A, F and Z (Children) (Findings of Fact: Domestic Abuse), Re

This is my judgment following a fact-finding hearing which took place from 29 September to 7 October 2025 pursuant to an application by Newcastle City Council (“the local authority”) for orders under section 31(1) of the Children Act 1989 (“the 1989 Act”) in relation to Amal (a girl aged 13), Fatima (a girl aged 11) and Zainab (a girl aged 3). Those are not their real names. I have changed some of the other names and used ciphers elsewhere in this version of the judgment to maintain the parties’ anonymity.

I shall refer to the parents as the mother and father. They are citizens of a Middle Eastern country, and at the time protective measures were taken, were residing lawfully in the United Kingdom with limited leave to remain.

The local authority’s allegations are set in the context of an earlier period of separation between father and mother in 2021. What led to their separation is a matter of dispute to which I shall return, but it is common ground that the father moved out of the family home for a period of six months. The police and social services were involved at the time, at the request of the mother. It is the local authority’s case that the father had been violent to the mother in 2021, but that is resisted by the father and mother. They accept that there were difficulties but say that there was no violence involved. The father had installed numerous CCTV cameras around the house at this time. The local authority’s case is that those cameras were installed as part of his jealous control of the mother, but it is accepted that they have since been uninstalled, with the exception of a single camera in the hallway of the family home, which is said no longer to be operational.

The findings sought by the local authority allege that on the relevant date, 29 January 2025, the criteria contained in section 31(1) of the 1989 Act were met on account of the children’s physical abuse by their father, and the children witnessing their father physically abusing their mother. The pleaded alleged physical abuse against the children by the father includes punching, pushing, hitting with a shoe, and slapping on the head and bottom with an open hand. It is also alleged that the father emotionally abused the children, and physically abused the mother in the presence of the children. The mother is said to have failed to protect the children from the abuse that she knew the father was inflicting upon them and her.

The most recent tranche of allegations against the mother and father emerged on Monday 13 January 2025. Amal alleged to staff at her school that she had returned from school the previous Friday evening, 10 January, and witnessed an incident in which the father was attacking the mother in the family home, stating that he thought she had cheated on him. The father alleging that the mother had cheated on him was a theme that emerged during the 2021 difficulties the father and mother experienced. A referral to children’s social care was made by school staff. The police were called, and PC Molly Cochrane attended the school, taking an account from Amal. Amal additionally alleged that her father had been physically abusive towards her, covering her mouth with tape and a pillow, requiring her to make a hole in it to enable her to breathe. Later that day PC Cochrane spoke to the mother who denied any difficulties alleged by Amal. Zoe Atkinson, a social worker with the local authority, attended the family home. The mother reported a history of the father previously controlling her, having installed cameras in the house, but said that they had been getting on better recently. Ms Atkinson noticed that there was a camera in the hallway.

On 22 January 2025, Fatima made allegations to the staff at her school about being hit with a slipper by her father, and him putting a pillow over her face when she was younger. She also claimed that her father had cameras around the home. She made a range of allegations concerning other abuse. The local authority secured the father’s agreement to a safety plan, whereby he would move out of the home and spend no time with the children. There was an older brother, beyond the scope of these proceedings, who was said to be a protective factor.

The father is said to have breached the safety plan on 28 January 2025 by attending a shopping centre with the children. Fatima and Amal telephoned their school to seek help, leaving a voicemail, and Amal told school staff the next day that they had been scared. The parents accept that this took place, but in the case of the mother, she says she did not understand the requirements of the safety plan as they were not explained to her in Arabic. The father knew he was not supposed to be there, but wanted to celebrate Fatima’s birthday, which by convention they celebrated at that time of year. Her actual date of birth was in November, not January, and was (they say) mis-recorded due to a Home Office error that has not been corrected; however the family are now accustomed to celebrating her birthday in January, and that is what the father sought to do.

One feature of the factual matrix is that Fatima is profoundly deaf. This is said to be attributable to an accident in Iraq, the country of the family’s nationality. Fatima lives with cochlear implants. She has assistance in the use of British sign language at school but is able to speak and hear what is said to her when her implants are functional, namely when there is battery life available to them.

Regrettably, the 26-week statutory deadline for the conclusion of these proceedings passed on 4 August 2025. The local authority commenced proceedings on 3 February 2025. By an order dated 28 February 2025, HHJ Scully listed the matter for a fact-finding hearing before me on 22 April, for five days. By an order dated 17 April 2025 HHJ Powell deferred the start of the fact-finding hearing until 23 April, to enable the parties additional time to address a number of issues that had arisen. In the event, the fact-finding hearing on 23 April was not effective. The local authority had not received sufficient police disclosure, a number of documents had not been translated into Arabic (the parents’ first language) and a key local authority witness to whom the children made key disclosures, Ms C, a social worker was not available due to illness.

I adjourned the matter to the first available date in order for a composite hearing to take place, namely 29 September 2025. The regrettably lengthy period between the adjourned fact-finding hearing and the rescheduled hearing is a testament to the pressures that this court is under. The directions I gave on that occasion were for the hearing to be treated as a composite fact-finding and welfare hearing. By an order dated 8 August 2025, HHJ Powell gave directions for the composite hearing to revert to a fact-finding hearing. It was on that basis that the matter finally resumed before me, as a fact-finding hearing only, on 29 September 2025.

Both parents participated in the hearing and gave evidence through separate Arabic interpreters. I established at the outset that each was able to communicate with and through their respective interpreters. The father spoke English at times in his evidence, relying on the interpreter when necessary.

I was informed during the hearing that there had been some confusion about when Ms C would return to work, and it was thought that she might be available to give evidence. In the event, she was not available for the final hearing for reasons I need not address here, and no party applied for a witness summons.

I did not hear from the children. There had been no Re W application, and no party sought to pursue this issue.

The hearing commenced with legal argument in which Ms Megyery and Ms Hodge submitted that the local authority’s threshold document was insufficiently precise. When pressed, Ms Megyery accepted that she was not submitting that I should purport to exercise a power to strike out the threshold summarily but contended that the threshold as then formulated did not articulate the allegations against the parents with sufficient particularity. I directed Mr O’Neill to refine the threshold allegations, directing that I would be able to address any arguments arising from the reformulated, focused version of the threshold in closing submissions. Mr O’Neill duly reformulated the threshold document on the second day of the hearing, and in the event no party sought to revive their initial submissions during the closing submissions phase of the proceedings. Accordingly, the threshold document under consideration in this judgement is that dated 30 September 2025.

It is not my intention to repeat back to the parties the entirety of the evidence that they adduced and heard. I will summarise the essential features of each witness’s evidence below and refer in further depth to their evidence to the extent necessary to reach and give reasons for my findings in due course. Naturally, I considered the entirety of the evidence, in the round, to the balance of possibilities standard before reaching my findings.

I heard from Ms F. She was the second witness to give evidence, but her account pertains to Amal’s first disclosure, so I will address it here first. Ms F is the deputy safeguarding lead at Amal’s school. On 13 January 2025, Amal gave an account to Ms G, a learning support assistant, alleging abuse at the hands of her father. Ms G informed the head, who in turn took an account from Amal, and later asked Ms F to deal with the situation. That was the first time that Ms F had met Amal since she was ordinarily based on a different site.

Ms F took me through the CPOM accounts of 13 January. She gave an account of what Amal had told her.

I heard from Ms H, a qualified teacher of the deaf at Fatima’s school. Ms H gave evidence remotely, in order to facilitate her availability. The video link was not working, but it was possible for an audio link to enable her to give evidence satisfactorily. No party submitted otherwise to me at the time.

Ms H was present when Fatima met with Ms C at her school on 22 January 2025, and later when Fatima gave an account to the police. Ms H’s evidence was that she was present at the meeting to provide communication support only. She said that she had no recollection of what was said at the meetings. They were not her meetings, she said.

Under cross-examination, Ms H explained how Fatima relied on cochlear implants, and how they work. There is an external element to the device, which relies on batteries. The batteries need to be charged in order for the device to function. In the past, there had been some difficulties with Fatima not recharging the batteries. In the event that the device was not working, Ms H would be able to tell, she said. Fatima’s speech would be different, and she would not be able to hear what was taking place. It would be unlikely that Fatima’s cochlear implants failed without Ms H noticing, even though Fatima has the ability to read lips and rely on British Sign Language (“BSL”). The device plays an audible signal when the battery runs flat. It is very rare that it does not work.

Ms H explained that BSL is not necessarily anchored to English. It is a language in its own right. Accordingly, a person could understand BSL and communicate through it even if that individual did not have an understanding of English. Fatima preferred not to use sign language in any event. She had no difficulty in concentrating for the full length of a 50 minute lesson, even though deaf people have to work harder to achieve the same result than hearing people do.

I heard from Ms J, the welfare lead at the school attended by Amal. She facilitated a visit to Amal by Ms C and a police officer on 22 January 2025 but did not attend the meeting itself. Ms J was the person Amal spoke to on 29 January, the morning after the alleged breach of the safety plan at a shopping centre on 28 January. Amal told her the next day that her father had been angry and accused her of calling the police about him. Amal explained that she and Fatima had called the school from the shopping centre toilets for help. She was scared, she said.

Ms J said that occasionally, Amal would tell her that she heard voices in her head. Amal is having counselling, but Ms J is not aware of the content of those sessions.

I heard from Zoe Atkinson, a social worker with the applicant local authority. Ms Atkinson visited the family’s home on 13 January 2025 in order to conduct a “welfare visit”. She spoke to Fatima and Amal separately. Fatima reported that her parents argued. Amal also reported that her father put cameras in the house, but that she wasn’t sure whether they were working. Ms Atkinson observed a camera in the hallway, but it was not clear to her whether it was functional. Neither Fatima nor Amal reported physical violence between the parents to Ms Atkinson.

Ms Atkinson knew that some allegations had been made by Amal, but was not aware of the details, nor that any allegations had been made by Fatima. Ms Atkinson explained that she had nearly 20 years of safeguarding experience. During the visit, which took place in the evening, Ms Atkinson asked both Fatima and Amal questions about their family life.

Helen O’Halleron is a detective constable with Northumbria Police working in a safeguarding role, although she was not the officer in the case. She took initial accounts from Fatima and Amal in the presence of Ms C on 22 January 2025 and later attended the family home. Ms O’Halleron exhibited her contemporaneous notes from her conversations with Fatima and Amal. DC O’Halleron was pressed under cross-examination by Ms Megyery about the differences between the way the accounts she took from the girls, on the one hand, and a formal video-recorded interview, on the other. In response, she explained that her role was to take initial accounts from each child at that stage. They were not intended for evidential use in a criminal trial. The girls gave initial accounts, as was standard practice. DC O’Halleron did not know that PC Cochrane had previously taken an account from Amal.

I heard from the mother. She adopted her witness statements. Her evidence was that she and the father had had some difficulties in 2021, followed by a period of separation. The father had never been violent towards her or the children. If he were to do so, she knew to call the police. She accepted that the father attended the shopping centre when she took the daughters but said that she had not understood what the safety plan had been. The requirements of the plan had not been explained to her in Arabic. She does not speak English. She lied about this because she was scared.

As to the disclosures by her daughters, the mother said that they were wrong. The girls might have been confused or recalled distant memories of the past difficulties the mother and the father experienced. They had vivid imaginations.

The mother also explained that Fatima’s date of birth was incorrectly recorded by the Home Office upon her arrival as being in early 2012, rather than late 2012. Consequently, at school Fatima was the academic year above her chronological age.

I heard from the father. He said his daughters’ allegations were not true, although he was reluctant to categorise the girls as having lied. The mother is his first love. They are a nice family. He did leave the home briefly in 2021 for a period of separation but had never been violent towards the mother or his daughters. He sometimes lives with a friend, even to this day, because the family home is now not big enough for them, and he has back problems that make it easier to sleep elsewhere. As for the shopping centre incident, that was a mistake.

I summarise below the positions adopted by each party. The summaries are necessarily just that: a summary. I will return to the substance of each party’s submissions in the course of my analysis in due course to the extent necessary to reach and give reasons for my findings.

For the local authority, Mr O’Neill submitted that the disclosures made by the girls were consistent and compelling. To the extent there were any inconsistencies, they were to be expected when children were giving accounts and did not undermine the credibility of those accounts. Although formal ABE interviews did not take place, the accounts they gave still attracted weight. The allegations were varied and detailed. The prospect of the girls colluding to concoct parallel allegations was minimal. The parents plainly sought to deceive the local authority and the court about the trip to the shopping centre in breach of the safety plan. It was not a fun family outing. It was an incident that left the girls scared, as evidenced by the voicemail message they left with Amal’s school, and the account Amal gave to Ms J the next day.

For the mother, Ms Megyery submitted that the allegations made by the children could not be treated as determinative. They were required to give too many accounts to too many professionals and were asked questions, including leading questions, in a manner contrary to the ABE Guidelines Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings, and contrary to the practice deprecated in S (A Child: Findings of Fact) [2023] EWCA Civ 346. Not all accounts given by the girls were recorded, and there are unanswered questions on account of the absence of Ms C. There was no independent evidence to support the girls’ accounts, which were fatally inconsistent in any event. There were strong grounds to conclude they had made them up. Fatima’s disability means that she struggles to hear what is going on and cannot be assumed to have heard correctly what she claimed to have heard. Much of the time her cochlear implants were not functioning properly. Ms Megyery provided a helpful written summary of what she contended were the inconsistencies in the accounts provided by the girls, in addition to copies of the ABE Guidelines, and a best practice protocol issued by the South Gloucestershire Safeguarding Children Board.

For the father, Ms Hodge adopted Ms Megyery’s submissions. She acknowledged that the father’s oral account of what had taken place in 2021 contrasted with his earlier, written account, but contended the people lie or give inconsistent accounts for a variety of reasons. Ms Hodge emphasised that Fatima’s behaviour has been challenging on a number of fronts. She is entering a rebellious phase and wants to establish her own freedom. This has continued during her time in foster care. The children had experienced conflict between the parents and 2021 in a manner which now influenced the accounts that they gave. The interactions between the parents and the children during family time have been positive and loving.

On behalf of the children’s Guardian, Mr Donnelly did not advance a positive case but rather made a number of observations about the evidence. The first allegation, by Amal on 13 January, had been unprompted. Fatima’s initial allegations, while not unprompted in the same way, were made on the same day. There were features of the children’s accounts which bore some of the hallmarks of honest answers, for example saying they were not sure in response to some questions put to them. While the circumstances under which the initial accounts were taken from the children could be scrutinised with the benefit of hindsight, on the whole process was child-led. The teachers and professionals were responding to serious disclosures that were made to them, and in doing so permitted the children to summarise the narrative of their accounts. While the absence of Ms C was unfortunate, the court had sufficient other first-hand evidence that it was able to take into account.

Section 31(2) of the 1989 Act provides:

“(2)

A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied—

(a)

that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and

(b)

that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to—

(i)

the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or

(ii)

the child's being beyond parental control.”

The burden of proof lies, throughout, with the person or authority making the allegation. In this case, it is the local authority. Neither the mother nor the father is subject to any obligation or burden to disprove the allegations against them. The evidence that they have given in these proceedings forms part of the overall evidential landscape, and may be taken into account to that extent, but there is no burden on the parents to prove a negative. In practical terms, that means that it is not for the father to provide that he did not engage in the abuse alleged by the local authority in these proceedings.

The standard of proof is the ordinary civil standard, the balance of probabilities standard. The operation of this principle was described by Baroness Hale in the following terms in Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35at para. 32:

“In our legal system, if a judge finds it more likely than not that something did take place, then it is treated as having taken place. If he finds it more likely than not that it did not take place, then it is treated as not having taken place. He is not allowed to sit on the fence. He has to find for one side or the other. Sometimes the burden of proof will come to his rescue: the party with the burden of showing that something took place will not have satisfied him that it did. But generally speaking a judge is able to make up his mind where the truth lies without needing to rely upon the burden of proof.”

I direct myself that great care should be taken before concluding that an explanation which wholly lacks credibility or is otherwise obviously unsatisfactory amounts to positive evidence against the individual concerned.

As Baker J (as he then was) said in A Local Authority and Others and L and M [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam) at para. 48:

“…findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation.”

The evidence of the parents and the carers is of the utmost importance, and it is essential for the court to form a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. It is important to approach the demeanour of a witness with caution, and instead focus on matters such as the internal consistency of their evidence, its logicality and plausibility, details given or not given and the consistency of their evidence when measured against other sources of evidence (including evidence of what the witness has said on other occasions) and other known or probable facts.

When assessing the credibility of a witness, the impact of a lie told by a witness must be scrutinised in light of the so-called Lucas principle (see [1981] QB 720). There are many reasons why a witness lies; the court must not assume that simply because a witness has lied about some matters, that he or she has lied about all other matters.

The evidence must be considered in the round, and individual pieces of evidence must be considered in the context of all the other evidence (see, for example, L and M at para. 49).

Concepts from the substantive criminal law, such as the ingredients of offences, have no place in the family courts.

For the purposes of this judgment, I adopt and apply by analogy the approach to domestic abuse enunciated in Re H-N [2021] EWCA Civ 448. Although those proceedings concerned private law disputes, the approach to domestic abuse, in particular the definition of the concept and related concepts contained in PD12J, quoted at para. 26, is relevant to my approach to those concepts in these proceedings.

Finally, all parties enjoy rights under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights to a fair trial.

Having reviewed the entirety of the evidence in the round, to the balance of probabilities standard, I reach the following conclusions.

I will commence my analysis with my impression of the witnesses and other preliminary observations. Although I have had to express my analysis in some sort of order, I stress that I have considered all the evidence and submissions holistically, in the round.

I found each of the professional witnesses (that is, all witnesses other than the parents) to be credible, honest witnesses. They gave accounts which were intended to assist the court, accepting limitations where appropriate, and not seeking to stray beyond the boundaries of their role or expertise. There were no challenges to their personal credibility. Ms Megyery focused considerably on what she submitted was a failure to follow the ABE guidelines and subject the children to excessive and unnecessary questioning, but in doing so did not challenge the personal credibility of the witness concerned as such. A recurring theme of Ms Megyery’s questioning in her examination of DC O’Halloran related to why she had continued to ask the children questions rather than pursuing the ABE process; I will return to this issue.

In analysing the evidence of the mother and father, I take into account the fact that they each gave evidence in a language other than English, and through different interpreters.

However, even making those allowances, I found the mother’s evidence to lack credibility in several respects. She sought to distance herself from the events that took place in 2021 in a way that was at odds with her own written evidence, the account that I find that she gave to PC Cochrane on 13 January, and later to Ms Atkinson. When speaking to PC Cochrane, the mother appeared to accept that there had been an assault in 2021 (see, for example, lines 24 and 25 on page 532). Ms Atkinson’s unchallenged written evidence was that, when she visited the family home on 13 January, the mother had told her that she was no longer in a relationship with the father, and that he lived elsewhere. That was in the context of previous controlling behaviour and the father’s installation of CCTV cameras that were intended to track the mother’s movements when he was not at home, the mother said. In the witness box, by contrast, the mother resiled from that account. She said that they had had some arguments previously, but that nothing more had taken place. They needed a period of separation to restore their relationship, and that period had been effective in doing so. The father did not live elsewhere now, but merely spent time, including overnight stays, at his friend’s house, because their home was too small for a large family of six to live in. She did not refer to the father’s bad back as being one of the reasons he does not sleep at the family home, which was one of the explanations for doing so that he gave under cross-examination.

At other times, the mother did not engage with the questions that were put to her and frequently answered questions that had not been put to her, particularly where the questions were on challenging topics. For example, when she was asked why she told PC Cochrane on 13 January that her husband did not live with her family home at that time, in January 2025, she instead addressed why he had left the home temporarily in 2021. She had to be pressed repeatedly by Mr O’Neill about the details of her living arrangements in January 2025, claiming not to understand the question, referring back to the situation in 2021, rather than addressing the contemporary position as she was asked. She appeared to be reluctant to say in express terms that the father does not live at the family home, which gave the impression that she was seeking to conceal something. Her answers to the straightforward questions concerning the father’s living arrangements by Mr O’Neill included referring to the fact that she is married to the father, that their home is small, that in 2021 they had difficulties and needed help, and that her husband would visit the family home to provide her with help looking after the children. Of course, people lie for a variety of reasons, and I must caution myself against ascribing too much significance to the mother’s approach to this issue in the witness box, but it is nevertheless a factor of significance to take into account.

I found the father to be a witness who largely lacked credibility. In his witness statement he said that he and his wife did not sleep together as husband and wife, but that he is there “daily” to provide for her and his children. His witness statement therefore underplays the picture that emerged during his oral evidence and that of his wife, which gave the impression that the father splits his time between the family home and his friend’s house. It appears that the father is seeking retrospectively to rationalise the account the mother gave to Ms Atkinson, namely that her relationship with the father had come to an end and that he no longer lived there following their separation in 2021, with the position he adopted in these proceedings of family life being a largely loving and harmonious affair, in which no behaviour of the sort alleged by the children had ever occurred. As mentioned above, the father also told me that he had a bad back which meant that he could not sleep at the family home, and that, combined with a lack of space, that was the reason that he did not spend time there. Those were significant details which were absent from his witness statements. Whether he lives at the family home or elsewhere, or some combination of the two, I find that the father is present at the family home regularly.

Perhaps understandably, the father was reluctant to accept the logical conclusion of his position in these proceedings, namely that his daughters have lied in order to fabricate allegations against him. Overall, the father struggled under cross-examination to explain why his daughters would concoct such serious allegations against him – if they were not true. He frequently declined to answer questions addressing this issue directly, for example referring to his religion, Islam, and stating that he had sacrificed everything for his children by coming to the United Kingdom. I respectfully consider that those answers are nothing to the point and were an example of the father seeking to distance himself from what he must have perceived to be the strength of the evidence against him. He minimised the family’s 2021 difficulties and gave an account that was wholly at odds with that given by the mother to Ms Atkinson on 13 January.

A further feature of the father’s response to the questions posed by Mr O’Neill was that he would give lengthy answers that would go off topic and that would require reining in. However, the way in which he did so was revealing; at times, the father became animated, passionate even. In doing so, he revealed some of his frustration with his daughters, in particular what appears to be Fatima’s recent attempts to push boundaries, such as by using her telephone late into the night, vaping, and wearing more ‘grown up’ clothing, which appears to be at odds with his own conservative values, and what he perceives as the immense sacrifices that he has made for his children in relocating to the United Kingdom (which he said was, at least in part, to secure medical treatment for Fatima and a better future for his family overall). It was in this country that Fatima received her cochlear implants, following an incident in Iraq as a young child that resulted in her hearing loss. Again, when pressed as to why his daughters would make up these allegations, the father cited his longstanding ‘dream’, the dream that he had as a young boy about his future, and how he left everything in Iraq in order to come to this country. Previously, he was a policeman. Now he works in a takeaway. I had a real sense that the father feels that his lot in life is not what it could be, and that the reason for that is because of the sacrifices he perceives that he has made to his family.

The mother and the father were prepared to lie to the local authority about the visit to the shopping centre on 28 January. Following the voicemail message that Fatima had left on the telephone of Amal’s school from the toilets in the shopping centre, Ms C and another social worker, Mark Coupe, arranged a meeting with the mother and father on 29 January. At that meeting, Ms C and Mr Coupe confronted the mother and the father with the allegation that the father had been at the shopping centre with the children and the mother the night before. Both the mother and father denied the allegation. In his statement, Mr Coupe stated that the father was given multiple opportunities to be open about what had taken place. Later that afternoon, Fatima sent Ms C a photograph that she had taken at the shopping centre the night before. The photograph displays the father, the mother and three children. It was only upon being presented with that evidence that the mother and the father eventually accepted that the father had been present at the shopping centre, but he maintained that it had been a chance meeting. While the mother and the father now accept that they breached the safety plan, it undermines their credibility that they initially lied to the local authority about this, and when eventually presented with evidence which demonstrated that they had been lying, they sought to categorise the meeting as a chance encounter. The parents each gave yet further accounts in the witness box, namely that the mother had not understood the requirements of the safety plan, and that the father promised Fatima that he would take out for a meal to celebrate her birthday.

I find that the mother did understand that the father was not supposed to be there. That is why she sought to cover up the truth when first challenged about it. That is also why she later sought to minimise what had happened when presented with evidence in the form of the photograph, by claiming it was a chance encounter. If she did not know that the safety plan prevented the father from spending time with her or the children, it is difficult to see why she would deny his presence in this way. Moreover, there is no suggestion that the father did not understand the requirements of the plan, and he was present at the time it was concluded to explain it to the mother.

Of course, it is not for the mother or father to disprove the allegations against them, and nothing in the analysis in this judgment approaches matters on that footing. However, the evidence given by each parent forms part of the overall evidential matrix, and it is right that I take that evidence into account, as with all other evidence, when reaching my findings of fact.

By way of additional preliminary observations, I note the following points, all of which are reflected by and woven into my findings of fact.

First, the source of the evidence for the allegations against both parents is solely Amal and Fatima. There is no third-party or otherwise independent evidence. There is no medical or photographic evidence pertaining to the alleged abuse itself. Child protection medicals were not performed. Simply because the girls are said to have provided consistent accounts on subsequent occasions does not provide independent support for the allegations themselves. At its highest, giving consistent accounts to other persons on other occasions is a factor which, in principle, is capable of supporting the credibility of the allegations, when viewed in the round with all remaining evidence. But consistency alone does not provide independent support for the allegations.

Secondly, it is not the case of either parent that the accounts attributed to Amal and Fatima were not given by Amal or Fatima. For example, neither parent submits that the accounts were misunderstood when given by Amal or Fatima, although they were otherwise mis-recorded. It is accepted by the parents that the accounts as given were, in fact, given by Amal and Fatima. Of course, it is the parents’ case that the manner in which the accounts were elicited from each of the children placed them, the children, under the expectation of making allegations which were inaccurate, imagined or fabricated. But there is no dispute that the accounts attributed to each of the children were given by those children.

Thirdly, the absence of Ms C means that the mother and the father have been deprived of the opportunity of seeking an explanation from her as to the manner in which the local authority’s initial approach to the allegations being disclosed to it unfolded. For example, Amal gave an initial account to Ms G, who later took her to see the school’s head teacher, and it was the head who was to arrange for Amal to give what would by then be a third account to Ms F. The head teacher has not provided a witness statement and there is no written record of the account Amal provided to him, other than the brief safeguarding account he took on the school’s CPOM system. Ms C was present when PC Cochrane took an initial account from Amal, and at other times.

Fourthly, there are other structural weaknesses in the quality of the local authority’s evidence, but those weaknesses do not undermine the reliability of that evidence to a significant extent. There were no ABE interviews conducted in relation to either girl, mainly because the girls did not want to be subjected to the process. The parties and the court are therefore without the rigorous yet fair evidence (the “best evidence”) which the ABE process is intended to provide. The girls, particularly Amal, were asked to give multiple accounts by several different people on the same day. In Amal’s case, on 13 January she gave an account to Ms G, then the headteacher, followed by Ms F, then PC Cochrane, and finally Zoe Atkinson. PC O’Halleron would later take an account from Amal at the family home on another occasion, under the guise of a welfare visit, without appreciating the extent of the accounts she had provided previously. Some of the questioning was leading (“I asked if her parents just shout or can it be more than that” – Zoe Atkinson’s account of speaking to Fatima, 13 January 2025), albeit only in response to information that had already been provided, and not in a manner that elicited additional information upon which the local authority now seeks to rely.

Despite the absence of formal ABE interviews, I am satisfied that the accounts that were taken from the girls were largely consistent with the best practice approved by the Court of Appeal in S (A Child: Findings of Fact). At para. 37 Peter Jackson LJ cited with approval the following summary given by Baker LJ in Re JB (A Child) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2021] EWCA Civ 46 at para. 11:

“11.

The importance of complying with the ABE guidance, which is directed at both criminal and family proceedings, has been reiterated by this Court in a series of cases including TW v A City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 17, Re W, Re F [2015] EWCA Civ 1300, Re E (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 473, Re Y and F (Children) Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2019] EWCA Civ 206 and in the judgments of MacDonald J in AS v TH and others [2016] EWHC 532 (Fam) and Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27. It is unnecessary to repeat at any length the extensive comments set out in some of those judgments. For the purposes of this appeal, the following points are of particular relevance. (Save where indicated, the paragraphs cited are from the ABE guidance.)

(1)

"The ABE guidance is advisory rather than a legally enforceable code. However, significant departures from the good practice advocated in it will likely result in reduced (or in extreme cases no) weight being attached to the interview by the courts." (Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing), supra, paragraph 856)

(2)

Any initial questioning of the child prior to the interview should be intended to elicit a brief account of what is alleged to have taken place; a more detailed account should not be pursued at this stage but should be left until the formal interview takes place (paragraph 2.5).

(3)

In these circumstances, any early discussions with the witness should, as far as possible, adhere to the following guidelines.

(a)

Listen to the witness.

(b)

Do not stop a witness who is freely recalling significant events.

(c)

Where it is necessary to ask questions, they should, as far as possible in the circumstances, be open-ended or specific-closed rather than forced-choice, leading or multiple.

(d)

Ask no more questions than are necessary in the circumstances to take immediate action.

(e)

Make a comprehensive note of the discussion, taking care to record the timing, setting and people present as well as what was said by the witness and anybody else present (particularly the actual questions asked of the witness).

(f)

Make a note of the demeanour of the witness and anything else that might be relevant to any subsequent formal interview or the wider investigation.

(g)

Fully record any comments made by the witness or events that might be relevant to the legal process up to the time of the interview (paragraph 2.6, see also AS v TH, supra, paragraph 42).

(4)

For all witnesses, interviews should normally consist of the following four main phases: establishing rapport; initiating and supporting a free narrative account; questioning; and closure (paragraph 3.3).

(5)

The rapport phase includes explaining to the child the "ground rules" for the interview (paragraphs 3.12-14) and advising the child to give a truthful and accurate account and establishing that the child understands the difference between truth and lies (paragraphs 3.18-19). The rapport phase must be part of the recorded interview, even if there is no suggestion that the child did not know the difference between truth and lies, because "it is, or may be, important for the court to know everything that was said between an interviewing officer and a child in any case" (per McFarlane LJ in Re E, supra, paragraph 38).

(6)

In the free narrative phase of the interview, the interviewer should "initiate an uninterrupted free narrative account of the incident/event(s) from the witness by means of an open-ended invitation" (paragraph 3.24).

(7)

When asking questions following the free narrative phase, "interviewers need fully to appreciate that there are various types of question which vary in how directive they are. Questioning should, wherever possible, commence with open-ended questions and then proceed, if necessary, to specific-closed questions. Forced-choice questions and leading questions should only be used as a last resort" (paragraph 3.44).

(8)

Drawings, pictures and other props may be used for different reasons – to assess a child's language or understanding, to keep the child calm and settled, to support the child's recall of events or to enable the child to give an account. Younger children with communication difficulties may be able to provide clearer accounts when props are used but interviewers need to be aware of the risks and pitfalls of using such props. They should be used with caution and "never combined with leading questions". Any props used should be preserved for production at court (paragraphs 3.103 to 3.112).

(9)

"The fact that the phased approach may not be appropriate for interviewing some witnesses with the most challenging communication skills (e.g. those only able to respond "yes" or "no" to a question) should not mean that the most vulnerable of witnesses are denied access to justice". It should not be "regarded as a checklist to be rigidly worked through. Flexibility is the key to successful interviewing. Nevertheless, the sound legal framework it provides should not be departed from by interviewers unless they have discussed and agreed the reasons for doing so with their senior managers or an interview advisor" (paragraph 3.2).

(10)

Underpinning the guidance is a recognition "that the interviewer has to keep an open mind and that the object of the exercise is not simply to get the child to repeat on camera what she has said earlier to somebody else" (per Sir Nicholas Wall P in TW v A City Council, supra, at paragraph 53).”

Of most significance for present purposes is para. 11(2): initial accounts should be brief. In my judgment, the accounts which were taken from Amal and Fatima were each capable of being categorised as initial accounts, and were conducted with appropriate brevity, largely avoiding leading questions. The professionals responding to the disclosures made by each child were dealing with a fast-moving situation in which it was necessary to determine what, if any, safeguarding steps would be needed to keep the children safe. The intention was not to obtain evidential material. This, of course, was against the background of concerns and professional involvement with the family in 2021, which would understandably have set alarm bells ringing, consistent with the need to decide what immediate action would need to be taken under para. 11(3)(d).

In the case of the initial disclosures on 13 January, this led to PC Cochrane speaking to the mother, and welfare visits by Ms Atkinson later that day. I accept that some leading questions were put to Amal on that occasion (“and has he hurt you before?”, “…has he ever grabbed you or hit you…?”), such questions were appropriate for the child-protection context in which they put. In any event, the responses by Amal did not implicate the father and form no part of my findings of fact.

I reject Ms Megyery’s submission that the presence of Ms F during the account taken by PC Cochrane was inappropriate. This was a safeguarding situation. It was appropriate for school staff to be present.

Ms Megyery’s strongest submissions in relation to the conduct of the interviews with Amal and Fatima are twofold. The first point is that there have been a large number of accounts taken from the girls. When DC O’Halloran took accounts from each of the girls 22 January, she had been provided with only minimal details about the nature of the accounts the children provided previously. While Ms C was present, she has not been available to explain the extent to which the local authority had already shared with the police the outcome of its own initial questioning, or that of the school. There does appear to be a sense in which the different officers and social workers involved in responding to the allegations were not as joined up as they could have been. This resulted in the girls being asked questions on more occasions than a strict application of the guidance would have permitted.

However, as outlined above, it is necessary to view the response of professionals at the time through the lens of matters as they would have appeared on the ground in January 2025. The conduct of the social workers and police, as well as the staff at the girls’ schools, was plainly with the best interests of the girls in mind, bearing in mind the need for appropriate safeguarding measures to be taken. Indeed, it was on 22 January that the father was encouraged to leave the family home voluntarily, to avert the need for police protection powers to be invoked. The girls were being asked questions with a view to them being kept safe. While in the cold light of the courtroom day it is easy to scrutinise the actions of the professionals involved at the time, there was no bad faith, and the manner in which questions were put to the children was, on the whole, open and child led.

The second point is that neither child was implored to tell the truth, nor was their understanding of the difference between truth and lies explored by the questioners. This necessarily means that the accounts attract less weight. Indeed, the father’s evidence was that Amal does understand the difference between truth and a lie (albeit his evidence was that she frequently does make things up). This is a factor I must consider in the round with all other matters.

Against the background of those preliminary observations, and having considered all matters in the round, I reach the following findings, to the balance of probabilities standard.

In my judgment, the accounts provided by Amal and Fatima accurately and spontaneously described the events as now alleged by the local authority. There are inconsistencies, but not such as to deprive the allegations of all credibility. Such inconsistencies that are present are commensurate with what is to be expected across a number of accounts given by young children. While on one view it was unfortunate for the girls to be asked to give accounts on so many different occasions, the resulting accounts are, in my judgment, sufficiently consistent to enable the court properly to reach conclusions on the basis of what the children alleged.

I consider there to be force to Mr Donnelly’s observation on behalf of the Guardian that it is unlikely that the children would have conspired to fabricate allegations of this nature. That would entail the girls having decided upon a joint narrative which they would later share separately with different professionals in a largely consistent manner. I consider the possibility of fabrication to be unlikely. Fabrication would be inconsistent with the real and evident fear experienced by the girls when their father breached the safety plan by joining them at, or taking them to, the shopping centre on 28 January. The actions of both children were consistent with the fear that would naturally be present in the event that their accounts were underpinned by truth.

Amal’s initial account was spontaneous. It was unprompted. It was given on the first day back at school the Monday after the Friday evening when she claimed to have witnessed the father attacking the mother. The first account was itself given during the morning on Monday 13 January. The school would have been the first ‘safe’ opportunity Amal had to tell a professional what she had seen. She seized that opportunity and made a timely report. Her initial accounts were largely consistent. I accept that she initially denied having been attacked by her father when giving an account to PC Cochrane, and that is a factor I take into account, but she told Ms F that her father had punched her in the leg, although it is not clear whether that was a contemporary incident or one that took place some time ago. Amal’s account to DC O’Halleron was that her father sometimes pushes her onto her bed by the shoulder, using an open hand with a “medium push”, causing her to fall down onto the bed, and that that had happened before she turned 10.

The accounts given by Fatima were broadly consistent with those given by Amal, and internally consistent with themselves. As Mr O’Neill submits, while there are minor inconsistencies, those are not such as to deprive the accounts of credibility altogether. They are to be expected in accounts given by children.

Ms Megyery and Ms Hodge both submitted that the girls had a history of making things up. The parents’ evidence was to similar effect.

Ms Megyery relied on a CPOM account of a visit paid to a department store by the children with their foster carers on 14 February 2025. The parents were present at the store (on their case, coincidentally and accidentally). The CPOM entry records that one of the children mentioned that her father followed them in the store and “mentioned about being in a toy aisle”. The CPOM goes on to record the foster carer’s comments that they had not visited the toy aisle in the department store, and that, contrary to the allegation made by Fatima, her father had not followed them in the car park. Fatima on that occasion was said to have “had some attitude” that afternoon, and had refused to put her seatbelt on. In my judgment, there is no internal inconsistency in these accounts. It is not clear from the CPOM record who was present in the toy aisle, whether the father or one of the girls. Even if the foster carer had not taken the girls along a shopping aisle, that is not to say that the father had not been there, and that they had seen him in that location when they were elsewhere. It is certainly coincidental that, just over two weeks after the safety plan was breached at the shopping centre, the father just happened to be in the same place as the girls in a manner which, if intentional, would have again placed him in breach of the safety plan. There is no dispute that he and the mother were present at the department store on that occasion. I do not consider the account that is attributed to Amal on this occasion as being evidence that she is unable to distinguish truth from lies, or that she has a propensity to concoct accounts. What is clear is that Amal was scared by the presence of her father. That is consistent with the impact that he had had on her at the shopping centre in late January, and the account that had been provided to teachers at the school the morning after the shopping centre incident.

Ms Megyery and Ms Hodge submitted that Fatima’s deafness, and the documented difficulties she experienced with enabling her implants to function fully meant that she is likely to have misheard the accounts she attributes to her father. It is true that Fatima has experienced some problems with one of her implants. But the evidence from those at her school, in particular Ms H, a qualified teacher of the deaf, was that Fatima would have no difficulty in concentrating during lessons, and knew how to ensure her implants were functioning correctly. Moreover, Amal does not live with the same conditions as Fatima does, and the accounts given by each were largely consistent.

While Ms Megyery submitted that many of the allegations by each child merely recalled what took place in 2021, falsely imputing those memories to contemporary events, that submission is inconsistent with the evidence of both parents. It is the parents’ respective positive cases that there has never been any prior physical violence, and that at most there have been verbal altercations. Where the neighbours were asked about their observations of the children shouting, that is because they had to shout to be heard by Fatima who is profoundly deaf, not because of any violence or arguing, they say. I am wholly unpersuaded by the parents’ attempts to resile from what took place in 2021. I prefer the mother’s account given to PC Cochrane. I accept that some of the accounts given by the girls about their own abuse may well have drawn on what took place on earlier occasions as establishing a course of conduct, but I consider that their answers about when the abuse took place, particularly to DC O’Halleron, to be sufficiently clear to demonstrate their understanding of the chronology of the incidents.

Drawing this analysis together, I reach the following findings of fact.

I find that the father hit Amal with an open hand on her arm, hip, bottom and her head, and that he had done over a period of time, most recently after Christmas 2024. I find that the father punched Amal on her arm and pushed her on her forehead. I accept that the account given by Fatima to DC O’Halleron about the abuse experienced by Amal in this respect is both accurate and reliable. I do not consider this to be an account of abuse that took place on a much earlier occasion and was no longer continuing. It describes a course of conduct in a manner entirely consistent with the fear the girls would later manifest when their father turned up at the shopping centre in breach of the safety plan, causing the girls to take the steps they did by calling the school and later speaking to teachers.

I find that the father hit Fatima in a similar and more robust manner. He was in the habit of doing so, and most recently did so shortly before DC O’Halleron took an account from her on 22 January. I accept Fatima’s account that her father would slap her with his hand and a shoe, and that that was a practice that had started when she was young, and continued until the day before the interview. He did this knowing the fragility of Fatima’s physical condition on account of her disability, and the surgery she had received to fit cochlear implants. Fatima’s description of her father’s hot temper being triggered by what he is likely to perceive as rebellious requests (such as wanting to stay in her school uniform upon returning from school, against his wishes; using her telephone too much) is credible and consistent with the overall picture that emerges of the father from the evidence.

I accept the historic accounts given by both girls of their father’s physical abuse including placing pillows over their heads and covering their mouths with tape. These are detailed allegations. I do not consider them to be fabricated. They emerged following open questions posed by DC O’Halleron and were not said to have taken place recently. Fabricated allegations would be much less likely to have been limited to the past.

I was invited by Ms Megyery to omit the findings in the preceding paragraph before perfecting this judgment, on the basis that they were omitted from the local authority’s final threshold document. I do not consider that it is necessary or appropriate to do so. These findings were the subject of the written and oral evidence. These issues form part of the evidential landscape, were addressed by the parties. Indeed, Ms Megyery made submissions about the pillow allegations in her closing submissions, so no question of procedural fairness arises. They are relevant to the evidential context of the core threshold allegations, addressing all matters in the round. I therefore decline to omit the findings.

Adopting Mr Donnelly’s observations, I must consider the extent to which the full spectrum of these allegations could have been fabricated by the girls, bearing in mind their detail and their phased nature. Fabricating historic allegations would require a calculated approach that sits at odds with the credibility of the accounts provided by the girls. If the accounts had been fabricated, it would be much less likely that these young girls would have limited the more serious allegations to points in time that had since passed, with lesser allegations taking place more recently. The allegations themselves feature a credible level of detail, and support the overall factual matrix as alleged by the local authority in the threshold document. I also consider that the minor inconsistencies across the accounts given by the girls (as set out in Ms Megyery’s helpful written submissions) demonstrate that these are not rote-learned, rehearsed allegations borne out of a conspiracy between two sisters. They are inconsistencies that are commensurate with credible accounts.

I also accept that the father shouted at the girls, threatened to kill the family cat, and threatened them not to tell anybody about what was happening at the home. It was for that reason that he pursued the girls to the shopping centre, in order to emphasise his instructions that they should not share the accounts further. This was emotional abuse which took place shortly after Amal’s first disclosure on 13 January.

I find that the father physically abused the mother on 10 January as alleged by each of the girls. I accept the account given by Amal that she came home on a date “after the Christmas holidays”, which would be consistent with Friday 10 January 2025, and saw her father beating her mother. The accounts that Amal has given across the times she has given are sufficiently consistent to merit this conclusion, when considered in the round with all remaining evidence. I find that Fatima observed this abuse taking place, and that it involved punching to the mother’s arms and legs. This resulted in marks being visible on the surface of the mother’s skin which Amal described as bruises. While there was no medical examination of the mother, no person outside the home would have seen the mother’s bare skin, since the mother dresses modestly in the Islamic style with most of her skin covered up. I accept that no safeguarding concerns appear to have been raised by the medical professionals who, according to the mother, review her progress living with sickle cell anaemia through medical examinations requiring her to get undressed, but there is no evidence from her pertaining to the conclusions of any of her routine examinations, when she was examined relative to the incident on 10 January, and the extent to which a routine check up relating to this condition would have entailed an examination of other parts of her body which may have revealed broader safeguarding concerns.

I accept that Fatima also witnessed the above incident. I find that incidents of this sort were a regular occurrence in the home. Amal did not report the first occasion she encountered abuse of this sort being inflicted on the mother by the father. Matters reached a point where she decided she had to act.

I find that the father had previously deployed CCTV cameras around the home, as he accepted in his evidence. I reject his evidence that he was motivated about the mother’s sickle cell anaemia and her risk of collapse. The father has demonstrated controlling traits; that is consistent with the mother’s written summary of events in 2021, the accounts given by the girls, and the father’s actions in pursuing the girls to the shopping centre, and his presence at the department store in February, which I find was not coincidental. The father denied having seen the girls at the department store, just as he initially denied breached the safety plan at the shopping centre. I accept that people lie for a variety of reasons, and a lie on one issue does not mean a lie on other issues. However, I consider that the parents’ evolving approach to the shopping centre incident shows something of how they seek to manipulate the truth on an incremental basis, depending on their understanding of the case against them. I do not accept that the father is telling the truth about the department store incident on 14 February. I find he was there deliberately because he wanted to see his children and he could not bear others taking parental responsibility for them as it took matters out of his control.

The mother knew about the abuse experienced by her daughters and failed to take steps to protect them from it. The strong impression I had of the mother was of a woman in a difficult position who was either unwilling or unable to confront the reality of the abuse that she and her daughter experienced at the fathers’ hands in the family home. The mother is the victim of abuse that first occurred in 2021 and which has continued since then. She would naturally be afraid of giving an account to any professional, or to this court, which implicates the father further, yet adopting that position placed her at odds with the local authority’s evidence, which I consider to be strong as set out above. That is why she struggled so much in the witness box. She was attempting to cover up for her husband either out of fear, misplaced loyalty, love for her daughters or some other reason.

I conclude by reaching the findings sought by the local authority in the threshold document.

The findings I have reached satisfy the criteria contained in section 31(1) of the 1989 Act.

I will now hear submissions on the future case management steps required.