the interviews. The court also heard from the general practitioner and the safeguarding leads of the two schools in the areas where A attended and Ben Crane, the original social worker in this case. And lastly the court heard from R, daughter of F2 and S , the mother of F2.

I now propose to set out the background to this case and refer to the allegations in the context of that background. I rely on the statements that I have read and the evidence that I have heard and the interviews. A has given two ABE interviews and I will be regularly referring to them and their content and therefore it is appropriate for me now to comment on how I regard those videos.

The court has viewed the video recordings of those interviews carefully. In the first interview of April she tells the officer of the physical abuse that prompted her to go to a friend’s home and seek help. For each of the allegations she gives details and context. She describes how F2 physically assaulted her on the last night and morning that she was in the home and a series of assaults and threats that took place. She refers to her mother slapping her and where she was when that happened, and that she was threatened with a stick as she slept in the couple’s room. She gives details of a time when there was mention of her having a boyfriend and the consequence which was that she was forced to eat unpalatable food. She gives details of the name calling. She becomes obviously physically distressed when talking about the duration of the abuse and that she thought it would never end.

In itself it is a very believable interview. The questions are open. A gives context and gives a narrative which is internally consistent with the timing of events and the locations of the events and the behaviour and presentation of the mother and F2. It is an account that the mother accepts in its entirety, only taking issue with the force of the slap that she inflicted on A. F2’s case is that the allegations within that account are untrue.

A’s second interview was given in May. It is startling in its content. She describes in detail her allegations against F2 and his contact against her. The narrative sets out clearly how she claims he would punish her if she refused to have sex with him. She is able to describe details of the location of each of the places that she said that they had sex, in other words when she alleges was raped. She even accepts that she had to show F2 that she wanted sex.

Her feelings of shame are palpable within this interview. This is not the presentation of a girl who is making mischief about the things she is making up. At times she cannot speak for crying. It is the view of the court that this is not acting. It is apparent that it has cost her emotionally to say the things that she does. At the end of the interview she is asked how she feels and why she did not mention it before. She says that she hates herself for it. She says, “I feel like I let it happen.” When she is asked as to why she let it happen she said that she went along with it because it made her life a tiny bit easier. She is 16 at the time she gives the second interview and her maturity shows. She is able to articulate the blame and shame that she feels for enduring the sexual abuse for so long. It makes for very compelling viewing.

The mother does not say that she knew about the sexual abuse but she does accept that A is telling the truth and in her oral evidence she accepted that even as early as 2018 she was suspicious that F2 might be sexually abusing A and on occasion she told A to inform her if he was. The mother accepts in totality A’s detailed description of the fact that she was tied up by F2 and she also confirms the leaving arrangements.

F2 says it is all made up. He says that A has effectively said what her mother has told her to; that A was aware that her mother had herself been raped at 14 and that she is copying that. It is of note that F2 agrees that everything that A alleges about her mother within the interview is true, it is just what she alleges about him that is not.

So now dealing with the context. The mother and F2 knew each other as children. She said in her evidence that she had a bit of a crush on this older boy and when she was 16, they were romantically involved. She said it was not a sexual relationship and seems more of a schoolgirl crush, but he finished the relationship with her, such as it was, and went off to be with someone else.

The mother had a relationship with F1 by whom she had two children, A and T. Within her relationship with F1 the mother is cautioned for battery against F1; she throws a bottle at him when she is in drink and she says that it was a domestically abusive relationship generally. The court makes no findings concerning that. By the end of 2014 she is ready to leave. The mother only takes A with her when she leaves. It is not clear from reading the evidence as to why T was left with F1.

F2, meanwhile, has his own relationship; he has children; and he later leaves the mother of his own children. There has been some suggestion that he hopes to be back with her. However, by the time that the mother in this case accepts that her relationship with F1 is breaking down she starts phoning F2. This is about 2014. She also starts contacting him by Facebook. She decides to move back to Plymouth knowing that he is there and she tells the court that she is met at the station by F2.

She goes to stay with a cousin for one and a half to two months, by which time she then moves into F2’s flat. It is now late 2014 and by December of that year the mother is pregnant with B.

The account of A and the mother is that all seemed fine within the relationship and within their home until B was born, then things changed. This is the subject of allegations 12(a) and (b).

Within her oral evidence the mother clarified that after B was born she overheard F2 and A in a room where A kept on shouting to F2 to stop pulling her hair. She said that she was also aware that F2 began to pinch A. She was aware that from that time, the hair pulling and the pinching took place approximately every day.

A talks of F2 playfighting with her initially at the start of her mother’s relationship with F2 but that when B was born things changed and she (A) was not allowed to fight back within the playfighting.

The second interview of A corroborates this and she says that after B was born she stopped playfighting as she was not allowed to retaliate. She states that he would pinch her on her back, her hips, her arms. In her interview she describes a particularly nasty way of a pinch, that F2 would pinch the skin and twist it. Asays that the pinching to her breast happened about three times.

F2 says that the pinching was innocent, that it was part of the playfighting, that there would be mutual pinching and that sometime B would join in pinching A all over. However, the evidence of both the mother and A was that this was not play; that F2 had changed in his attitude to A.

By 2016 Ahad started at J School. It is apparent, however, that Awas not happy about what was going on as at  June on the next year when Ais then just over 12½ there is a report in school logs that a friend of Awas reporting that her stepdad (that is F2) physically assaults her. The report suggests that this was something that had happened more than once.

By August 2017 B is 2 years old and the next day the mother reports that she has been assaulted by F2 and that he has pulled her to the floor, punched her to her face when baby C was in her arms and C’s face is marked, being caught up in the assault.

Within a short time the mother, however, retracts her complaint but child protection wheels are now in motion. There is a strategy discussion that takes place, there being concerns that the mother had reported an assault and that A herself has been seen at school with bruises.

In police interviews F2 admits that he had been in a bad mood after drinking and that he had pulled the mother’s hair while C was in her arms, but that after that he could not remember what had happened.

The court notes the similarities of this admitted behaviour, that is the hair pulling, with the allegation that he has pulled A’s hair. The court also notes that this is an example of F2 claiming that he cannot remember things.

It is understood that A settled well in J School. By this time she had been there for a year, but there is an application to move her and she moves to the other main school in her area known then as K School.

The court has heard that within the next two years Ais moved three times between these two schools. The view of the safeguarding leads of these two schools was that the moves were prompted by concerns being raised by what was happening in the home.

The mother says it had always been the intention to move Aat some stage so that all the children would be in the same school, but that is not the reason here. What is clear and accepted by F2 is that he was instrumental in ensuring that A moved school. He claims that this move was because A was complaining of being bullied.

At this time the mother is put on notice that F2 has a conviction for sex with a child under 15, a babysitter. It occurred when he was in his 20s. The concerns about his family are such that A is put on the Child Protection Register at risk of physical harm.

The mother is told that A should not be left alone with F2 until the “keep safe” work has taken place. However, the mother accepts that as she was looking after her little boys that A did spend a lot of time with F2 on her own.

The court notes that in her second interview A says that when she started developing breasts, which she says happened when she was around 12½/13, and the court notes that that would have been around between May 2017 to November 2017. The court notes that A alleges that at this time he starting pinching her right breast and did so on at least three occasions. F2 in his response says that he would not have done that.

Within child protection there is local authority involvement. A is seen by social workers. In November 2017 she says she is happy at home. She repeats this a fortnight later and it is noted that whenever A speaks to anyone in authority during this time, during the child protection process, about concerns at home, she says that everything is fine. It is noted that during these visits A appears a bit overweight for her height. The evidence of both parents in this hearing is that there had been concern that A was eating too many sweet things and that she must be encouraged to eat vegetables.

It is noted that by 2018 A is saying she had a good Christmas and her parents did not drink alcohol. A has completed her safe work by then and A is reported to be happy. In fact A’s evidence in her interview is that, despite what she was saying at the time to those in authority, F2 was continuing to bully her, pinching her and hitting her.

Others at this time were reporting that there were issues for concern. In  April 2018 an anonymous caller reported to the school that he had seen both parents kick A and that dad would say, “I have made stew for tea but there is half a tub of mustard in yours.”

The oral evidence of the mother is that Adid not like to eat certain vegetables and when she did not eat them that F2 would put mustard on the vegetables and demand that A would eat them. She accepts that she did try to force A to eat such food with mustard on it knowing that she would not like it and indeed that she herself would not have liked it. She says she was aware that F2 was physical when trying to force A to eat her food and that she took part in the forcing but only forced her verbally.

Soon after this in June 2018 the school receives another referral, this time from the parent of A’s friend, L. The court notes that this referral comes a year after a school friend reported to A’s previous school J that A was being physically assaulted by F2. This current referral reports similar concerns. The parent of L reports to the school that A has told L that her stepfather, F2, hurts her and that she has bruises on her arm. A, again, however, does not repeat these complaints to the school.

L’s parent reports concerns about A to the school on more than one occasion. When F2 is asked in evidence about the fact that L’s parent had made these allegations of what A is said to have told L he reverts to all his frequent answer that L was instrumental in organising A to be bullied and that therefore, by implication, she should not be believed.

The court observes that relationships between girls are often characterised by ups and downs but the evidence of the safeguarding lead to this court is that she was aware that L and A had developed a close friendship.

One week after that referral, within the child protection report it is noted that A talks fondly about her mother and F2. The report notes that as F2‘s conviction for sexual abuse was long ago and the deemed risk of sexual abuse was low together with the fact that A herself had no concerns of a sexual natur- the decision was made to remove the children from the Child Protection Register. It was closed, therefore, in June 2018.

However, it is of note that the referrals by those who are worried for Acontinue. Eight days after child protection was closed, there is another anonymous referral to the local authority. The complainant claims to have witnessed F2 shouting at a child identified to be A saying, “Hurry up, you little slut”, in an aggressive way and A had appeared to look worried.

What is also of note in this record is that Awas noted to be very slight and underweight. The court observes that this note, which could not be tested here, notes that she is underweight only some six months after she was noted as being overweight. The court noting that the evidence of Ain her interview was that her food would regularly be tampered with as to make it unpalatable and un edible.

Later in 2018 there is another report, this time from a taxi driver who alleges that F2 was verbally and physically abusive to A, pushing her into the window of a taxi, causing her to cry. This referral now leads to a s.47 enquiry and strategy discussion, but at home visit it seems that the mother and F2 were able to persuade the local authority that there were no concerns and that they had stopped drinking.

However, according to the mother’s evidence and that of Q things were not right. Things came to a head again at the mother’s 40^th birthday, which was in 2018. The evidence of Q, who is the cousin of F2, is that she and her husband had travelled to Plymouth to celebrate the mother’s birthday. F2 disputed that the celebration had happened in their home but Q was later able to provide photographs of the mother and F2 at home at the time.

The account of the mother and Q is that later on that night of the birthday celebration they were the only ones still up and they had both been drinking. The mother asked if Q would take A away with her when she left the next day. She stated that Q asked why and the mother told her that F2 had been hurting A.

Q said that when they left the next morning the mother told her not to leave A on her own as she was concerned that A was suicidal. A does leave with Q under the pretext that she is going with them to see F2’s mother.

When Q, her husband and A were on the motorway back to their home the mother starts ringing them telling them to bring A back home. F2 accepts that he is instrumental in that as he was telling the mother to do so. He says in evidence that the reason for that was nothing more sinister than he was concerned that A would miss school. To their credit Q and her husband do not return Ato the mother and F2 at that time.

They arrive at their home on a Sunday. Q is back at work on Monday but she makes sure that a neighbour sits with A so that A is not left alone.

When Q does return home A discusses with her what she alleges is happening. She tells her that F2 has been hitting her. She lifts up her top and shows the marks on the top of her breast which Q identifies as tiny pinch marks.

The court hears that the mother says that she herself has not seen A in a state of undress at this time and therefore had not seen the marks on her breast but that she had seen bruises on her arms. Q in her oral evidence says that A tells her that F2 has been using cable ties on her to restrain her

Q gave evidence twice. On the first occasion, she attended the courtroom and because F2 was not present on that day she agreed to give evidence remotely on a further day. The court was impressed by Q. She appeared to want to help the court.

She was asked about her views of the issue that mother was not protecting A from abuse and she said that she felt that she really could not say anything as she herself had stayed in an abusive relationship for years. The fact that she was self-deprecating gave credibility to her evidence .

She explained that during the couple of days that A was with her, F2 turned up at her home and that she had been warned of his attendance by the mother. She said that she was concerned being on her own and she had asked her son to come along. She said that there was a heated discussion between her son and F2 when her son explained to him that he could not carry on treating A so badly and that F2 accepted that.

That is not accepted by F2. He accepts that he did attend Q’s home; that Q’s son was there and he does accept that A did not want to return. He does not accept Q’s evidence that in fact he walked from the station to her home, which she says would have taken him half an hour.

Q says that A did eventually go home after speaking to the mother on the phone and that she understood that A was concerned about how her brothers would be affected by her being away.

Q said that as a result of A coming to stay with her, which occurred because the mother asked her to keep A, no one in the family would speak to her for a while and she believed that the mother and F2 were promoting a false rumour that she had tried in some way to kidnap A.

The court notes this is evidence that by November 2018 the mother was aware that A was being regularly physically abused by F2. Further it is evidence that she had her suspicions that A was being sexually abused by F2 and that she was worried about A’s mental health as she believed A was suicidal.

When the mother was asked why she suspected the possibility of sexual abuse she commented that it was because of the way that F2 was around A all the time, that he would pay her attention and talk to her all the time. She also said that he would insist on A being with him when he went out and that usually A and he went off on their own. This is allegation 10. She accepted that she had on occasion told A to inform her if F2 touched her in a sexual way.

It is A’s account that around this time (November 2018) when she was 14 that F2 started pressing her for sex, that he kept on and on until she relented. The account is in A’s second interview of the first time that she had sex with him and it is chilling in its detail. She gives detail as to the actual location, which was outside an area close to her home which they walked to; that he offered her £10 to do it and that because he kept on and on she relented.

Her distress when she talks of this in interview is palpable. She talks of him laying her on the grass. She remembers wearing a coat. That he took down her leggings and underwear. She also remembers she was wearing a t-shirt and a jumper. That he brought her leggings down to her knees. That he took out his penis, which she called his “dick”. He put it in her vagina and did five pushes. That she saw his penis was hard before he put it in her. That he did not ejaculate. This is allegation 2. That he had described to her what it would be like when he ejaculated but that he only started doing that when she was 15. In her interview she described in a very graphic way when he did ejaculate and that she says it felt like a warm liquid which then disappeared. This is allegation 4.

She said concerning the locations that, although it also happened in his bed, it would usually happen in the trees when it was in the summer and in the lane when it was winter and that he called the latter his “love den”. This is allegation 1(b). Concerning frequency she said initially it would happen every day, then a few times a week and then weekly.

The evidence of the mother was that the physical abuse of A continued from the time that B was born in and certainly others continued to observe the harsh way that Ais treated. According to Q, she felt that Awas always put upon by the mother and F2, that she would do the chores, that she was not allowed friends.

On 8 January 2019 R, who is F2’s biological daughter, reports to school, which is now known as K and is the same school that A attends, that she has had a text from her father, F2, indicating that he and the mother were packing A’s belongings as A was going to live elsewhere. The text reads, “She is going as we cannot put up with that thing no more and her mum has had enough of her. Her gran is coming down to pick her up.”

At the school the Safeguarding lead speaks to A who is upset, says she does not want to go. She is upset at going away. The Safeguarding lead speaks to the mother and F2 who come to the school. They inform her that they have both had enough of A’s challenging behaviour and that A did not really care about taking care of herself. The safeguarding lead notes that during this discussion when A is present the mother refuses to sit next to A.

The Safeguarding lead has worries and rings the mother the next day. She is informed by the mother that they are waiting to hear from a school whether there is a place for A. However, the following day the mother and F2 attend at school and inform school that Ais not going anywhere and that they were just telling her that she was going in order to frighten her.

This is an odd set of affairs. If they were just trying to frighten A why would the mother inform the school that they there waiting to hear from a school? The court considers that this is most improbable. The mother has admitted some dreadful things to this court, she knows that she has not been protective of A in any way and on occasion has joined in the abusive parenting, but she has constantly said that her parental rights were taken over by F2.

When F2 gave evidence, he constantly referred to the mother as “that thing” and said that she would not do anything for A. He repeatedly said that it was he who would go to the school and sort things out.

The impression that the court has from this is that it is probable from the dynamic of this couple that F2 had more of a say as to what was happening in the home. I am satisfied that concerning this occasion it is more probable that what was happening is that the mother was telling the school that she was waiting to hear information from a school because that is what the mother believed was happening. She believed Awas going away. I accept her evidence that F2 changed his mind and that it was because he changed his mind it was decided that A would stay.

Telling a child that they are moving away from home, away from school in order to frighten them, is very manipulative in itself and it chimes with the account that A gives in her second interview that F2 would do things and make her life uncomfortable if she refused to have sex with him.

It seems that R is worried about what is going on in the home and on 29 January 2019 she reports to the Safeguarding lead about an occasion when she saw F2 pull A’s hair and that he sometimes gives her blended vegetables. The Safeguarding lead then speaks to A who denies she is ever given blended food.

The mother and F2 contact the school the next day expressing worry that A has reported that a teacher has asked her about having her hair pulled. The Safeguarding lead explained it was she herself that had spoken to A because another pupil had raised it.

The court notes that within a short time of them becoming aware that the school was starting to ask questions about what was happening that this mother and F2 make an application to move A now back to J School.

Student Welfare at J school contact K school in order to discuss this move and the Safeguarding lead informs J school that the move seemed to have been prompted by the incident that occurred and concerns raised about A by the school.

J school now inform the Safeguarding lead at K school that it appeared to them that that is why Awas moved from J school in the first place. It was again because of safeguarding issues that had been raised by J school. So at this point the schools are making the connection.

Neither the mother nor F2 has given the school any plausible reason as to why A has to be moved. According to the Safeguarding lead , A had settled well at K school and did not wish to move.

The details of what R alleges she observed at the home are set out in her police statement. She said that she had noticed that the mother and F2 had been drinking. That as she and A were going back up the stairs she reports that F2 asked Ato do something for him and when A replied that she would do it later he grabbed her hair and pulled her by the hair with the effect that she almost fell down the two steps. R reports that it was bad.

So here is yet another report of F2 pulling A’s hair. This refers to allegation 11 and allegation 12(a). The mother says that this is true. F2 denies it and is derogatory in his description about R.

So A has moved back to J school. F2 seems as involved in her life as ever. To many of the questions in his evidence he would say that it was nothing to do with him as she was not his daughter, but he also said that the mother would do nothing and it was left to him to sort things out, such as the school.

In March 2019 he accepts that he complained that a student called is constantly following A and that A asked him not to but the boy’s response was, “I don’t care, I like someone with big tits and a big arse.” The school maintain that this account was not their understanding of what was actually going on, but the court notes that here is F2 identifying A as someone who is physically well-developed and Q herself confirmed, as did the mother, that A was well-developed for her age. This is relevant when considering the allegation that F2 pinched her breast.

By April the s.47 investigation that had been opened as a result of the report of the taxi driver is now closed. A is yet again denying that she is subject to physical abuse.

In May 2019 by that time A has had one period of menstruation. A is taken to the GP by the mother and F2 in the company of her brothers and according to the medical note the reason for the attendance is that they want A to go on the contraceptive pill. The mother says that A has had one period, and that she had suffered discomfort and that as she (the mother) herself suffers pain during her cycle, that she wanted A to start on contraception.

The court heard from the GP who was then a trainee GP.. His note records that he had explained that he would need for there to be more than evidence of one cycle before he prescribed the pill and the response of F2 was one he felt he had to record. He noted that F2 said that, “It’s been a waste of my fucking time.” “We need to see another fucking doctor.”

Such was the concern of this GP about F2’s reaction that he wrote to the local authority. He was concerned about the possibility of sexual abuse at this stage. The response from the local authority was that this behaviour did not take the case over threshold. The doctor, to his credit, was not satisfied about that reply and wrote again.

The GP was asked to attend court because his account of F2’s behaviour was not accepted. F2 maintained that he had not wanted to be there at the surgery, that he would never have sworn. However, the evidence of this GP was that the words were in quotation marks because they were the exact words said.

The court was very impressed by the doctor’s evidence. He was clear that he had been very concerned about the dynamic within this family and the court observes that his action in sending two letters to the local authority was consistent with his evidence that F2’s presentation was as he described. It seems very unlikely to this court that a busy GP would spend and waste his time writing letters about people, making up concerns. This is allegation 9.

In July things seemed to be getting worse. On 1 July 2019 the mother reports to the police that she has been physically assaulted by F2 by pulling her hair and kneeing her in the back. On the same day A is spoken to by staff at school and for the first time she now tells them that she is really struggling at home. She says to them that her stepfather says to her, “I wish you were never born. I wish you died instead of my sister.” She says that both mother and F2 say that they hate her and that she will be going into care. This is allegation 21(a). She says that the previous day he had told A to leave the home at 2 o’clock in the morning and that the mother had disagreed and this is why he had assaulted the mother.

This appears to be the first time that A reveals to anyone at school that she is struggling. As a result of this there is a referral to the local authority but, again, they say that it does not meet threshold. At length A says that F2 has apologised and that all is fine.

The next day a friend of A alleges that A says she has been kicked in the throat by F2. When asked about it A denies it, but there is a mark to the front of her throat which had not been seen by staff the day before. It is noted also that A is off school for a few days, reportedly with diarrhoea and vomiting. Soon after this series of events there is another application for A to move school and this time she is moving back again to K school.

In October the mother says that she herself suffered a black eye from F2. She later says that F2 is getting more verbally aggressive and abusive. Again she retracts this.

In November 2019 A had her 15^th birthday and now, according to her second interview, F2 starts ejaculating during sex. No protection is used. A gives a very compelling description of how she was aware of the ejaculate. This is allegation 3. This, as with everything, F2 denies, saying that A has been told to say things by the mother.

During that same month things are not going well. L raises concerns that A has a bruise on her arm and that A had explained that it was because F2 was not happy that she had been dating someone. When A is spoken to again she denies that anything is happening and that all is fine.

However, later in police interview she says that the row is about the mention of a boyfriend and ends up with F2 forcing her to eat mustard and sprout sandwiches. This is allegation 14.

She states in interview that on the following day F2 restrains her with cable ties and that he and the mother left her there and locked up the house while they took B and C to school. This is allegation 15.

The mother accepts that this is what has happened. She only takes issue with who untied A as she says it was F2 and not herself. F2 says he was not aware of any of this, save he was aware that the mother was the one who forced A to eat the sandwiches.

Initially when the mother gave her evidence she said that there were only three occasions when A was tied up.

She later says in her oral evidence that in fact A had been tied and restrained on several occasions. On this occasion with regard to this incident, which is when the boyfriend was mentioned, A says that she was kicked by F2.

A’s problems continue into 2020 and in February L’s parents contact the school again, this time saying that L says that Ahas told her that F2 has physically abused her. A is seen to have a bruise on her cheekbone but when spoken to A says that this was caused by one of her brothers throwing a building brick and F2 in his evidence says that this often happened.

Later that year A has an abortion. She says in her interview that she felt that she could not tell her mother so she told F2 who organised the appointment at in Plymouth, and she gives F2’s mobile as her contact number.

F2 accepts that he was present at the hospital at the time of the abortion but claims he knew nothing about it. He says that he was at the hospital having bloods taken and that A was with him and that he was only knew when A told him at the hospital.

A tells the clinic that she was pregnant by a boy. The court reminds itself she is not yet 16. In her second interview she gives details concerning the response of F2 when she tells him she was pregnant; that he blamed her. She is clear that she was pregnant by F2.

Following the clinical procedure A is given pills to take every day. The mother sees those pills. She says that she asked A about them but she does not press A even though it is the mother’s understanding by that time that A had been refused the conraceptive pill. She does not press A as to why she is taking the pills. This is allegation 4(a), (b), (c) and allegation 10(b).

In October the mother alleges that F2 has punched her in the face and broken her glasses.

A has her 16^th birthday. For her birthday the mother says that A’s bedroom is redecorated. It was pink and purple and after 30 minutes’ work by F2 it is now all purple. The evidence of the mother and F2 is that it is now a showroom, that it looks good, but the evidence of the mother is that from now on A never sleeps in that room, that F2 has decided that A should always sleep in with them, with the boys in their room.

Mother’s evidence is that sometimes A would sleep on what was referred to as the “toddler’s mattress” in their room and sometimes she would just simply sleep on the floor and that sometimes she would be allowed bedding and sometimes not. A describes in her interview how she would sleep on the floor but sometimes she would not have bedding and that she was very cold. B in his interview speaks of how A would sleep on the floor.

In F2’s first police interview he says that A slept in her bedroom at the top of the house near the bathroom, that he cannot get to it because it is at the top of the stairs. He accepted at length later in the interview that C in fact did sleep in their bedroom at the bottom of their bed at times and occasionally B would sleep in their bed, but he was insistent that A never slept in their room. When he is asked as to why there was no bedding in her room he says that B had dragged A’s bedding down to their room.

So by the end of 2020, on A’s account, F2 is frequently having sex with her. On the account of A and her mother A is repeatedly being physically abused by F2. She is attending school with bruises; she is being force-fed with food that would make anyone sick such as mustard and pepper sandwiches. She has had an abortion. Even when people come to ask her if anything has happened she keeps saying that everything is fine. Looking at this sad list it is really no wonder that when this young girl is then just 16 she takes an overdose. The overdose is not successful.

A then alleges that F2 is physically abusive to her in April 2021. A gives the account of what happens on a night in late  April 2021, going into the next day, in considerable detail in her first interview. She says it was a normal day. She got home from school, her meal was served and without asking her F2 put lots of apple sauce on her meal with salt and pepper, but she refused to eat it. That he got angry with her and before going upstairs he pulls her hair. He punches her on the spine and he goes up to bed.

That the mother goes on and on at her verbally, telling her that she must eat the food so she eats the cauliflower and the mushy peas and a bit of onion. That she puts the rest in some foil in the oven. That she goes upstairs to sleep in their room but B is still up and so she A comes down to give him some milk.

That at about 9 or 10 o’clock F2 wakes up. That he goes downstairs, that he calls the mother to do the same and that they both go downstairs, calling her to join them. That when she goes downstairs she finds the mother has put the contents of the foil in a bowl on the table and that F2 has mixed mustard into it with salt and pepper. That he is sitting close to her and she is being told to eat this. She backs her chair into a corner, she raises her arm and he then pulls and pulls her hair and knees her in the face. This then causes a bruise that is later seen by Dr Wimalendra on her face.

She then runs upstairs. She was screaming and she saw her mother on the stairs. That the mother slapped her saying, “If you dare wake those boys God help you.” That she went to their bedroom where she would sleep and that when F2 came up he told her that if she did not eat it now she would have to eat it tomorrow. That he threatened her with a stick and that the mother aided him in his threat by informing him that in fact the stick was in the bedroom and she gave it to him. B refers in his interview to the fact that dad said “get a stick and sticks here with the stick”.

When F2 is asked about this he denies being threatening in any way to A. He does say that there is a stick in the house, but he would not have used it because it was his grandmother’s stick. The court notes, however, that when referring to his grandmother he refers to the fact that the grandmother would at times hit him with her stick over the back of his legs and put soap in his mouth.

Continuing with what happens at this time, however; in the morning A says she dresses for school. That mother says not to bother knocking on their door after school and that F2 went to kick or hit her but she managed to run out.

That evening she goes home with L and at 8.15 on the 28^th, that same day, there is a police record that L’s mother has contacted the police. That A has turned up at their home, she has a bruise on her face, she says she has been kicked out and the mother has slapped her.

A goes to school the next day and she asks her tutor whether the school know about the police, pointing to the mark on her left eye and that her stepfather did it. This is a very different stance for her to take. She is now offering information, whereas before she would deny anything was wrong.

A’s interview is in April and besides her account of what had happened the previous evening she gives details of the reaction of F2 to her mentioning a boyfriend. She refers in that interview to him calling her names, “scumbag”, “fucking lazy cow”, “oxygen stealer”. This is allegation 21(a).

She said that she thought the abuse was never going to end, that she was not allowed to go out with her mates, she was not allowed out and that she would be told that she had no road sense. That F2 had confiscated two of her phones. This is allegation 24.

The court notes that B, her 6 year old brother, who is not on her account or anyone’s account mistreated by F2, in interview says that, “A sleeps on the floor if she says rude stuff when she gets a mustard sandwich by dad.” B says that A does F2’s toe nails and then F2 and B pull her hair. He says that, “Dad gets a stick and waves it at her,” and they take her pillows and blankets. That dad tells him to pull A’s hair.

Both F2 and the mother are arrested and when the allegation is put to F2 in his first interview he denies any wrongdoing, saying he loves all his children and would never hurt them. When this is put to the father later in his interview he says that that is “bullshit”. His standard answer when asked about the allegations is “I wouldn’t do that”.

When the mother is first interviewed she plays down what happened the previous night. She denies that F2 put pepper and cigarette ash in the food. She even claims that F2 had taken chilli out by mistake as his sight was not good. She does accept, however, that she sent A away as she was concerned that F2 was hurting her mentally. She accepted that he was a bully with food but did not accept that he gave her a black eye. She did accept that F2 and B were physically abusive with her, pulling her hair. And in this interview she says, “If he can’t lash out at A he’s going to lash out at me or the boys.”

She accepted that she saw F2 cut the duct tape off A’s arms and that she was aware that he had cable tied her legs. She accepted that F2 had told B to pull A’s hair. She says that A slept in their room. That F2 had hurt her (the mother) and this was every time he had had a drink at weekends from 2017.

The next day when the Safeguarding lead speaks to A at school A tells her that she (A) has lied to her all these years and that she now felt that she was free. As a result of the arrest the boys are placed with paternal grandmother and A remains with L’s family.

L gives an interview and confirms everything that she has been telling the school for a while, that is that A has been reporting to her for some time, that her stepfather has been physically abusing her. She effectively says the account that A gives in interview is what A has said to her. She also says that A said to her that F2 would give her food that she did not like on purpose and that she says that she (L) had given A two mobile phones and that she had been told that F2 had confiscated them. This is allegation 24. The very fact of her having to give a second phone suggests that the first phone was not available and is consistent with A’s claim that he had taken them. Mother accepts that the phones were confiscated and in fact destroyed. This is allegation 25.

In May A first mentions at school that she is sexually abused. Late in May the mother contacts the police and gives chapter and verse about the considerable violence within the home. And on the same day A gives an interview about her allegations of sexual abuse. Within that interview, besides those matters I have already referred to, she says that the last time she had sex was in April, about a week before the police were involved. That he had fingered her. That he had made her give him, in her words, “a blow job”, oral sex, that she was kneeling before him when she did so. That he then had full penetrative sex with his penis. This is allegation 5. She says that if she did not have sex with him he would punish her with making her sleep on the floor. This is allegation 7(a). That only F2 was involved in the sexual abuse and that therefore it was F2 that got her pregnant. Allegation 4(a) and (b).

She says that she was aware that he had a conversation with a man on Facebook about having sex with her for money. She says that initially the price was £50 and it increased to £100 and then for considerably more but nothing came of it. This is allegation 8. That he initially offered her money of £50 on a few occasions for oral sex, which she did not take. Allegation 7(c).

The allegations against F2 at this point are very serious so what is F2’s reaction to all that is happening? Well four days later he starts a pattern of behaviour that the court observes is repeated. He contacts the police and tells them that he is suicidal. He repeats this on 11 June 2021. Meanwhile the local authority issue proceedings and later June he is arrested again, this time on suspicion of rape and domestic assault and he is interviewed. Two days later he takes another overdose and he is admitted to hospital.

Later in June his biological son, D, goes to the police and tells the police that he has been anally raped by F2 the previous evening. This issue is not before the court. D withdraws his complaint in October 2021 but the court notes that even when doing so D asserts that what he told the police was true but that he has been staying with the father and his father is not well and he does not wish to pursue it. I report this fact, but as this issue has not been aired or evidence heard I do not rely on it at all in considering whether I make findings.

Between that time and the end of August F2 reports to the police another three times that he intends to take his life. These proceedings continue and directions are made and an application is made that there be a capacity assessment of F2 because of how he presents.

The assessments that take place highlight the fact that when considering the presentation of F2 all is not as it seems. In his assessment with Dr Drake, a clinical psychologist, he can barely communicate. He has to mime numbers to him. He made it clear that he could not operate a remote control; he could not understand how a mobile phone works; he could not read or write or manage his own finances. Dr Drake, a qualified clinical psychologist, a professional, gives his opinion that F2 is on the bottom point one per cent of the population with regard to his cognitive ability and that he lacks capacity.

This report comes as a bit of a surprise to the mother and on her application a further cognitive assessment takes place, this time by Dr Gough, again another clinical psychologist. She has a number of sessions, some of which he does not attend, some of which are short, but Dr Gough does make sure that she does not just rely on F2’s self-reporting; she liaises with the police. She is aware that there was a meeting she was to have with F2 on 14 October and she was aware that it had to be cut short because F2, attending on his mobility scooter, felt that he was too tired for the whole session.

The police then inform her that the police hear from D that he (D) had been on a long walk with father later that same day on 14 October. Dr Gough also sees the videos of F2’s interviews and notes the difference in his presentation within these interviews. She notes that F2 had told herself and Dr Drake that he could not walk and yet she sees the CCTV footage of his walking on and off a bus on the same day that she herself saw him in his mobility scooter. She noted that he was able to speak fluently when she asked him about the allegations about mother’s behaviour but had difficulty talking when asked about the allegations about himself.

She opines, “Overall I have consulted with F2’s self-report. I have opined that F2’s self-report is extremely unreliable and that he is more capable than he would like to reveal to the Family Court.” She considers that he has capacity, only a mild learning difficulty.

It was noted during the time that she was assessing his capacity that he had been admitted to hospital with Covid symptoms. His aggression and presentation in the hospital itself led to him being detained under the Mental Health Act. However, when she contacted the ward she was informed that when there as an in-patient F2 had not shown any signs of a mental health disorder and that he was released.

The only ground rules as a consequence of Dr Gough’s report are that the questions for F2 should be short, simple sentences and he has been aided by an intermediary.

The allegations that A makes, supported by the mother and to an extent B, are all very physical, even the sexual allegations are physical. A talks about F2 laying her down outside. She talks of walking to the locations where he would have sex with her. I remind myself that when F2 was first interviewed on 29 April for the allegations of physical abuse it was A’s account that he had had sex with her the previous week, yet already for that first interview he was presenting himself as a man with considerable physical disabilities. It was noted that he was at that stage shaking and at that stage had difficulty communicating.

It is noted that he has attended more interviews. His physical presentation seems to have deteriorated and by the last interviews that this court has observed he was in his mobility scooter. In all these interviews he seems to have difficulty even saying his name and, as Dr Drake observed, on occasion he seems to have to almost mime words, drawing the letters, such as of his date of birth, with his finger in the air.

When F2 is asked in his first interview about the allegation that he had stood up in the kitchen and kneed A in the face he said, “I can never get up.” When he is asked about the allegation of having gone up to bed and coming back down to further abuse A he said, “I wouldn’t be able to get back down the stairs. To go up on the machine [meaning his nebuliser] that is me done.” He states that A never sleeps in the bedroom, that she sleeps in her bedroom in the roof (meaning on the top floor) and that he can never get up to the bathroom on the floor because of the stairs.

In his second interview in he claims that he did not take the bus anymore but when he is asked about the bus pass that is on a lanyard in his name he claims that he had not used it for a while. The court of course has seen the video that Dr Gough had seen of him on a bus in October 2021.

He claimed that he would struggle to walk every day, that he never walked unaided, that he was not physically capable of having sex, that he would not be able to walk to the locations that A had identified as where she had been raped.

He was shown within the interview the CCTV of him going up and down a spiral staircase in a bar on 24 April 2021. He agrees that it is him but he claims he had good days and bad days.

In this court he has seen those videos again. That video shows him walking around a landing on a staircase with a mobile phone to his ear. He is standing with his weight on one leg and then another. He seems very relaxed. He walks confidently down the stairs. There is no notice of any faltering steps.

He is also shown the video of June 2023 when he is seen standing on a kitchen table giving what can be only described as a very vigorous performance of playing “air guitar”. He accepts that that is also him. He is also shown the clips of CCTV of 14 October and this confirms what D said is correct, that F2 was with him, that they did walk the dog. The dog is a fully grown black Labrador. F2 holds the lead as he, with ease, walks onto the bus and with apparent confidence walks back to get off the bus when the bus is still moving and then disembarks. He seems very relaxed.

F2, when asked about these videos, says again that he has good days and bad days, that when he has the good days he can walk for a short distance but needs to stop. This court has seen these videos of him on the bus. They do not portray a man who is in any way walking with faltering steps. He is not hesitant. These are not images of a man who has any issues with regard to his mobility.

Of his performance of playing “air guitar” on the table, the court is satisfied that for someone who can barely move and who literally has had to be helped around this court with the aid of his Zimmer frame, which is called a “perch chair”, which has a chair attached to it, it is most unlikely that anyone with a condition that has that would have ben risking any situation whereby he would have been standing on a table.

The court notes the evidence of Q that F2 does not need his mobility scooter, that she has seen him walk up and down stairs, that he walked half an hour from the station to her home and I prefer her evidence. The mother agrees with this. Even B says that dad has no help with the stairs.

The court has to assess the credibility of F2 and the reliability of his evidence. F2 gave evidence but his involvement within this hearing was not without incident.

On the first day his legal team of leading counsel and junior attended without their client. The court was informed that he had not attended for a pre-arranged consultation the previous day, but claimed that he was in Bristol and was about to get the 4.32 pm back that previous day for this first day of the hearing. During that first day there were no responses from him to the numerous calls made by his legal team. As a result of no adequate explanation for his absence the case proceeded.

He attended on the second and third day. On the second day he clarified that in fact he had not been staying in Bristol, he had been staying in Hounslow. That he had been in Bristol for the day when he had spoken to the instructing solicitor the day before the court started and that having had a day’s shopping he had then returned to Hounslow. He said that he had mislaid his phone, which is why he could not communicate with the court. The court found it difficult to believe such an explanation.

However, he did attend court the second day, he attended the third day, but his attendance was not as the able man that the court saw on the bus, the man who was able to control a strong dog on a lead. This was the presentation of a man with a Zimmer frame with wheels on it, that had a seat called a perch chair. He sat with shaking arms and legs, save that there were occasions that the court noted that for no reason the shaking stopped temporarily.

On the fourth day he attended at court and the court was informed that he had vomited. Leading counsel indicated to the court that she was prepared with her questions for the witness and wanted to check with her client that he was content for the case to continue.

Leading counsel then reported to the court that when she and junior counsel next saw him he appeared to be deteriorating gradually. He was not able to respond to questions and he was soon flat out on the floor apparently unconscious. An ambulance was called.

The ambulance records were made available to this court, as were the emergency department records from the hospital.

The paramedics noted that F2 was able to respond to pain; that he was soon feeling better after he had urinated; that he did not seem to have any pain at that point in his stomach but he did not seem to know what the year was or the month was. Having concerns, therefore, about his capacity the paramedics decided to convey him to hospital by ambulance, but not before he had made it clear that he wanted time outside the court while he was standing up with his frame in order to have a cigarette. The diagnosis that the emergency department made was of suspected fabricated illness.

On the fifth day he did not come back to court, claiming to be sick. He told his legal team that his GP was giving him certain medication. In an abundance of caution this case was adjourned to the next day after the long weekend, but a witness summons was served. It was made plain to F2 that he had to attend.

He turned up to court. The report from the surgery, meanwhile, was that he had refused to attend the surgery, even though the GP had said that he had wanted to see him to make sure that he did not need to be admitted to hospital. However, when at court he was sick again. There was no application this time by his legal team to adjourn the case and the case proceeded with him sitting in the court with a bucket. The court noted that he did not vomit again, but his presentation was of a severally physically disabled person.

On the next day he was due to start his evidence. He did not turn up. He did not respond to the 20 plus attempts that the court was informed were made to contact him. However, the court was informed that when he was told about the possibility of police attending at his home he did respond and when he did attend at court there was another application to adjourn. This time the application was on the basis that he was hearing voices; that he was going to kill himself; and that because of all the lies that he had heard he now wanted to be with his dead sister.

His counsel explained that whereas she had not been able to go through his statement with him, her instructing solicitor had. This court took the view that in view of the problems with regard to his presentation, the inconsistencies with regard to his presentation and the issues raised by the report of Dr Gough as to how genuine his self-reporting was, this case should continue and the court directed that he would give his evidence.

The court having made the decision that he was to give his evidence that day allowed him to be accompanied by his advocate. He was allowed to wear his cap because he said his eyes were affected by the light. He sat in a place where he would remain on his perch chair, in other words not in the usual witness box. The court therefore approached the practical arrangements on the basis that his self-reporting was accurate.

There then followed the most extraordinary performance. F2 now claimed that he could barely see and so counsel was therefore required by the court to ask questions from the closest part of counsel’s row. He seemed to revert at this point to the performance that he gave Dr Drake. He claimed now that he did not know what rape was and then, however, he seemed to be able to use the word in a sentence. He claimed that he did not know what the word “blowjob” was, he did not understand the word “ejaculate”. He sometimes repeated a word a number of times as if he would stutter.

He was asked to listen to an audio recording of him speaking fluently without a stutter, without any problems, to the police. This audio recording was taken post-April 2021 when he made a complaint to the police about a female friend taking advantage of him. It was put to him that he was putting on a performance in court and this he denied.

The court is completely satisfied that F2 has lied throughout these proceedings. He has lied concerning his mobility, he has lied concerning his ability to talk. The court has reminded itself of the Lucas direction, that just because someone does lie does not mean that they are guilty of what they are accused; there could be many reasons.

However, what could be the reason for F2 trying to represent himself to the court that he was physically disabled? He makes it clear what the reason would be in his own interviews: he could not have done the things that were alleged of him because he cannot walk. He says he cannot climb the stairs, he cannot have sex. The court is satisfied that he has lied about his abilities because he wants the court to think he was not physically capable of the allegations against him.

The court has referred at length to the mother’s evidence. She has to an extent made a clean breast of what has happened. Certainly there are more admissions that she has made in her interview and the schedule is listed with all her acceptances and admittances. However, even in her evidence before the court the court noticed that she changed her evidence, that she was trying to minimise to an extent what she had seen. For example, that she had only seen A tied up by cable ties three times. This was changed within her evidence from a number of times.

For the first time in her evidence she did accept she was suspicious of the sexual abuse even as early as 2018.

I do prefer her evidence to that of F2. I accept that he took much control within the relationship, but there was a time between 2015 and 2017 when she knew that A was being physically abused, when she herself had not been physically abused by F2 yet she did nothing to stop it. She has no excuse for failing to do so.

The court considers that this mother knew early on that F2 was a bully; that life would be much easier living with him if there was a scapegoat and that when she realised that the scapegoat was A she facilitated this bullying in order to save her own skin and that of the boys.

The court remembers a piece of her evidence when she said that as early as 2015 she was aware that he would pull A’s hair. She said that she wanted to cut off A’s hair so as to prevent it happening. Such an action and a response is an indication of her inability to put A first. Rather than removing the abuser she was prepared to cut off A’s hair so that he could not pull it. In this instance she was not parenting A, she was not trying to get rid of the bully, but she was trying to get rid of the hair. This was not the response of a protective parent.

Here within this case the evidence against F2 is overwhelming that he physically assaulted A. There are reports from A’s school friend; the presence of the bruises; the evidence of the mother. There is the evidence of Dr Wimalendra who noticed the bruise on A’s face. There is the evidence that has been seen of A’s school friend’s parent of the bruise on her back.

There is the interview of B. The reporting of A to Q that he was hitting her. The showing by A to Q of the marks on her chest. Q’s evidence that she herself could see that they were pinches and her breasts were developed, even at the time that A was telling the school that everything was fine.

I prefer this evidence to the evidence of F2. I am satisfied that A was telling the truth within her interview with regard to physical abuse. That all the allegations of physical abuse are truth. That B was telling the truth.

Concerning the allegations of sexual abuse there is further evidence before the court. There is the medical evidence of Dr Thomas who conducted the medical examination and found evidence of a deep notch in A’s hymen. In her opinion, which was not affected by cross-examination, the deep notch which was observed is one greater than 50 per cent of the width of the hymen. She stands with the research which shows that in pubertal girls like A notches are found in 33 per cent of the girls who report being sexually abused, as opposed to 7 per cent who deny any sexual activity. Therefore, this is again supportive of A’s allegation of penetrative abuse.

The court considers in the context of the history that the mother and A have given of what was happening in the home that she was not allowed friends or phones. That F2 was with her everywhere and that this is something that Q comments on.

Taking all that evidence alongside the evidence that A gives in her interview; the details that she gives with regard to the sexual abuse; the details with regard to the dynamics with regard to the household, as well as considering that she was already subject to the physical abuse, that this court finds it very probable and is absolutely convinced that Awas sexually abused by F2 exactly as she described.

Now going through the findings, the court makes the following findings. Allegation 1, in its entirety. Allegation 2, in its entirety. Allegation 3, in its entirety. Allegation 4, in its entirety. Allegation 5, in its entirety. Allegation 6, in its entirety. Allegation 7(a) and (c), in its entirety. I am not persuaded with regard to allegation 7(b). It may well be that evidence was present but for the purpose of this judgment the court is not able to make that finding.

Allegation 8, in its entirety. Allegation 9, in its entirety. Allegation 10, in its entirety. Allegation 11, in its entirety. Allegation 12, in its entirety. Allegation 13, in its entirety. Allegation 14, in its entirety. Allegation 15, in its entirety. Allegation 16, in its entirety. Allegation 17 is in relation to the mother. The mother accepts that she lightly smacked B on the bottom. The finding is that there was smacking so the allegation is as per the finding sought that she chastised them by smacking on their bottoms.

Allegation 18, in its entirety. Allegation 19, in its entirety. Allegation 20, in its entirety. Allegation 21, in its entirety. Allegation 22, in its entirety. Allegation 23, in its entirety. Allegation 24, in its entirety. Allegation 25, in its entirety. Allegation 26, in its entirety. Allegation 27, in its entirety.

In written submissions the Local Authority sought 2 further allegations re the use if cable ties as early as 2019 – on the basis of Q’s evidence and the mother being aware of that from that time .

I am satisfied that there is no prejudice from this late addition . I am satisfied that the use of cable ties could not have been taking place in this household without the mother being aware of the practice.

The court makes further comment. This court is aware that A has blamed herself for, in her words, “letting all this go on for so long”. The court wishes for A to be told that, as counsel has already mentioned in this case, that this is one of the worst cases of physical and sexual abuse that has been seen recently in the Family Court. That rather than blame herself she needs to give herself credit that as a 16 year old she managed to escape this man who until that point had been able to pretend to the school and the local authority that he was not a risk.

He was able to hoodwink a clinical psychologist and those who have assessed his mobility. His deceit knows no bounds. In the view of the court he is a dangerous man in relation to all children. It has taken a huge amount of courage for her to bring this to the court’s attention and by doing so she has not just escaped herself but has protected the boys.

This case has been a case with constant issues and challenges for case management for the court to ensure that this case has proceeded to a conclusion and judgment. Credit needs to be given to all the advocates that have worked on this case and the forensic chronology that has been provided has been invaluable.

It has been the conduct of F2 that has been the most challenging for all involved in this case and I am very grateful to the experience and professionalism of all involved, especially to his legal team who I am sure has had the most challenging of times.

I make a special note of the intermediary, Claire Stowe, who is not present to hear this judgment. She has been given credit within this hearing. She has gone above and beyond and her agency needs to be informed that the court gives her credit.

That is the end of this judgment.