A Local Authority v HE & Ors

This judgment concerns P aged thirteen and B E, aged almost eight. Their mother is deceased. P’s father Z has not been traced. He plays no part in her life. B’s father is HE. He is P’s stepfather and holds parental responsibility for her by virtue of an order dated 2021. This judgment deals with the issues of fact-finding and welfare in respect of both children.

This will be a very lengthy judgment, which is unavoidable. There were 39 individual allegations made against Mr E in the threshold, some of which are further sub-divided into many separate parts / incidents (up to 19 per part). Mr E denied all of them and put the local authority to proof in respect of each and every allegation. The bundle was in excess of 3150 pages and the hearing was extensive, spread over 8 days with 12 witnesses being called together with time to watch video recorded evidence. The original witness list and trial template required by Mr E was considerably longer but ultimately despite the same being timetabled, no challenge by way of cross examination took place in respect of many of the lay and expert witnesses. The court appointed medical experts were not challenged. I have not set out all the evidence which I have read, heard, and seen but have highlighted particularly relevant matters. Nevertheless, all evidence has been considered and taken into account in coming to my conclusions.

I intend to set out my decisions now and then set out and explain in detail how I came to them. This judgment should therefore be read on the basis of the following:

This judgment is structured as follows:

The application before the court is the local authority’s application for a care order which was issued as an urgent out of hours application in August 2024. This hearing has taken place outside the 26 weeks target due to complexities with the evidence and the linked criminal proceedings.

This is a combined finding of fact and welfare hearing with the Court tasked with determining whether P and B have suffered non-accidental/inflicted injuries and other harm and if so, then to determine the perpetrator of the injuries if possible. Depending upon my findings (if any), I would then consider the welfare of P and B and decide where they should live.

This case has been allocated to me throughout and has benefitted from judicial continuity. This hearing took place mainly as an attended hearing but with some witnesses giving evidence remotely and Mr E and his representation attending remotely for the first 3 days due to his bail conditions.

I had the opportunity of seeing Mr E give evidence and to form my own opinions about his evidence and credibility. It was extremely useful to do so.

I also had the benefit of seeing a considerable number of other witnesses give evidence live or recorded. Again, that was most helpful.

I received a lengthy and detailed written opening by the local authority together with a forensic chronology and a Schedule of Findings directly cross referred to the evidence. They were contained in the bundle and were of great assistance, particularly the 66-page chronology which sets out a clear and detailed timeline of events and again cross refers to the evidence contained in the bundle. This enabled me toanalyse the chronological development of the history and allegations and undertake a holistic evidential evaluation whilst hearing the evidence and preparing this judgment.

The children were known to children’s services previously in 2019 following the death of their mother who had taken her own life. Support was offered to Mr E who declined a Family Support Worker on several occasions but requested the local authority pay for full time nursery for B and for a childminder on Saturdays. Thereafter the records show that there were ongoing multi agency concerns for the welfare of the children with Mr E clearly struggling and being abusive and hostile to professionals. P suffered many injuries, mainly bruising during this period which were noted by school.

In September 2020 Mr E obtained a Child Arrangements Order and a Parental Responsibility Order securing P’s placement with him, following which he disengaged from Children’s Social Care and P and B were subsequently closed to the service in October 2020. The application was funded and supported by the local authority.

Both children were kept at home during the Covid-19 pandemic although P had been offered a school place. Following the children’s return to school after the summer of 2020, the school noted a series of bruises on P.The school made a referral to the local authority as staff were concerned about the number and location of bruises P was sustaining at home. Mr E was angry at staff for that decision and advised that he would consider moving P to a different school.Injuries continued to be sustained by P.

A referral was then received by Children’s Services in April 2023 from a dentist who was concerned that P had been presented with a serious fracture to her tooth with the account given by Mr E in relation to the injury not being consistent with the injury observed. A strategy discussion was held on 6 April 2023 and the matter progressed to an Initial Child Protection Conference. A Child and Families Assessment was completed. Mr E was resistant to this. On 17 April 2023 P attended at school with makeup covering facial injuries.On 26 April 2023, the children were made subject of a Child Protection Plan under the category of neglect. Mr E remained resistant to LA involvement and support. School were becoming more concerned about P’s wellbeing. No further injuries were noted to P, who, along with B remained positive about home life. Mr E completed planned work and the decision to end the Child Protection Plan was made at the Core Group Meeting on 22 September 2023.

Two weeks laterP presented at school in tears claiming that she had fallen over outside the school gate and hurt her arm. On 21 May 2024 there was an incident between the children whilst in the care of their childminder when B was injured and the childminder was concerned about P’s reaction to getting in trouble with Mr E. On 21 June 2024 it was revealed that P had told another child that Mr E hit her, caused her injuries. The child’s mother was concerned about the different treatment of P and B.

Having initially denied to the school that Mr E assaulted her, P later admitted that this was because she did not want him to get in trouble. She then admitted to children’s services that Mr E had knocked her tooth out and smacked her and B. Mr E was arrested and the children moved to live with their paternal grandmother. That placement broke down due to the grandmother allowing telephone contact with Mr E, and the children were moved to foster care. This application was commenced following Mr E’s demands thatB be immediately placed with his sister.

P continued to make disclosures about her treatment following the issue of proceedings and B too made disclosures.

The Local Authority sought findings against Mr E in relation to the injuries and other mattersin the threshold. The local authority state that the key issues are:

If findings were made, the local authority’s plans for the children were for them to remain together in long term foster care. The maternal grandmother in [a country] had indicated a wish to be considered to care for the children but P is adamant that she does not wish to live in [a country]. There are no other suitable relatives available to care for them.

Mr E denied causing any of the injuries and submitted that they were all fabricated by lies and manipulation or were accidental in nature. He challenged the ABE interview process. He sought for B and P to be rehabilitated to his care.

The Guardian supported the making of a final care order, with the children to be placed together. The placement would depend on this decision.

There were ongoing criminal proceedings against Mr E in respect of the injuries suffered by P, heard in late 2025. Mr E, if convicted, is likely to receive a custodial sentence and this would obviously affect the issue of any future placement of the children as well as contact.

The Local Authority sought findings concerning injuries as set out in the Final Threshold as follows:

There was a very significant bundle of medical evidence, from court appointed experts and from physicians involved in the child protection processes as well as within the criminal proceedings. Medical attention was not sought for P’s injuries at the time they occurred, save for dental visits and one hospital visit, so there is little concurrent evidence.

The bundle contains evidence of several visits to the dentist at the time of P’s fractured tooth, around 2 April 2023. On 3 April 2023, P was taken to “”A” Dental Surgery for an emergency appointment and Mr E explained that she had broken the tooth the previous morning whilst biting down on a gobstopper sweet. When questioned why he did not take her to A&E given the tooth fracture was severe and deep, Mr E stated that he knew he was coming to the dentist the next day so thought there was no point in attending A&E. He wanted the tooth fixing that day and became agitated when told that this would not happen and the fracture was serious, challenging everyone present. P was noted to have a graze to her upper anterior inner labia mucosa. P was taken to “B” Dental Surgery (Dr C) the following day and Mr E told Dr C that the injury to the tooth (again caused by a gobstopper) had happened 10 days previously and it had been seen by another dentist 5 days earlier. He was referred to the “Z” Dental Hospital and was confrontational, calling Dr C “unprofessional and “an idiot.” Dr C made a referral to Children’s Services as he was concerned for P’s welfare and considered the explanation to be inconsistent with the injury. The Local Authority made contact and Mr E was unhappy and uncooperative, initially refusing to allow P to be seen.

P was then taken to “D” Dental Practice on 6 April 2023 and the same explanation was given, with Mr E being “quite aggressive and demanding”. Both children were noted to have significant decay during the visits and there were other concerns raised.

None of the treating dentists were called to give evidence save for Dr C and their evidence was therefore not challenged.

Dr C provided a witness statement for the police dated 31 January 2025 and attached his clinical notes, confirming the referrals to [a named] Hospital and Children’s Services and a statement for the police. This highlighted his concerns in relation to the delay in treatment, Mr E’s confrontational behaviour, Mr E answering his questions rather than P and general dental decay issues.

Dr C’s oral evidence was in line with his written evidence. He was calm and precise. He did not accept that it was he who was confrontational. He had followed appropriate good practice procedures for identifying whether Mr E held parental responsibility and it was not asking about the mother which led Mr E to be confrontational. On behalf of Mr E, it was submitted that Dr C’s approach was inappropriate and confrontational, particularly asking about the mother in front of the children, and that he was abrupt, suspicious, and rude. Dr C denied this. He found Mr E’s response to asking standard questions about the children’s mother to be a strange response, namely “interesting relationship with mother.” He denied concentrating on the family issues. His primary concerns were not the relationships but the issue of a 10 year old with a very severe dental injury, which had apparently been untreated for 10 days, P was very quiet and appeared to be nervous and incapable of answering questions herself although asked directly, and Mr E always answered for her. He was firm that Mr E was confrontational throughout and refused to answer questions relating to the clinical injury, such as date, time and history which were important. It was these responses which heightened his concerns leading to the safeguarding referral. He was an impressive and independent witness and I have no reason not to accept his evidence. I do so.

I note that the descriptions of Mr E’s behaviour were the same across each of the three dentists whom he visited with P, which gives additional credibility to Dr C’s version of events and which version I prefer.

Dr R, Community Paediatrician, prepared the report from the Child Protection Medical held on 20 August 2024. His opinion in conclusionwas “P has given a clear and consistent testimony alleging that she has suffered almost daily physical abuse over the last 5 years. She exhibits twenty healed scars, including six scars to the scalp, which are consistent with her allegations of multiple head injuries and cutting. She also demonstrates radiological evidence of healed fractures at the left elbow and right humerus. Again, these fractures are consistent with the descriptions of inflicted injury that P has provided. Additional supporting information one must consider includes the extensive social care history and the disclosures made by social care regarding Mr E’s recent behaviour. Taking into account the findings of this examination, the radiological evidence of healed fractures, the information provided by social care and, most importantly, P’s testimony, I conclude that it is highly likely that all of the above injuries have been inflicted upon P by Mr HE in a form of non-accidental injury, in line with P’s history”.

In his oral evidence, he was clear that neither the foster carer nor the social worker had any input or influence in P’s answering of questions at the Child Protection Medical appointment. His history had come from the earlier child protection report and from the social worker, without P being present at the time of any discussions. It was conducted following a completely proper and standardised process and the foster carer did not participate but only provided support for P.He agreed with the court appointed experts schedule of agreement.

In his clear opinion, P presented as a very credible witness, very lucid, providing clear and consistent testimony throughout and he noted that when she could not answer a question she did not speculate. He would not speculate as to how the scars were caused. P could not remember the events and dates of many of the injuries but could recall and was certain that they were inflicted by Mr E. She told of being hit, bitten, and cut over a number of years and her injuries were consistent with her overall history.

Experts were instructed in the fields of paediatrics, paediatric radiology and odontology. In addition to their reports, appropriate questions were asked and an experts meeting took place. A summary was prepared which I shall set out here. This is a “Schedule of matters agreed and disagreed.” There was no disagreement between the experts and the following matters were agreed:

Following the meeting, Dr Kouble answered further questions raised by Mr E. His position remained unchanged.

Dr Kouble filed one report and answered two sets of questions. His summary from his first report was ultimately unchanged, as follows:

Dr Kouble’s evidence was not challenged, he was not called to give oral evidence.

Dr Olsen filed one report and an addendum response to questions. His executive summary from the first report is as follows:

He confirmed that there were three separate fractures, each as a result of separate trauma. In respect of causation:

In response to specific questions, Dr Olsen confirmed that physeal fractures did not require greater force than other fractures and he could not comment on specific examples of how the break may have occurred withoutknowledge of the magnitude of force and exactly how a relevant limb had been engaged in the events. He confirmed that he could not be more precise on dating. He confirmed that January 2022 fell within the approximate window of all three of P’s fractures. 6^th October 2023 could not be entirely dismissed but was outside the window. He was clear thattwo fractures had not been sustained at the same time from the same mechanism since “the fracture of the right upper-arm bone required a mechanism of some force acting on the right arm. Both left-sided fractures required some force acting on the left arm. However, a long bone does not break in two places as a result of a single application of force except during high-energy events such as road traffic accidents.”

Dr Olsen’s evidence was not challenged; he was not called to give oral evidence.

Dr Morrell filed one report. He confirmed that the health visitor and GP records indicate that P remained healthy with no major medical conditions. Her growth was normal and her development was normal. The most relevant parts of his executive summary are as follows:

He set out the full list of P’s skin lesions from the Primary School and the High School reports at paragraph 8 and stated that whilst it was difficult to judge the causation of any of the injuries described in the absence of any photographic evidence or medical examination, he noted that in the period of 12 October 2020 to 18 April 2023 (30 months), there were 28 reported incidents of injury of some nature. In his opinion this was a high incidence of injury in a child of P’s age and the bruising to the face too was unusual and uncommon.

He was clear that P would have suffered pain at the time of causation of her injuries and possibly for several days afterwards. “P presented with multiple skin lesions including healed scars which indicated multiple injuries. The skin disruption which leads to these lesions will have resulted in significant pain and also bleeding and a responsible carer should have been aware of the causation of each of these lesions.”

Bony fractures would have been extremely painful at the time of causation and a carer would be aware that a significant injury has occurred. There may also be an audible crack which should also alert a carer that a fracture has been caused. The initial pain would persist for some time probably up to about 30 minutes. Thereafter there would be significant pain whenever the affected limb is moved, and this pain would persist until the fracture had healed which may be for several days. There was usually associated swelling around the site of the fracture.

Dr Morrell’s evidence was not challenged; he was not called to give oral evidence.

Dr Craig, Clinical Psychologist

Dr Craig prepared one very detailed report in respect of both children. P has no intellectual difficulties but has very negative self image. B has some intellectual difficulties and corresponding problems with adaptive functioning. Both children spontaneously reported physical abuse and P gave an account of emotionally harmful experiences in Mr E’s care after the death of her mother, which suggests she was poorly supported emotionally. In relation to Mr E, she was willing to acknowledge a degree of loss despite her alleged experiences and did not appear motivated to give dramatic or fantastical accounts of her experiences. It was clear that Mr E did not hold a position of safety, comfort, or security for her. She was able to give an account of a marked change in this, from a previously positive experience and her attempts to gain his favour/love even to the extent of lying about his alleged abuse of her to protect him and that relationship. B’s direct experiences were different to those of his sister – he was preferentially favoured, but it was also evident that his relationship with Mr E had not provided him with stability and security, given his insecure and rather avoidant style on assessment.

It was clear that the children presented with insecurity and in his opinion, this was due to unmet early developmental needs, withinstability and with unpredictable care, dysregulated adult emotion and alleged violence in which they had been victims, witnesses, or potentially in the case of B a collaborator. “If accurate their accounts are of highly harmful and abusive care experiences with Mr E. They spontaneously reported these to me on assessment. I am unable to confirm their experiences but had no reason to doubt their accounts. Their presentations are not inconsistent with such a history.…I was very concerned that their basic need for stability and protection from harm has not been met. I am also concerned that their emotional and identity needs have not been met and it is unclear how or if they have been supported by Mr X to understand and process the death of their mother.”

He was of the clear opinion that if the allegations were found to be true,it was highly likely that Mr E poses a very clear and obvious threat/risk to the children’s emotional and psychological wellbeing.

Thankfully, there was a clear warm and affectionate relationship between the children and their relationship was highly significant to them.

Dr Craig’s evidence was not challenged; he was not called to give oral evidence.

There is extensive police disclosure in this matter, over one thousand pages, including transcripts of the children’s ABE interviews and the s.28 cross examination. There are also lengthy video recordings which I have watched. The local authority relies on this extensive police evidence including interviews, statements, downloads recovered from phones and photographs. I have considered this evidence.

Neither child was called to give live oral evidence in these proceedings with the agreement of Mr E.

P’s Evidence – Police Interview and s.28 Examination

She highlighted some particular incidents including her arms being twisted, being thrown to the floor, punched and slapped as she had accidentally broken a phone charger, the incident when she was pushed into a wall and had her head cut open and being punched and kicked all over her face and body and having her hair pulled and spat at after she had accidentally caused a cut to B’s face when playing. He had pulled her arms backwards, kneed her in the back, pulled her out of bed by her hair and thrown her onto the floor making her knees bleed. He also used disgusting, inappropriate, and degrading language to her.

She stated that her tooth had previously been loose from an earlier punch from Mr E before it was then broken off when he hit her in the face with his phone “he got his phone and then smacked my face and it came out.”… “He got the corner of his phone. Like, it’s a big phone. It’s quite big. Like, the new S23 Ultra, I think it was, and they’re quite like wide and he got the corner of it. It’s quite a heavy phone as well and knocked it and it fell out. … [Mr E said] What are we gonna tell them happened to your tooth?... He just said, You’ll have to say it’s a gobstopper… A lie.” He also threw her outside and she grazed her knees. He had told her to lie but she told her friend at school [name] as she was so sick of being hurt.

She also described the events concerning the twist to her left arm until it swelled when aged 9/10:

“He would get me against the wall and he would grab my arm and then twist it all the way round and now it’s like bent and every time I’d try to get it straight then it swelled up a lot. He’s done it a lot. He’s twisted this shoulder back. He’s twisted that shoulder back and I’ve been left with swollen arms and a leg. He’s done it to my leg too, pulled a muscle in it so I’ve been left limping in Year Six…. He tries to like break or twist or hurt my arms…. It really hurt. I was left in pain. I couldn’t really move my arm…. He grabbed my arm and then, before I knew it, I heard like a crack… And then when I realised what happened, my arm started swelling up a lot and my elbow was like… I don’t know. I could just feel my arm muscle… He’s like grabbed it tight and then twisted it really hard… [both] hands…. [demonstrates upper section of arm by the bicep, …So one arm on… one hand on the forearm, one hand on the…] She then stated that she was crying in pain and it swelled up a lot 2 minutes afterwards, she could not see what it looked like due to the swelling. She was moving it limply; it was sticking out and it hurt for a long time.

She also described another occasion shortly after B’s birthday (around October 2023) when Mr E grabbed her right arm and twisted it back and it cracked when she was accused of not getting B to clean his teeth. Again it was very painful and swollen and she recalls crying at school and being given a bag of ice, telling school that she had fallen over.

She provided a graphic description of the events which had taken place following the game of cops and robbers when B’s face was accidentally injured and the calmness with which she described these premeditated brutal and sustained assaults was striking. Throughout her evidence she described being punched, slapped, hit, hair pulled and spat at, cut lips and having her filling knocked out and her tooth broken as well as suffering three broken bones. Some particular comments which stood out to me about the whole picture were “ When he tends to hurt me, he tends to use all his force… There’s been so many injuries, I can’t remember them all… Well, I’m starting to get confused. He’s hurt me so much, I can’t remember when these were… I got to the point where I was starting to get sick of him hurting me all the time because I knew other children didn’t get hurt like I do every day… I was like scared because I knew I was gonna get hurt again… I speak to no-one about the incidents… It feels good to not be hurt all the time… I feel safe…”

She was clear that she had been told what to say by Mr E, particularly if the bruises were noticeable and this continued even after her removal, following contact “whenever we’d like got away from the social workers, he would whisper to me, ‘Keep saying you wanna come home.’” She was aware of the differences in their treatment both physically and practically such as B having a big room and she having the box room, B not being subjected to the assaults that she did.

In the cross examination, P firmly maintained her allegations against Mr E. She was calm and thoughtful and showed maturity, recognising for example, that Mr E may need to spend more time with B due to his age. She had made him cards saying that he was the best dad ever. She had written in one card that she was sorry about lying but could not remember what about. She was clear that B had never injured her, that she could not recall getting cuts and bruises at school and had never hurt her shoulder on the a [named] playground. When she hurt her head, she had told the doctors she had bumped it on the bunkbed but this was not true, it was when Mr E pushed her into the wall in the hallway and it was Mr E’s idea to say that. She did not hurt her arm on a waterslide and nor did Mr E talk to a lifeguard about it, she was clear that was a lie. He was also lying about not twisting her arm. She had told people she broke her tooth on a gobstopper so Mr E would not get in trouble. She had never told B to tell people that Mr E hit him.

My impression of P’s recorded evidence was that she appeared to be behaving in a very natural manner and being truthful. She showed a high level of maturity throughout, with her use of language and behaviour and she was respectful to both the police officer and the barristers. She spoke very clearly and precisely and showed intelligence, good knowledge and detailed recall of general facts including issues such as the house being from the time of WWII, that she had the “box room, as dad refers to it” and they had bought frozen yoghurts on the day of the broken tooth. She was perceptive, knowing that her actions in speaking out had caused these proceedings and reading Mr E’s facial expressions as “you’ve caused all this mess.” She did not seem to exaggerate or deliberately enhance incidents, referring often to only one punch whereas if she was actively seeking to paint a terrible picture of Mr E for some reason, she could easily have claimed more. She showed very little emotion throughout, a fact which was both surprising and shocking given the evidence which she was recalling and retelling; it was startling how matter of fact she was when describing events. She was careful and polite with her language and at no stage did she appear to be rehearsed, in contrast her answers were spontaneous and she did not speculate when she was unsure about certain facts.She showed no pleasure in doing the interview although at the end she thanked DC H and said that she was “Happy to, like, get it all off my chest and just to speak out.”

Overall, P’s evidence remained very similar to the events described to numerous other professionals throughout the period since her removal from the care of Mr E. I saw no evidence of coaching or coercion, nor of seeking any form of financial gain from her accusations, a claim that is distasteful and evidence of the desperate lengths Mr E is prepared to go to, in order to try to shift blame and discredit P and others. Her evidence is corroborated by the medical evidence. P’s evidence was compelling. I recognise the emotional impact of listening to what was a harrowing account of abuse. Having stood back from the emotional impact of listening to P and analysed her evidence as a whole alongside the other evidence I am convinced that the account was the product of a witness endeavouring to give an honest account of the abuse she suffered. I have considered the law and guidance in relation to this evidence, particularly Section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995, when completing my assessment and making my decisions herein. P presented as a very credible witness, lucid and providing clear and consistent testimony throughout. I have no difficulty in accepting her evidence. I prefer it to that of Mr E, whose evidence I will address in due course.

B’s Evidence – Police Interview and S.28 Examination

He described a twisted arm incident as having started at school when the gate was closed and then “he got back home and then twisted it all the way around… Because I saw it… And Daddy shouldn’t really have done it because it hurts people… he twisted her arm around, like, all the way around… he stopped because I tried to make him a bit happy and then he stopped”. This suggests that B felt the need to intervene.

He was clear in relation to P’s head injury “Daddy pushed P and then she fell on my TV and it had a big crack… Daddy got her head, smashed it on the wall”. He later said that it was Mr E’s fault the TV was broken as he had pushed P.

In the cross examination, B was less relaxed than at his interview and restless and fidgety but he is of course much younger. He could not remember P hurting her arm on a water slide on holiday and he had seen Mr E twist P’s arm, one handed. He saw Mr E knock P’s tooth out by smashing his phone on her tooth. He also saw Mr E smash P’s head into a wall and choke/strangle her and flush her head down the toilet. Mr E had punched him in the face and hit his leg. P had told him to make up one story about Mr E stealing but he was clear that she had not told him to make up stories about Mr E hitting P or himself. He was clear that in relation to the assaults, Mr E was “definitely lying.” He gave a graphic demonstration of Mr E smashing P into a wall when choking her.

B is a young boy and he was occasionally distracted during both interview and cross examination. However, he showed good recall and gave thought to his answers and like P, he delivered his description of the physical abuse in a very matter of fact manner, as if it was normal, nothing unusual. He was keen to offload his experiences and once he had relaxed and the first few questions had been asked, he volunteered information easily. He did not appear to embroider or enhance and if he could not give an answer he said so, such as saying that he couldn’t answer as he was at a different school.

He was clearly aware of right and wrong and knew that what Mr E was doing to P was wrong, saying it was not right. He recognised their differing treatment even at his young age, noting that he was hit less and got more food than P, but he didn’t know why. He understood what lying meant, knew that P had lied when she said the gobstopper broke her tooth and when he was questioned during the cross examination, by being asked if events really happened, he seemed perturbed to be challenged about whether he was telling the truth. He was very clear that no-one had told him to make things up about Mr E, save for one occasion when P told him to lie about Mr E (not) stealing – even then it appears as if P was trying to protect Mr E.

B’s interviews were less emotionally impactful than P’s, as he was not the victim telling their own story but a witness to the same and less emotionally involved. Despite this, it was still a harrowing account of his witnessing abuse and indeed being much more aware of the same than either P or Mr E thought. Having analysed B’s evidence as a whole alongside the other evidence, as with P’s evidence I am convinced that the account was that of a witness endeavouring to give an honest account of the abuse which Mr E had perpetrated against P from what he had personally seen and heard. There was no evidence of any collusion, prompting or lying. I have considered the law and guidance in relation to this evidence, particularly Section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995, when completing my assessment and making my decisions herein. B presented as a credible witness, particularly taking into account his age and the nature of the allegations, and provided clear and consistent testimony throughout. I have no difficulty in accepting his evidence which again I prefer to that of Mr E.

I have considered the evidence of both children in line with the guidance and law which I have set out in this judgment. They have not been viewed in isolation but as part of the whole evidential picture. Although hearsay evidence, in my judgment it was very persuasive evidence. Further, the children’s accounts largely corroborate each other but are not so similar that there is any suggestion of prompting or collusion. Additionally, their accounts are also supported by the unchallenged medical evidence.

DC (now DS) H

In his oral evidence he was referred to the NPCC ABE guidance and was accused of asking leading questions. He stated that he was familiar with the guidance and had conducted numerous interviews. He wanted B to be fully aware of the consequences of giving an ABE interview and from his PIPPA assessment was satisfied that B was suitable to be interviewed and fully aware of the consequences of the same. He had planned the interview. He admitted introducing topics into the interview with B but said that this was necessary as there were topics which needed to be addressed and whilst he denied asking leading questions, he appropriately conceded that some questions could have been asked in a more neutral manner. In his opinion, B was not led but had a choice in responses or he could have chosen not to answer. B was willing and capable of correcting him in the event of misunderstandings such as the issue of the arm twist and the school gate. He apologised for using the word “hit” when he should have said “pushed” on one occasion, but B had already used the word “hit” himself earlier in the interview when talking about himself.

He was criticised during cross examination for bringing up specific topics with B, including asking him what was bad at home, mentioning the possibility of jail for Mr E and bringing up the issue of the gobstopper. However, further exploration of these issues showed that it was in fact B himself who had first mentioned jail and the gobstopper and DS H was following up on B’s comments. He was also directly criticised for asking B a leading question about what was bad at home with dad, but in response he pointed out that in fact he had specifically asked what was good at home moments earlier. These were not leading questions but balanced and not in breach of ABE guidance.

I accept that a few of the questions were not optimally phrased but this was a live and active interview and in my judgment, the questions were not direct leading questions unless viewed in isolation. In context, with the officer needing to address the allegations and as a whole, the interview was in my judgment ABE compliant. In any event, leading questions do not mean that an answer is inadmissible, they affect the weight which can be afforded to them. I am satisfied that B’s interview was not unfairly undertaken and his answers were not compromised.

DC K

Dr Y Consultant Paediatrician – Mr E’s instructed expert in criminal matter:

Dr B, Consultant Orthopaedic Spinal Surgeon

Dr G, Paediatric Intensive Care and General Paediatrics

“In my professional opinion, given the extensive social care history (including the disclosures made by social care regarding Mr E’s recent behaviour); the identified physical and radiological injuries; and (very importantly) RF’s consistent testimony; it is highly likely that all the identified injuries were inflicted by Mr HE on RF non-accidentally.”

Mr S, General Dental Practitioner

“In my opinion, with regards to the fracture of P's UR1, the complicated fracture of the tooth was highly likely caused by external trauma rather that her biting on a hard object.

In my opinion the fracture of the UR1, and its likely poor prognosis, is far more consistent with having been caused by an assault involving the hitting of her mouth using the corner of a phone than by biting on a gobstopper as was first claimed.”

Other Evidence

There was considerable further evidence from lay and professional witnesses within the bundle. Not all of this was referred to or challenged by cross examination. I will address the most pertinent parts and where there was challenge. I will state where the witness was called to give oral evidence.

[name] - The Primary School

[name] - Teacher

[name] also provided evidence in relation to paragraph 32 of the threshold. She had witnessed further bruises to P’s face and the friction burn.

[name] – Registration Tutor

[name] attended court but was released.

[name], Pastoral Manager & Deputy Safeguarding Lead The High School

In her oral evidence it became clear that there was an error concerning the date in the letter concerning the photograph with P having a red nose. The original photo was taken when P first started at school and that was the one with a red nose. [name] had seen the red nose in the photograph and had assumed P had a cold until P told her otherwise.

She addressed at length the issue of P being put on report for her behaviour, how unusual this was and how concerned P was about the report and having to inform Mr E. She did not say that P’s response was extraordinary but it was clearly unusual and surprising to her, it was not simply an upset and normal response to a usually well-behaved child being put on report. She considered that P should have been reassured by her form teacher that it was only a minor issue and low level intervention but P still seemed quite worried and jittery when she deliberately spoke to [name], asking if Mr E could not be informed and the report not sent home. P explained to her later that this was the catalyst for her starting to make her disclosures about Mr E’s treatment. They had numerous conversations afterwards but she was clear that her role was limited, she was not a learning mentor for P and the disclosures were not made to her.

P had given her the same explanation about falling over before school causing her sore arm and the straighteners causing the ear injury and she took matters no further. She was aware of P’s broken tooth on 22 May 2024 and of a tooth problem earlier. She had no further information as to how it was caused other than that from P, which was that she had been pushed over at school, nor whether it was caused pre-school. There was no CCTV or statements from any other pupil about an incident at school which was unusual. She was clear that P loves food and would always go into lunch quickly and eats really fast.

She was an impressive witness, clear in her evidence and she did not stray into areas where she did not have personal knowledge.

[name] - The Primary School

[name] – Mother P’s school friend

She repeated this information in her police statement also commenting that she and others were aware that Mr E favoured B and there was an obvious difference in the way the children were treated. For example on social media he never posted pictures of P when they were on holiday and she was usually seen in untidy non-fitting clothes whereas B would be smartly dressed. Further, P was always hungry. She expanded on this in her oral evidence to explain that P would always want seconds or thirds of lunch and always cleared her plate, never complaining about the food. Many children want seconds but P’s behaviour was unusual and P told her often that she had not had anything to eat all day. P had also stolen crisps and other snacks from the teacher/other pupils and she did not accept that this was due to Mr E keeping a healthy diet at home.

In her oral evidence she explained that she had been an assistant at the school, looking after the children in the lunch hall or playground. She knew P well and had met B as he was in infants but otherwise did not really know the family. P was close friends with her son throughout primary school and he was very worried about her when he told her of P’s disclosures. She herself was aware of the broken tooth/gobstopper incident as she had seen P without the tooth. Whilst P told her it was caused by a gobstopper she thought this was odd and spoke to other teachers about it, who were aware and monitoring.

She was adamant that the children were treated differently and this was not just because she knew of the allegations, but had been going on for years and other parents and people in the area were also aware of it. She was certain that Mr E had failed to pay for a Jubilee lunch at school for Pdespite his claiming this to be incorrect, and so she was excluded from it. She was so certain as she herself had offered to pay for it but the school would not let her. She had seen P dressed differently to B at school, with her clothes looking worn and inexpensive whereas B wore designer clothes. She had been linked to Mr E by social media for a while and had rarely seen photos of P posted on holidays and she had never seen P dressed in the manner that she was in the photos produced to court by Mr E. She also stated that Mr E had failed to attend some school plays for P or been late. She was genuinely concerned that he allowed P to walk home from school unsupervised when she was too young, putting her at risk. B was collected from nursery and Mr E then went straight home rather than picking P up.

She clearly does not now like Mr E, but she was clear that her own evidence predates her knowledge of P’s injuries and life at home.Where her evidence differs from Mr E’s, I prefer hers, she was a compelling witness, confident and straightforward, and considerably more convincing than Mr E. In her own words, when asked if she was exaggerating and giving evidence based on her knowledge of the allegations, she simply replied “I have no reason to do that.” She was firm in her evidence and spoke clearly from her own knowledge of what she had witnessed herself over a sustained period of time.

[name] - Initial Foster Carer

Her police interviews contain additional information of P’s and B’s disclosures including being hit most days and confirming that Mr E broke her tooth by hitting her across her face with his phone (not merely dropping it). Sadly, P also disclosed that she was scared of Mr E, treated differently to B and P was aware that Mr E cannot love her like B and he cannot have a partner because women do not want “baggage especially me.” P had told her that Mr E should not be allowed to get away with what he had done to her and she had showed [name] her disfigured arm which she said Mr E had done when she was at primary school. There were other disclosures including causing her to split her head open, ripping her hair out and kicking her in the face splitting open her chin.

[name] was a caring and thoughtful witness. She was subject to significant and lengthy challenge on behalf of Mr E, the thrust of which was that she preferred and was biased in favour of P, had cared for P in a manner which had caused distress to B, by him feeling excluded and jealous, which then led him to echo P’s overheard accusations against Mr E to gain [name]s attention himself. Further, that she had either directly or inadvertently encouraged P to make the accusations by her manner of questioning and some of the things she had said to P during their time together including mentioning a claim for compensation. I find these hypotheses to be inherently unlikely and not supported by any credible evidence. I do not accept that they have any grounding in fact. I do accept that there was evidence that [name] may have cared for P more than B and potentially become over-involved emotionally with her, when she should have been more circumspect.

[name] was clearly an inexperienced foster care at the time that the children were placed with her but she was not an inexperienced parent and her professional role involves safeguarding: she is the deputy safeguarding head at school. She was inexperienced and likely under prepared in relation to record keeping. She and her husband had to learn and develop skills very quickly as the matter became more complex. This lack of experience and ability could have impacted upon the weight which I could properly attach to her evidence, but she has had training about how to address allegations of abuse or harm in her school safeguarding role and it is only part of the picture.

She answered her questions in an honest and at times emotional manner and it was obvious she was deeply troubled at the time and had the best interests of the children in mind.

She admittedly had a difficult time dealing with the care of the children themselves and the issues between them which were becoming apparent and with B’s behaviour. We now have considerably more evidence about the physical, psychological, and emotional harm caused to these children including the report of Dr Craig. [name] had little information, it was an emergency placement with very little planning. It is perhaps unfortunate that, with hindsight, in a case such as this with the number and nature of allegations and the additional complex emotional issues such as differing treatment of P and B, that an inexperienced foster placement was chosen for them. However, most of these unusual circumstances were unknown at the time and foster placements are limited.

She was criticised throughout the cross examination in an attempt to undermine her evidence and competence. This included criticism as to why she had not called the police and social workers when P made her disclosures over the weekend, but she was clear that P was safe and only starting to feel secure so it was not urgent that day. Further criticism concerned P calling them mama and papa which they stated that had tried to stop, but P was strong willed and in the context of everything else it did not seem to be so important; to P it was about belonging, not about parentage. They were not the same names as they were called by their own daughter. I accept these explanations as being reasonable if naïve. [name] gave straightforward evidence of seeing B hit P, her husband hearing him hit her and of P parenting and protecting him including sharing a bed. She sought appropriate advice about this and other matters.

It was clearly implied that she concentrated more on P but I did not get the impression that she deliberately chose to spend more time with P or that she was unbalanced in her treatment of the children. She was clear that this was not the case, but that P needed to have some one-on-one time with her occasionally as B monopolised their time, gave P no privacy and P was desperate for time of her own. I accept that there were a few occasions when she spoke to P to the exclusion of B but this is not a significant issue and she was clear that the time was shared, indeed she said that more time was spent with B who was younger and more demanding. B was clearly used to being the centre of attention and receiving preferential treatment from Mr E’s care. I accept her evidence that she was offering P nurturing care and allowing her to feel safe. I consider that it is likely, sadly, that she preferred P to B but it is relevant to note that P had, even with her limited knowledge of the facts, allegedly suffered from very significant abuse at the hands of Mr E so sympathy for her would be natural for a caring and nurturing parent or foster carer and [name] was both. This may have been unconscious bias, she being unaware of it. To this can be added the issue of B deliberately hurting the family dog. [name] was in her own words “only human” and she was in my judgment, trying to do her best in very challenging circumstances as an inexperienced foster carer with what appears to have been a rather poor relationship with her supervising social worker.

The foster carer notes are merely a snapshot of events which took place in foster care and there will be much more information. The comments by [name] were merely a part of the whole picture and will only show a small fraction of the conversations, discussions and events that actually took place during the foster care arrangement. I have no doubt that the fuller picture is within [name]’s memories and that there are no doubt many other matters which helped her form her overall opinions and evidence based upon on the greater picture in the home over the approximately three and a half months of the placement, not on small notes and snapshots.

I accept that she may have asked leading questions on occasion and that she may have been naïve and inappropriate in some of the answers and information that she gave to the children (such as Mr E probably assaulting their mother and talking about making a legal claim against the council), but she admitted these mistakes and referred to hindsight, that she was concentrating on helping P to feel secure in the moment and genuinely trying to do her best for her and B. She explained that with P being so withdrawn and quiet, she was not trying to encourage her to make accusations, but to enable her to feel safe enough to open up and talk honestly about her lived experiences. That is indeed positive and nurturing foster care. I have no evidence to show that she encouraged P or B to make allegations against Mr E or that she coerced or twisted what the children were saying or persuade them to make the allegations. That would be a very significant leap to make, that the allegations were as a result of perceived slights or differences in relation to the children. She was firm that she did not believe that B had overheard their conversations and pointed out that he had mentioned matters not raised by P. She was clear that P did not want B to know of the disclosures and that she did not think P had told him although she did not know for sure what they talked about. In my judgment there is no evidence to suggest that she deliberately drove or tried to drive a wedge between them or that this led to B making additional disclosures to her to please her. Those disclosures were, of course, repeated to various professionals including medics, police and on cross-examination.

At the conclusion of her evidence it was revealed that there has been an internal investigation into the placement, which she thought was because of its ending and some things the children had said. We now have the report, which followed concerns raised by the social workers. It acknowledges their inexperience as foster parents and the placement of “complicated siblings.” There were some learning issues for the carers but also the agency and social workers to build a good working relationship but additionally for the police in their communications. There was no evidence of the children making any similar accusations or allegations relevant to these proceedings against the carers and those which were made were easily explained by misunderstandings and imperfect communication sometimes in moments of stress, for example when trying to get P to one of her many hospital visits and in telling B how to eat properly was not “badmouthing” him although that may be how P saw it as she is so protective of him and the foster carers own daughter being critical on one occasion. Put simply, there were no significant or relevant concerns raised by the investigation. It is actually positive that the children felt empowered to speak out, having felt unable to do so whilst in the care of Mr E.

[name] - Current Foster Carer

LH - Contact Supervisor

There are many matters which stood out to me from the records which demonstrate Mr E’s approach to the children and I will highlight a few. During the contact on 10 July 2024, Mr E brought some bio-oil for B to use on his face as he had a mark and Mr E was worried that it may scar. I contrast this with the almost complete lack of attention and medical treatment for P’s multiple injuries, including broken bones. When B was ill and missed contact Mr E sent him a card with photos and saying he loved him; at the end of the same session he did not tell P he loved her. Mr E was also often critical of P, saying for example that her hair was too frizzy and telling her to straighten it (repeated) and further criticised her for not ensuring that B was dressed properly, such as gel in his hair and black socks.

In my judgment Ms H was a fair and balanced witness and made appropriate concessions and did not “spin” or deliberately misinterpret behaviours. She is entitled to her own opinion and stood by it.

EK – Social Worker

She also gave a statement to police. This statement highlighted the disparity of care between the children which she had observed and P’s role as carer tor B. P admitted that she followed Mr E’s narrative as she was in fear of repercussions if she did not. She made the following statement which in my judgment is highly insightful: “P has clearly being torn between desperation for a parental relationship with Mr E and in making attempts to seek his attention and affirmation, and wanting to speak out of her experiences in his care.” She also pointed out that Mr E had not allowed either of the children to discuss their mother, resulting in B having no concept or understanding of ever having had a mother.

Ms K was confident and clear in her evidence. She was the appointed social worker for two periods of time, briefly in 2023 at child protection level and then early in 2024 until around the commencement of proceedings. She confirmed that neither child was registered with a dentist in 2023 despite both having tooth decay. She was adamant that there were few photos of P in the house and she had not seen a photo of the children’s mother, P had told her the photos were on Mr E’s phone. She had explored the house up and downstairs. She herself had not seen bruising and had not seen B spit at P. She had not addressed the issue of the [different country] family herself at the time of her first involvement as this was around child protection issues before she handed over and whilst she had suggested bereavement counselling, she could not recall Mr E’s response at the time. In the minutes from the child protection conference, however, she stated that Mr E “does not think P requires any intervention or support for the loss of her mother.”

She did not accept that the contact sessions were awkward only due to the circumstances of the children’s removal and allegations but she was clear that their descriptions of the relationships and disparities in care reflected the whole picture of what had been noted, including Mr E’s different reactions to the children. She did not accept that it should be different for a young girl than a younger boy. She was clear that she had heard Mr E discuss lies with P when talking about “fairy tales” about P’s disclosures to her school friend. This was contained in the contact notes from 11 July 2024. She was clear that she did consider there to be a disparity in how the children were treated and she had noticed this herself, with different standards of clothes and physical treatment. Mr E had on occasions listened to her and modified his behaviour accordingly. She had noted that P initially on occasions was unkempt and had body odour and P had told her that she was only allowed one bath or shower a week.

Ms K was criticised for discussing Mr E’s bail conditions with P, it being suggested that she should have refused to discuss the same. She confirmed that she was aware that such discussions were not appropriate but P had specifically asked about them. Having seen P’s evidence myself and seen her level of maturity and understanding I cannot find fault with the decision to answer P’s questions and indeed a refusal or avoidance could have been more harmful and damaged trust.

It was also suggested that Ms K’s perception of P taking a parenting role was merely the natural position of an elder sister caring for a sibling in very difficult circumstances but she was very clear that it was more than this, that her main concerns were regarding Mr E’s pressure on P to directly parent B properly, such as his homework and his presentation at contact, and his criticism of her.

NK - Social Worker

In her oral evidence she updated the court as to the progress and ups and downs of the children during their time looked after. P was clear that she did not want to return to the care of Mr E, but wished to stay in foster care, ideally without moving. Sadly the present foster home is not a viable long-term placement for the children and they will need to move. B would want to return to the care of Mr E but not without P, in those circumstances he would choose foster care.

She was cross examined and challenged on various aspects of her performance as appointed social worker with which Mr E took issue. This included suggestions of not keeping Mr E up to date with the children’s progress, delaying provision of B’s school photograph to him, not reviewing contact with Mr E, delaying contact with the paternal extended family unnecessarily, not sending monthly email updates and apparently excluding Mr E from a meeting. Her evidence was clear that she did not accept that any of these were correct, and she provided rational and detailed explanations for every suggestion. I accept her explanations, I prefer them to the suggestions of Mr E which appeared to simply be a litany of unsupported complaints and diversions in an attempt to discredit her. She was also challenged as to why she had failed to provide B’s school workbooks to Mr E despite him requesting and chasing these for several months and she explained that there had been a mix up but they had now been provided. She confirmed that in contrast, Mr E had never asked her for P’s workbooks nor had he ever contacted her school. His primary focus was B.

She held clear concerns about the previous foster carers Mr and [name] and their relationship with the police, their attempt to keep P separate and in their care, with B moving on and their better relationship with P generally. She did not accept the suggestion that the carers had damaged the existing good relationship between the children when they moved in due to their care, as there were already aspects of concern when they came into foster care. It was true that P was conflicted at times in the Foster Carer’s care about whether she wanted to be separate from B, it was not all one sided. The evidence from Mr and [name] that B punched and spat at P had also been reflected in their present placement, including B punching P a few weeks ago. It was put to her that this was just sibling behaviour. I do not accept that spitting and punching is normal sibling behaviour. She was clear that the Foster Carers speaking to P separately would not make B angry enough to punch her. It was suggested that this could just be B lashing out due to everything which had happened but she was clear that this was not actually new behaviour, it had been reported in school prior to removal including lashing out at his peers at school. B was now coming to terms with what has happened but he still had lots of worries.

She was very concerned that B had no concept of his mother and how P was so distressed at the local authority producing photographs of her to show him. She was clear that she did not consider that B had been influenced by P, that he was perfectly able to speak for himself and indeed did so for example in relation to the issue of contact with his paternal uncle and with Mr E.

In relation to the potential removal of Mr E’s parental responsibility, she was clear that she would listen to P, but her opinion was that if the findings were made, he should not retain parental responsibility (PR). In his treatment of P he had gone against any positives and she would worry about him having access to P’s personal records. Indeed even if P wanted him to retain PR she would still have concerns. She was conscious of potential emotional impact but the allegations were significant and support would be offered to support the sibling relationship and any issues which arose would be handled sensitively. Parental responsibility with restrictions would still cause her concern and she could see little point of Mr E retaining it at all in such circumstances. The local authority would consider the issue of contact when the outcome of this hearing and the criminal proceedings, including sentencing if guilty, was known for both Mr E and his family and risk assessments would be carried out. If PR was removed, P could still be included if this was in line with her wishes.

She revealed that Mr E has a new relationship and his partner is pregnant, this information had been emailed to her as she arrived at court for the first day of the hearing on 28 July 2025. She had responded seeking more detail but Mr E did not reply, the reply came later from his solicitors. This was the same person who P had contacted via Instagram earlier in the year. Mr E has been having unsupervised contact with her child and the relevant local authority have been informed and have commenced child protection procedures. Mr E did not provide details of his partner’s child to her, this came from the local authority.

She was an impressive witness and easily dealt with the challenges of cross examination, with fully reasoned and detailed explanations and opinions. She showed clear knowledge of the children and she was fair. I accept her evidence, it was persuasive.

LH – Team Manger

Mr E filed only one short narrative statement in these proceedings dated 8 July 2025. He denied being responsible for causing any of the injuries. He offered an explanation for P’s broken arm as being from when she fell down a waterslide in [a country]. He said that initially it was swollen and he sought advice from a lifeguard and pharmacist but it settled and there were no more problems. She is regularly active, a tomboy and she has fallen over a lot. He said that P has never complained of pain. He maintained that the tooth was broken by a gobstopper. He produced a bundle of photographs and cards at the final hearing. These show some happy times for the family.

In his more detailed criminal defence statement he stated that the allegations were fabricated, denied ever hitting P, did not call her names, and did not accept that he had ever physically or emotionally harmed either child. He maintained his blanket denial and contended that the children are lying about their lived experiences in his care. He believes that B in particular has been manipulated to make allegations against him by both P and the foster carers the children were initially placed with. He claims P was jealous of B and that they hurt each other.

Mr E was also interviewed by the police on three occasions and the interviews are in the bundle. It is clear from the first interview that Mr E urgently wanted the opportunity to speak to P about her allegations, and throughout that he blames her for putting things into B’s head, telling him to say things. In his interviews he described B “He’s my world. He’s my son, and like, we do everything together. We’re close. I love him to bits”. P was described in his first interview as a “good girl” but by the time of his second interview, after more allegations had been made, he referred to her “constant lies and this kind of stuff and setting bad examples, erm, to my son”. In his second interview, when asked about P’s shoulder, he stated “I mean, we’ve done holidays, swimming, never ever complained about her arm or her shoulder ever”. He later mentioned a sore shoulder after a water park slide but this was minor. He had no explanation for most of the bruising or injuries as he stated that he had never noticed them. He claimed that P was clumsy but it was noted that she had suffered only 2 minor injuries whilst at school and 26 outside school (from the CPOMS).

The third interview, following on from mobile phone disclosure, was predominantly a “no comment” interview. The interview raised issues about alleged contact via snapchat and mobile phone disclosure which showed Mr E’s searches for such things as “Child assessment meeting, how to look good.”…“Physical chastisement.”…“Can an X-ray show how long an arm has been bent? Can you see an old broken arm on X-ray? How does a broken arm break? How high do you have to fall to break your arm?”…“Arm fracture, how can your arm be bent and can a forensic see how an arm has bent?”…“Convicted child abuse.”…“Not taking child to doctor, neglect.” Mr E replied “no comment” to questions about these internet searches.

Mr E handed the court a bundle of cards and notes written to him by P, praising him.

Mr E’s oral evidence was given over almost two days. I do not intend to review all of his lengthy evidence here, but it has been taken into account in coming to my conclusions. He was unimpressive and a very poor witness, many of his answers were evasive, tangential, he could not remember or were implausible or indeed simply untrue. He constantly claimed that he could not remember things even when it was his own messages, but then also argued that records must be wrong if they were adverse to him. It is hard to see how he can claim both. His credibility is very low. Before I move on to address specific matters particularly relevant for my assessment of him as a witness and my decisions, I will say that overall I do not accept his narrative. Some of his answers were frankly so illogical that it was hard to fathom how he ever expected to maintain his story and be believed. It was hard to ascertain whether he was simply being dishonest, has a terrible memory or failed to realise that his lies were unsustainable. It is likely a combination. In view of this, and in line with my assessments of the other oral evidence which I heard, where there was a difference or a dispute, I cannot accept Mr E’s version, I prefer every other witness’s version.

In addition to my concerns about Mr E’s honesty, his evidence showed a significant degree of narcissism. During his evidence, Mr E at one point even raised the issue of jealousy as a possible explanation for why people are making up lies about him. He frequently pointed out how much B idolises him and needs him. On almost every occasion when he was asked about the effect of these proceedings or his behaviour on the children and on P in particular, he did not answer but instead set out how it had impacted him personally, he had found it all traumatic and he was distraught, obliterated. He constantly referred to himself throughout, it was not fair on him, it’s killing him, he has no words to say how he feels, this was ruining his life. At one point when asked directly about bereavement support for P after her mother’s death, he replied that he had been prescribed medication, when asked about declining the offer of family support at the same time he replied that he had not had time to grieve. He said that the children were very fortunate children to have him caring for them. He stated at one point that he did not consider that P’s welfare should have to affect B at all, showing a complete lack of empathy for her and the sibling relationship. He attempted to provide excuses for his behaviour or poor memory, such as his being in shock as an excuse for why he had not bothered to contact the school when P was showing some suicidal concerns.

He very reluctantly admitted behaving badly by crying in front of the children at the first contact after placement in foster care, but then excused this because he was “in bits, crying my eyes out, so difficult… my world was a mess.” He showed no thought for P; the description of his loving behaviour towards B and his almost complete lack of attention to P at that visit is unpleasant to read. His denial of this behaviour, saying firstly that he can’t remember and then that the record was wrong ion recording “You have no idea how hard these past few days have been for me P, but you already know this". "We have so many nice plans ahead of us, but these probably won't go ahead now". "B can pick up on all of this that is going on, it's not fair on him" as overheard by the contact supervisor is simply unsustainable. His comments blaming P for the situation were wholly wrong and thoughtless. He claimed that it was very awkward for everybody and then denied that the supervisors had intervened, that he himself had gone outside as he couldn’t breathe. The supervisor’s evidence was not challenged in any event, and I accept the note as an accurate record. When asked how the children would feel about him having a new partner with a baby on the way, his reply was that he didn’t know and that he couldn’t describe how hard the last year had been for him, let alone the children.

He stated clearly in evidence on several occasions that “P is very switched on and older for her age.” I agree, and her maturity adds to her credibility.

There were many statements made by Mr E which are simply unsustainable. I have considered the “Lucas” direction throughout, but record that there were constant lies, easily proven to be wrong, sometimes on his own evidence. He denied putting make up on P’s face in oral evidence, but he had previously admitted the same during the child protection conference “Mr Eshared that he did cover up the marks because the children were having school photographs. He did not buy a photograph of P because she did not like the way she looked.” Having disputed the social workers evidence about his contact with the maternal family (where Ms K said that the maternal grandmother said he blocked her) through his cross examination of her, he admitted in evidence that he had indeed blocked her. He consistently disputed the contents of written records such as contact, saying that it was written down wrongly, denied that there were more pictures of B up in the house than P, when the police evidence clearly shows that the ratio was 14 to 2 and refused even to concede the threshold criteria relating to the tooth decay (TC 5) even when he admitted that P was not registered with a dentist. He blamed her and the lack of dentists. There were many other discrepancies. He implausibly claimed that the housing department came and painted his whole stairs and landing whilst doing another job; this is not accepted by housing and there is an area of wall which has been repaired/painted which stands out. He denied behaving badly at the dentists when three separate and independent dentists reported that his behaviour was confrontational; they were being dishonest not him. No reason was suggested for why they would lie. He tried to argue that he had seen a report that stated that it was plausible that P’s tooth could have been broken on a gobstopper when no such report exists.

He denied refusing bereavement support and family support, he denied blocking discussions about the mother’s history from the children whereas a report from the school shows clearly that he was angry that she had been discussed and indeed B’s presentation on arriving into foster care shows that he knows nothing about his mother. In addition to this, in a text to his mother during a discussion about P’s losing her mother, Mr E stated that she must not “ever mention to B anything about or in front of him… I will tell him when time is right” which supports the local authority’s case that the children’s mother was not a permitted topic. I was shocked to hear that the children’s mother’s ashes are stored in a shed.

He repeatedly accused social workers and foster parents and others of conspiring against him and leading or influencing the children and he said that the children had been brainwashed by them. He said that there were things going on behind the scenes, that the children had been rehearsed by foster carers or social workers, that B would never have made accusations against him without this. He provided no reason or evidence for these accusations and whilst initially he refused to say that the children were lying in their accusations, merely that they were untrue, as his evidence developed, he said that both children were lying. He stated that if P had never been removed into foster care “none of this would have come about”. I agree with his statement, as although P had recently made disclosures to her friend, the school and the police before she moved to foster care, I do agree that she would not have felt comfortable to have made the additional disclosures if she had not been removed from Mr E’s care. The situation at home had become normalised for her and B, she had been told not to tell anyone, repeatedly told to lie about how her injuries had occurred, she was too scared to speak out against Mr E, yet still tried to protect him and still sought his love and approval. Furthermore, the fact that P had already spoken out about the abuse before foster care negates much of Mr E’s argument that P was influenced by her foster carers to make allegations. It is relevant to note that P had already made her statement to the police before any mention by [name] of compensation so this cannot be a valid reason as I have addressed earlier. I have also already dealt with the evidence of [name] earlier in this judgment and her credibility was far higher than Mr E’s.

When asked why P would make false allegations, Mr E said that it was not just people’s influence over her but also perhaps she was seeking more attention, maybe wanted a family with a mother figure, and the foster carers. In his attempts to explain, he suggested that P had made the allegations up to tell her friend Alex as she was desperate since they had broken up as boyfriend and girlfriend and she was seeking sympathy. He raised the possibility of P self harming as a potential cause for her scars.

Mr E’s answers in response to the lengthy questioning about his internet search history and messages to his family were wholly unconvincing. It is clear that he was making searches and sending messages in relation to arm injuries before P had even undertaken her initial medical and before Mr E claimed to be aware of any breaks. It is important to note that the breaks were only confirmed following the X-rays taken at the skeletal survey on 22 August following the child protection medical on 20 August 2024 and were in the report dated 30 August 2024. Mr E’s phone history clearly showed a message exchange with his sister before the first initial medical on 1 July 2024 where he says “They gonna be saying about her arm etc” and his sister replied, “Just say with her arm it was fine by time you came back home…”. The conversation continues with Mr E replying, “does it show how old on x-ray?” and then “shall I say from holiday when M around an never complained about it hurting or something”. He also sought advice from his brother-in-law about what to say, including again suggesting saying something about it being from when the mother was alive. There were google searches for, how does a broken arm break, can you see an old broken arm on x-ray, how does a broken arm break and many more on 16 August 2024, again before the child protection medical and skeletal survey and when Mr E claimed to know nothing of a broken arm. Of particular relevance was the search for “can an x-ray show how long an arm has been bent”, a very specific question and bending of the arm would not appear to be most common cause for broken arms. No cause had even been suggested at that stage. Mr E failed to provide any rational explanation for any of these searches and messages. His explanation was that his head was all over the place and he was searching for answers as to how it happened. I do not accept this. According to his own evidence he knew nothing of breaks but in my judgment he was clearly aware of the break and he was seeking assistance from his sister and her husband and from the internet as to how to lie and cover it up. His claims of being so confused, didn’t know what was happening, so much going on are simply his attempts to deny and hide his guilt. He lied about knowing about the break and lied about the purpose of his searches.

Much of Mr E’s evidence in relation to the issue of P’s broken tooth was absurd. Leaving aside the causation of the injury, his credibility was severely damaged by his evidence about the dental visits afterwards. He reluctantly admitted lying to the second dentist about the timing of the injury but avoided answering and could not remember lying to the third one about the timing, although the dentist’s evidence clearly shows that he did lie. He also sought treatment for P having been told that the injury was too raw and unsuitable to treat at that time (hence the claim it happened 10 days ago). He had also informed the third dentist that P had undergone root treatment when she had not. His response in evidence was to say that he had not said that at all and the dentist was wrong. I simply do not believe him; no dentist would make up such a thing and they keep careful records. He lied to try to get P treated quickly and I accept and prefer the evidence of all of the dentists, including the similarly described confrontational presentation of Mr E at each dentist, which again he disputed. I heard oral evidence from Dr C and he was an impressive honest witness. I fully accept his evidence, not that of Mr E.

Mr E denied calling P names. He gave the clear impression that he didn’t think it was relevant if it was done only behind her back, he would never say it to her face. He seemed to have no regrets about what he had said in the messages and was prepared to send deeply unpleasant messages about P to his mother and allow or encourage her to reply in similar terms without challenge. He said that it was in the heat of the moment. He had never said anything similar about B. Examples of the things he said about P were “problem child that one… she’s a fucking wild bitch… she’s a little cow… and fucking evil bitch.” He denied treating the children differently and claimed to love them both as much. However in messages to his mother, he said “not hugs kisses this stuff not in my nature to do that with her… can’t force feelings… never gonna force feelings… I can’t”. In my judgmentcomments such as these are absolutely not reflective of loving the children the same or even of loving P at all as he claimed on several occasions. P was clear that she was called names to her face and I prefer her evidence to that of Mr E. He admitted never asking P’s school about her since foster care. He frequently claimed to love P as his daughter, but it is hard to believe these statements.

Another area where Mr E lacked credibility was when he attempted to claim that unsent messages/notes found on his phone by the police were not written by him to show to the children at contact to influence their behaviour, but were in fact his notes of what the children had said to him themselves. I wholly disregard this claim; it is absurd. They are written not as from the children to him but rather from him to them and contain instructions.

When questioned about the incident at the school gates on 4 January 2022 following which it is suspected that P suffered a broken arm, Mr E could remember very little but despite having little recall denied that he was shouting or angry and when challenged with evidence of his behaviour from an independent witness, he claimed that she was lying and maybe it was jealousy. In contrast to his limited memory and denials, P remembers events both at the gate and afterwards in graphic detail, B also remembers the events at the gate and afterwards, with both children standing firm in their police interviews and cross examinations. Mr E said that P never complained and if she had he would have taken her for treatment. He said he always sought treatment when it was necessary. This assertion is hard to comprehend given P having 19 scars and 3 broken bones and only one trip to hospital for a cut to her head. Mr E claimed in evidence that he had never noticed any of the other injuries. Mr E’s evidence was unsatisfactory again when dealing with a recorded visit to the hospital about B’s breathing and I prefer the evidence from the contemporaneous notes of the nurse at the hospital that Mr E went missing leaving the children for an hour and was shouting and abusive. Mr E yet again could not recall events but still managed to deny poor behaviour and claim that others were wrong.

There were many more contradictions and examples throughout his evidence but I do not intend to address them all, this would be far too cumbersome. I reject the majority of Mr E’s evidence as I have already stated not only because he was such a poor and unconvincing witness himself, but balanced against the overwhelming volume of credible, compelling and corroborative evidence of the other witnesses as well as the considerable unchallenged and corroborative medical evidence.

The Guardian’s final analysis is dated 5 June 2025 and despite this being a combined fact finding and welfare hearing, it does not come to a definitive conclusion, seeking to await the decision in relation to the findings and the outcome of the criminal proceedings later this year. Her recommendation is thus: “I would be extremely concerned and have very serious reservations about the children being returned to Mr E’s care due to the likely risk of emotional and physical harm . I would therefore recommend a Care Order be granted to ensure comprehensive oversight and involvement from the Local Authority and other professionals, to be assured that P and B’s holistic needs are being met and the appropriate services and support is being provided.”

The guardian notes the contents of the children’s ABE interviews where P shared significant physical, emotional and psychological abuse by Mr E, with B telling the police that P would be physically hurt by Mr E “quite a lot” and giving details of the severity of the physical and emotional abuse Mr E had inflicted upon her. B also shared that “he is treated differently by Mr E, he does not get hurt as much and he can also receive more food than P” .

The Guardian’s oral evidence was brief but was very clear and reasoned. She set out her discussions about parental responsibility with P which were that P was clear that she wanted the PR to be removed. Safeguards to support the children would be in place if necessary but P had made a clear and informed decision. She said that Mr E should provide P with some of her mother’s ashes so that she and B can have a place to grieve and they should be removed from the shed.

Her position remained in accordance with her report, there could be no rehabilitation if findings of physical harm were made and if emotional harm alone was found the local authority could undertake further assessment. She would agree to B going home without P whilst work was undertaken with her. If Mr E was imprisoned, a risk assessment could take place for contact but she did not see prison as a bar for contact subject to the assessment being in B’s best interests. Contact could take place now subject to bail conditions, B did want to see Mr E. P’s wishes and feelings would be relevant.

I received detailed written submissions from all parties and they were supported by oral submissions shortly thereafter. I have carefully considered these when coming to my conclusions and preparing this judgment even if I do not specifically address all points made. I do not intend to set out the detail, but very briefly they state the following:

Local Authority: The burden of proof has been discharged on the basis of all of the evidence and the court should make the findings. The children’s ABE interviews and s28 cross examinations were persuasive and corroborated. Mr E’s evidence was evasive, self-centred, inconsistent and unreliable. The other witnesses provided evidence to support the case of the local authority and could be relied upon. Detailed reasons were given for each of the findings in the sections. Parental responsibility should be discharged and the children should remain in foster care.

Mr E: In extremely detailed (64 page) submissions including a helpful table, he maintained his position of denying responsibility for any of the injuries. He did accept certain parts of the threshold where responsibility or causation for injuries or poor behaviour was not included such as accepting TC numbers 1 (existence of the tooth fracture), 6, 8 & 10 (existence of the fractures), 36 (h) (name calling, but only in the heat of the moment).

The Guardian: Agreed with the position of the local authority. Parental responsibility for P should be discharged.

I now turn to the law which I apply when making findings in this case.

To make a care or supervision order the local authority must prove that the situation justifies the intervention of the State. This means that the Local Authority must establish, on the ordinary civil standard of proof, the statutory threshold set out in s.31 (2) Children Act 1989. It also means that the Article 6 and 8 rights of all parties are engaged.

The relevant date for the purposes of threshold in this case is 23 August 2024, the day upon which protective measures were taken for P and B.

In the context of this case I have reminded myself of Ryder LJ’s judgment in Re S [2014] EWCA Civ 25. In particular I have read carefully paragraphs 19-21 of that judgment where he says:

In respect of the task of determining whether the 'facts' have been proven the following points must be borne in mind, referred to in the guidance given by Baker J (as he then was) in Re L and M (Children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam) and confirmed by the President of the Family Division Munby P in In the Matter of X (Children) (No 3) [2015] EWHC 3651 at paragraphs 20, 47 – 24. Additionally, I have considered the judgment of Lord Justice Aikens in Re J and Re A (A Child) (No 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 12, [2011] 1 FCR 141, para 26. The burden of proof is on the local authority. It is for the local authority to satisfy the court, on the balance of probabilities that it has made out its case in relation to disputed facts. Parents have to prove nothing, and the court must be careful to ensure that it does not reverse the burden of proof. As Mostyn J said in Lancashire v R [2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam), there is no pseudo-burden upon a parent to come up with alternative explanations [paragraph 8(vi)] although as Peter Jackson J (as he then was) confirmed in Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41 at paragraph 41 the nature of the history given by a carer of a child who has suffered a serious injury is a matter that doctors are entitled to have regard to in forming their opinions. The weight given to that opinion is of course a matter for the judge hearing the case.

The standard of proof to which the local authority must satisfy the court is the simple balance of probabilities. As Lord Hoffman observed in Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35:

“If a legal rule requires facts to be proved, a judge must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding by the court that something might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are nought and none”.

The test remains the same regardless of the seriousness of the allegations. The inherent probability or improbability of an event is a matter to be taken into account when deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred, but does not either lower or raise the standard of proof: Re B (supra) and Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41. Putting it simply if a matter is not proved to have happened then I must approach the case on the basis that it did not happen.

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

The decision about whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard must be based on all of the available evidence and the court should also have regard to the context - A County Council v A Mother, A Father and X, Y & Z [2005] EWHC 31 (Fam). The court does not consider the expert evidence alone, it must take account of a wide range of matters which include the expert evidence but also its assessment of the credibility of the witnesses and the inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence. The court must take into account all the evidence and furthermore consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence rather than adopting a compartmentalised approach. The court invariably surveys a wide canvas - Re U, Re B (Serious Injuries: Standard of Proof) [2004] EWCA Civ 567. The wide canvas is of fundamental importance. In Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558, Butler-Sloss P put it as follows: -

The evidence received in this case, as is invariably the case in proceedings involving allegations of injury, includes expert medical evidence from several medical specialists. However, as observed by Butler-Sloss P in Re U, Re B, supra:

In the Court of Appeal in the criminal case of R v Cannings [2004] EWCA 1 Crim, Lord Justice Judge observed:

I have reminded myself of Mr Justice Charles in A County Council v KD & L [2005] EWHC 144 Fam. at paragraph 49:

Mr Justice Ryder (as he then was) observed in A County Council v A Mother and others [2005] EWHC 31 (Fam)

The inability of a parent to explain an event cannot be relied upon to find an event proved, Re M (A Child) [2012] EWCA Civ 1580 at paragraph 16.

The burden of disproving a reasonable explanation put forward by the parents falls on the local authority, paragraph 10 of S (Children) [2014] EWCA Civ 1447.

There is no burden shifted to the parents to prove a natural cause for symptoms. In Lancashire County Council v D and E [2010] 2 FLR 196 FD Charles J said:

In Re M (Fact finding: Burden of Proof) [2013] 2 FLR 874 at paragraph 881 Ward LJ stated:

The evidence of parents and of 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, Re W and another (Non-Accidental Injury) [2003] FCR 346.

This is not a case where there is a “pool of perpetrators.” The issues in this case are whether the injuries are accidental or inflicted. If they are found to be inflicted, then the perpetrator must be Mr E as there are no alternatives, despite his suggestions of the children hurting each other.

In relation to the issue of similar fact evidence and propensity I have considered Peter Jackson LJ in S (Children: Findings of Fact) [2023] EWCA Civ 1113 para [30]:

“I also consider that the judge was in error in relation to the issues of propensity and hindsight bias. The question of propensity or similar fact evidence arises where an individual's behaviour in other circumstances makes it more likely that he will have behaved in the manner now alleged: see R v P (Children: Similar Fact Evidence) [2020] EWCA Civ 1088, [2020] 4 WLR 132 at [23]. In that case, the question was whether a's behaviour towards one partner was admissible in relation to allegations made by another partner. Here, the court was concerned with a sequence of events within the same family. Self-evidently, one finding about a parent's behaviour towards a child might be relevant to another similar allegation and there was no need to resort to the concept of propensity or to erect artificial barriers around the assessment of evidence. Similarly, the well-known concept of hindsight bias cannot deflect the court from making a common-sense assessment of the evidence as a whole, and I do not understand the judge's apprehension that the local authority was asking him to do something unusual or impermissible.”

In relation to hearsay evidence, I have considered the guidance of both Butler-Sloss LJ in R v B County Council ex p P [1991] 2 All ER 65 at 72J

“a court presented with hearsay evidence has to look at it anxiously and consider carefully the extent to which it can properly be relied on”

and Munby P in in Re A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11 at 9

“…the Local Authority, if its case is challenged on some factual point, must adduce proper evidence to establish what it seeks to prove. Much material to be found in local authority case records or social work chronologies is hearsay, often second or third hand hearsay. Hearsay evidence is, of course, admissible in family proceedings. But, and as the present case so vividly demonstrates, a local authority which is unwilling or unable to produce the witnesses who can speak of such matters first-hand, may find itself in great, or indeed insuperable, difficulties if a parent not merely puts the matter in issue but goes into the witness-box to deny it”.

The fact that the local authority can adduce and rely on hearsay evidence is of course pursuant to the Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993. The question for me will be what weight, if any, can properly be attached to that hearsay evidence. Whilst the children were not called to give evidence before me, I have had the benefit of seeing the police ABE interviews and there has proceedings been the opportunity in the criminal for Mr E to test such evidence by way of cross examination and that recording is also within the evidence for this case. I have also had regard to “Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Guidance on Using Special Measures”

Section 4 of the Civil Evidence Act 1995 gives non-exhaustive guidance on the factors to consider when estimating the weight to attach to hearsay evidence.

In considering the hearsay evidence I remind myself of the authorities that I must handle such evidence with great care, I need to anxiously consider carefully the extent to which it can be properly relied upon applying as I do the matters set out in Section 4 above. In this case I have not heard directly from the children, save for the recorded interviews. Some of their out of court statements were made to professionals, some were made in controlled circumstances with notes or recordings being taken. At other times, the children’s statements were made to their carers in circumstances that require my attention. I must consider not only what the child is reported or recorded to have said, but also the circumstances in which it was said. The children’s hearsay evidence must also be considered alongside all the other evidence and not be the exclusive focus of attention.

Of course the leading case in this regard is In Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27. Although the particular case related to issues of sexual abuse, rather than physical abuse as is the case here, the comments and decision of Macdonald J throughout remain relevant and persuasive and they have been considered.

I have also considered the very recent Court of Appeal case of Re H (Children) (Findings of Fact) [2025] EWCA Civ 993 which specifically considers issues of disclosures, ABE interviews and findings. Factually, in that case at first instance there were significant ABE failures and a lack of corroborating evidence which do not apply here, but I have applied the principles from the Court of Appeal nevertheless.

Despite these cautions, findings of abuse based on ABE interviews are and will continue to be made in appropriate cases. The standard of proof remains a balance of probability.

Care and caution must be exercised by the court in considering reliability based on demeanour or behaviour in the witness box (Macur LJ in Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147), human memory is not infallible (see Leggatt J in Gestmin v Credit Suisse [2013] EWHC 3560) and the pressures of giving evidence can impact witnesses (A (A child) [2020] EWCA Civ 1230).

I have directed myself to how I should treat any lies that I find have been told when I evaluate the evidence. I should take care to ensure that I do not rely upon the conclusion that an individual has lied on a material issue as direct proof of guilt but should rather adopt the approach of the criminal court, namely that a lie is capable of amounting to corroboration if it is (a) deliberate, (b) relates to a material issue, and (c) is motivated by a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth - Re H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 58 at paragraphs 97-100. It is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to always bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, and distress. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything: R v Lucas [1981] QB 720. It is important to note that, in line with the principles outlined in R v Lucas, it is essential that the court weighs any lies told by a person against any evidence that points away from them having been responsible for harm to a child (H v City and Council of Swansea and Others [2011] EWCA Civ 195). In Lancashire County Council v The Children [2014] EWFC 3 (Fam), at paragraph 9 of his judgment Jackson J (as he then was) said:

It would also have been appropriate, when considering what, if any, reliance could have been placed on any asserted lie, to have applied the approach outlined by Macur LJ at paragraph 58 of A,B and C (children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451.

Finally, I have already mentioned the number of allegations against Mr E, the detailed threshold document, and the length of this judgment. In this regard, I have also had in mind the very recent decision in Re K and G (Care Proceedings: Fact-Finding) [2025] EWCA Civ 910 which addressed the fact that whilst in some fact-finding hearings, judges structured their judgment in line with a local authority's threshold document that set out the findings it sought, they were not obliged to do so. Provided the judge in a fact-finding hearing ensured that the parties had a fair hearing and delivered a judgment covering the ground within the known parameters of the case, it did not matter that the structure of the judgment departed from the threshold document. Noting this, I do not intend to address every aspect of the threshold separately and individually, in an attempt to avoid elongating this judgment, but I will further address my reason for making the findings as I consider to be necessary.

The law that I must apply is contained in the Children Act 1989 (the Act), and P and B’s welfare are my paramount consideration. Under Section 31 of the Act, there is a threshold which the local authority must pass before the court can make the sort of order that it seeks, being a final care order that effectively removes P and B from the care and control of Mr E. That threshold is that a court may only make a care order or a supervision order if it is satisfied that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child or likely to be given to her if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him.

That threshold under Section 31 is passed in this case based on the facts which I have found.

I start very clearly from the position that, wherever possible, children should be brought up by their natural parents and if not, by other members of their family. The state should not interfere in family life to separate children from their families unless it has been demonstrated to be both necessary and proportionate and that no other less radical form of order would achieve the essential aim of promoting their welfare.

Although there is no plan for adoption of P and B, I have regard to all the relevant case law and in particular paragraphs 26-28 of Re B-S (citing Re B) which I have re-read and summarise as follows:

In reaching my decision, I have considered that children’s welfare throughout their lives is my paramount consideration and also the need to make the least interventionist order possible. I must consider the Article 8 rights of Mr E and the children as any decision I make today will inevitably involve an interference with the right to respect to family life. I am very conscious that any orders I go on to make must be in accordance with law, necessary for the protection of the children’s rights and be proportionate.

I am also conscious that I must have in mind the general principle that any delay in determining the question is likely to prejudice the welfare of the children.

Within Section 1 of the Act there is a checklist of factors which provides guidance for the court, regarding features to be considered when the court weighs up what order it should make in respect of the children. I will address that in due course.

It is not for the court to look for a better placement for a child; social engineering is not permitted. In YC v United Kingdom [2012] 55 EHRR 967 it was said: “Family ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and… everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to ‘rebuild’ the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing.”

The court must perform a proper risk analysis where separation of child(ren) from their family is contemplated. Principles were clearly laid down in the recent cases of Re T (Children: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 93, Re M (Care Order: Risk: Family Placement [2025] EWCA Civ 163 and Re H (Care Proceedings: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 727 including the very helpful checklist from Peter Jackson at paragraph 33 of Re T:

“Accordingly, the court had to address these questions in relation to each of these children:

I have commented and analysed the written and oral evidence throughout this judgment in the relevant sections and I will now address the matter in further detail on a global and holistic basis both in relation to the findings and the welfare matters.

The Fact Finding Process

The standard of proof required to identify the perpetrator of P’s injuries (and of the other harm and neglect suffered by both children) is the balance of probabilities and if I am able to identify the perpetrator to that requisite standard it is my duty to do so. P and B have a right to know the truth, if possible.

As I have already indicated, there is a significant amount of expert evidence in this matter. Of course I remind myself that the experts are to guide and assist the court and I should of course consider the whole canvas of evidence. In this case, however, despite challenging every allegation against him, Mr E has made no challenge to any of the expert medical evidence save for brief cross examination of the treating dentist Dr C and Dr R who completed the Child Protection medical. He has failed to challenge the evidence of any of the court appointed experts, who are all in agreement. I accept their evidence including that or Dr C and Dr R.

From the beginning of this hearing I had been waiting to hear Mr E’s explanations and the basis for his defence to the allegations since his single statement was extremely short and limited. No detailed rebuttal of the medical evidence was forthcoming and I can only assume he expected me to simply ignore it where it did not fit his narrative. His defence to the allegations is that they are all due to lies, collusion, financial gain and apparently even jealousy. Mr E’s case, put simply, is that he is an entirely innocent man who has been the victim of lies and accusations perpetrated against him by a 13 year old child, who has encouraged her 8 year old brother to follow suit and both have been encouraged and coerced by foster carers and the local authority for unspecified reasons. This does not bear scrutiny since the allegations were made to various people before P moved to foster care as I have already addressed and the suggestion that she was making up the allegations to obtain financial compensation simply does not stand up to scrutiny since the majority of her allegations predate the comment made by the foster carer about compensation. Further, there has never been any mention of this by P and her demeanour in the interviews and with Dr Craig was honest and straightforward throughout and was not of a child doing this for reward or financial gain. This suggestion is baseless and indicative of Mr E’s desperate efforts to try to find reasons which exclude him. It is categorically rejected. He accepted not one part of the extremely detailed threshold document before these proceedings commenced and maintained this position throughout the long hearing, challenging the credibility of all witnesses. Whether this was due to the forthcoming criminal proceedings I do now know. What I can say is that his position was wholly untenable.

This is not a case where there are merely accusations, one person’s word against the other. For me to accept his case, I must believe Mr E and disregard every single other piece of evidence, including unchallenged expert witness evidence and oral evidence from the many witnesses who have been called to court to give evidence and be challenged. There is a significant amount of corroborating evidence for the harm caused, as I have addressed in this judgment. This corroboration comes not just from the children for each other, but from teachers, social workers, foster carers, medics, and court appointed experts. It is contained in the properly obtained ABE interviews of the children and of the fully compliant cross examination of the children undertaken for the criminal proceedings and utilised and accepted within this case. Mr E has at no point made any effort to explain away the medical expert evidence obtained within these proceedings, including the disclosed reports contained in the criminal proceedings. He simply chose to ignore it. He produced some photographs and cards to support his case of this being a normal happy family. I am sure that there were indeed happy times for this family but these do not provide evidence of an overall happy family, they are merely snapshots. The photographs do not appear to show great pleasure or excitement for P, there are no wide smiles or laughter, as may be expected on holidays. On one photograph at school where she not posing but was caught unaware, she has a big smile. Perhaps she is a child who smiles little. They are of limited evidential value.

Mr E refused to accept the findings which related to him failing to seek medical attention for P, at numbers 3 (tooth), 5 (dental decay) and 16 (fractures) and in my judgment this damaged his credibility yet further. It is clear even from his own evidence that he did not take P to hospital immediately after her tooth was broken, he did not register her with a dentist and he never sought treatment for her broken arm which is visibly abnormal or other fractures. No proof of dental registration has been provided.

Mr E’s case is mainly based on attacking the credibility of P. In contrast, we have various professional’s opinions of P. In paragraph 33 above I set out Dr R’s summary from his medical examination. In oral evidence he stated that P presented as a very credible witness, very lucid, providing clear and consistent testimony throughout. Teachers and social workers are impressed with P as being an articulate child, seeming older than her years and likewise the guardian considers her to be growing in confidence. Mr E himself admitted that she was very switched on. P has maintained her allegations against Mr E since they were first made to her school friend and thereafter to her first foster carers, teachers, social workers, school, and the police as well as the professionals including Dr R and Dr Craig. Her cross examination did not reveal evidence of lying and making things up, she maintained her position. There may be some minor factual discrepancies, such as precisely where and when events occurred but when you take into account that she appears to have been abused almost daily for many years she is highly unlikely to remember reach specific incident with clarity. It was clear from her evidence that she does remember most of the main events, some graphically.

It is accepted that originally she did not tell the truth to teachers and others about the abuse and how her injuries occurred and Mr E uses this to attack her credibility. The reality of the situation, however, in my judgment, is that this was a very young child (at the time the abuse started) who had lost almost everything after her mother died and was desperate to be loved and part of a family with her brother, who she clearly adored. The evidence shows that she constantly and desperately sought to please Mr E and wanted his approval, sending him ”best dad” cards as exhibited by Mr E. She would not tell teachers and social workers the truth at first because did not want to get Mr E in trouble, was worried about that he would hurt her again and until she felt safe, in foster care, she maintained that position. On arrival in foster care, P was still very protective of Mr E, denied abuse and would say that they ate healthy food and that they went on holidays and that everything was fine at home. We know from her evidence now that this was because she had been coerced and given a script by Mr E in relation to specific incidents (tooth, arm etc) but also because she was simply scared of repercussions and very much alone. Her reaching out to Mr E’s friend via Instagram is likely more evidence of her need for family.

As I have addressed already, it is unfortunate that a more experienced foster placement was not chosen, but at that time the full facts and extent of the abuse were unknown. I accept that the initial disclosures were not obtained and dealt with within any appropriate ABE guidance but I do not accept that this and the foster carers behaviour have negated the disclosures. Immediately afterwards ABE procedures were put in place and P has maintained her allegations consistently throughout, not withdrawn them after changing placement. In any event the disclosures are only a small part of the overall evidence and the local authority are entitled to rely upon them. I am satisfied from the evidence that I can safely say that I believe her, she has considerable maturity and credibility and was a compelling and reliable witness. I agree with Dr Craig: “no reason to doubt their accounts. Their presentations are not inconsistent with such a history.” Of course of great relevance, the medical experts reports and opinions are also corroborative and reflect P’s injuries and descriptions.

Mr E sought in his evidence and dealings with the schools and the local authority to suggest that P was a clumsy child forever getting bruised or injured during play. There is no evidence of this and the present school does not agree. Mr E also sought to make much of P having a few bruises and scratches at contact, but there is a significant difference in bruising which is part of a child’s normal rough and tumble play and repetitive bruises and cuts, unusual facial bruises and untreated broken bones. The medical evidence and investigations including blood investigations and radiological investigations, have not identified any organic disorder which could have predisposed P to excessive bruising, bleeding, lacerations, fractures or dental injuries without significant trauma and it is notable that P has not suffered from repeated injuries and bruises during her time in foster care. They stopped at the point she was removed into foster care and in my judgment that is directly relevant.

B, in my judgment, is not merely repeating things which he has been told to say by his sister or any other third party. Dr Craig stated that he, like his sister, spontaneously repeated the abusive care experiences at the hands of Mr E. He too has been ABE interviewed and subjected to cross examination and whilst there were some inconsistencies, he is a small boy, time has passed and I would be more concerned about collusion if the descriptions were identical. B clearly witnessed more than Mr E and even P thought at the time but his evidence was clear, that he was aware of differing treatment and of Mr E’s abusive treatment of his sister. It is sad that he did not feel able to intervene.

It is clear that there is no reversal of burden in these proceedings whereby Mr E should prove that he was not responsible for the injuries but he has failed to even offer any reasonable or rational explanation, evidence or even argument which could explain the injuries and other matters and prevent the local authority from satisfying their burden of proof. This is particularly pertinent in the face of the overwhelming and corroborative evidence including the unchallenged and clear medical opinions.

I do not intend to slavishly go through the whole threshold individually due to the significant number of allegations, this would be too cumbersome. I was provided with a schedule version of the Threshold Criteria which set out the evidence relied upon by the local authority and the names of witnesses for each part. This was extremely useful and I have had attention to the schedule and threshold throughout the case. I have considered all the evidence that was given orally and in writing and subjected to cross examination. I have set out my impressions of the various witnesses throughout and addressed much of the evidence.In conjunction with my assessments of the witnesses and their evidence as set out above I find the threshold proven based on the totality of the evidence which I have read and heard. It is clear that the experts cannot accurately date each broken bone or bruise or scar and cannot or will not speculate on their causes. I do not intend to either, it is not the role of the court to do that. I will consider matters on the basis which I have already laid out, being the balance of probabilities and will address the allegations as a whole too. I cannot say with absolute certainty, which is way beyond the civil burden of proof in any event, that Mr E has been responsible for every single cut or bruise suffered by P but the evidence from P and others certainly supports findings being made that he is responsible for the majority of them and on this basis I am entitled to conclude on the civil balance of proof that he is responsible for them. I will briefly address each section of findings and also some of the very significant injuries.

Dental: Findings 1 to 5: Established: I am satisfied that the damage to P’s tooth was caused by Mr E as described by P and B and in the threshold, by Mr E striking her the mouth with a mobile phone. Dr Koublestated that the explanation given by P, as supported by B was entirely plausible. Dr Kouble’s evidence was not challenged. This view was shared by Dr C who gave evidence to this Court. Dr S from the criminal proceedings confirmed that “the complicated fracture of the tooth was highly likely caused by external trauma rather that her biting on a hard object… is far more consistent with having been caused by an assault involving the hitting of her mouth using the corner of a phone than by biting on a gobstopper as was first claimed”. Mr E failed to seek immediate attention and lied to professionals. P was untreated for several days and no hospital visit was undertaken despite the very significant injury (which Mr E referred to as a ‘chip’ at one point). He has also failed to meet P’s and indeed B’s dental needs, neither being registered with a dentist at the time.I accept the evidence including that of both P and B as to the events, and that of the dental experts and other witnesses in relation to the nature of the injury and the lack of care.

Fractures: Findings 6 to 18: Established: I am satisfied that P has suffered the fractures as described in the threshold (fractures not disputed) and that they have been caused on separate occasions by Mr E, as very clearly described by P and B. I accept that they cannot be accurately dated by any of the professionals and that neither child could be certain as to the particular event which caused each break. That is both understandable and indeed shocking, that there were so many events of physical abuse that they, in particular P, cannot remember which particular one caused each injury. They were, however, clear as to the likely mechanism, being forceful twisting and on at least one occasion she heard a crack. P was clear that she had not hurt her arm on a water slide and B has no recollection of this happening. As I have already set out, I am satisfied that Mr E was aware of at least one fracture as he had messaged his sister saying “they are going to be saying about her arm etc” on 1 July 2024, which was before P had her child protection medical, despite maintaining that he was unaware that P had any such injuries together with the numerous searches regarding fractured arms. The fractures were not revealed until follow up after the x-rays taken following the skeletal survey medical on 22 August 2025, the report being dated 30 August. On 16 August 2024 Mr E exchanged messages with his sister, considering how to respond to an email from the social worker asking for permission for P to undergo a second child protection medical and, potentially have x-rays. Mr E’s text messages to his sister and her husband show that he was asking advice as to whether he should say it happened 5 years ago when the mother was around or offer an explanation involving a waterslide to explain away injuries that he obviously knew were going to be found when those x-rays were undertaken. He even acknowledged one of the weaknesses of his plan in his message “Ahh I don’t know…they will ask why haven’t been to UK doctor or hospital”. There is corroborating evidence of P having injuries to her arm or shoulder around 4 January 2022 and 6 & 7 October 2022 from the school, [name] and Mr E’s own mother. P’s evidence was accepted by the medical experts as potential causation and not challenged by Mr E. I accept that the breaks would have caused pain and that Mr E will have been aware of the same and failed to seek medical attention either at the time or later. No other likely potential cause has been suggested or established and I accept the totality of the evidence which supports making these findings. I prefer it to that of Mr E, who has lied about both his involvement and awareness and lacks credibility.

Lacerations and Scarring: Findings 19 to 26: Established (save for 1 birth scar – precise scar unknown): I accept the evidence that these injuries are more likely than not to have been inflicted injuries and that they were caused by Mr E, in accordance with the threshold. There are no specific explanations individually for these injuries but P has given evidence about a number of assaults by Mr E, some of which have made her bleed, including him assaulting her with a kitchen tool, cuts from a costa coffee glass, throwing her to the ground, smashing her head into a wall and having to shower to wash off the blood. Indeed she talked about constant assaults, causing bruises, cuts and scars to the police in her police interview. B too has given evidence of P having her head split open by Mr E as he was choking her. I accept the evidence of P and B, as well as the medical experts and other witnesses who saw the injuries and scarring. Mr E also failed to seek medical attention save for one occasion. I do not accept that he can have been unaware of these injuries, particularly to her head, as he admitted regularly straightening her hair. I make these findings based on the totality of the evidence and prefer the evidence of the other witnesses to that of Mr E.

Further Assaults: Findings 27 to 34: Established: I accept the evidence that the injuries are more likely than not to have been inflicted injuries and that they were caused by Mr E, and that the verbal abuse took place as set out, in accordance with the threshold. I accept the evidence of P and B, as well as the medical and dental experts and that of the other many witnesses who saw the bruising and injuries as set out throughout the evidence. P’s recall is clear and detailed and she gave many examples throughout her disclosures, police interviews and medicals. There is corroborating evidence for P suffering many injuries including bruises to her face seen by school and recorded carefully. Some of P’s description of the assaults are incredibly graphic, yet they were delivered in such a matter-of-fact way, so inured to violence was she. This includes the events after the game of cops and robbers in May 2024 where B’s face was accidentally injured. I am satisfied that Mr E lied about the circumstances of these matters and encouraged and coached the children to tell lies about how that had happened, in order to protect himself. According to his evidence he can remember nothing of these incidents, whereas P and often B remember them very clearly. P showed far superior recall than Mr E throughout their evidence, Mr E frequently could not even remember what he had said and done himself previously on many occasions. I also accept the name calling, it is in line with Mr E’s text messages at the same time, which has been addressed. I make these findings based on the totality of the evidence and prefer the evidence of the other witnesses to that of Mr E.

Neglect: Findings 35 to 38: Established save for 37e, where the evidence showed that neither child was registered with a dentist. The police evidence clearly shows more photographs of B despite Mr E’s protestations. I have no doubt from the evidence that P was treated worse than B, there are many examples littered throughout the evidence and in this judgment and this will have caused emotional damage to both P and B. There is overwhelming evidence for making the findings sought in this section throughout the evidence in the form of the children’s own evidence, contact logs, school, Mr E’s brother, Mr E’s mother, the childminder, his own text messages and also from the court appointed expert as to the effect. I prefer their evidence to Mr E’s denials and obfuscation. This is evidenced by Dr Craig, unchallenged, who stated that P “anticipates feelings of rejection and has a very low opinion of herself, in particular the extent to which others might be interested in her or view her as attractive”. Dr Craig further addresses the neglectful and abusive care by Mr E and stated “Ifaccurate their accounts are of highly harmful and abusive care experiences with Mr E. They spontaneously reported these to me on assessment. I am unable to confirm their experiences but had no reason to doubt their accounts. Their presentations are not inconsistent with such a history.” I accept their accounts as being accurate in this judgment. Dr Craig continued “I was very concerned that their basic need for stability and protection from harm has not been met. I am also concerned that their emotional and identity needs have not been met and it is unclear how or if they have been supported by Mr E to understand and process the death of their mother. Both children have a minimal sense of their identity and heritage”.

I accept the evidence of all the witnesses who provided evidence including social workers, foster carers, parents of children, teachers, police, dentists, and Jamie Craig the psychologist. I prefer the overwhelming evidence of all these other witnesses to that of Mr E, who I consider has lied throughout, even when his lies were wholly unsustainable.

In short therefore, I am entirely satisfied that the local authority have satisfied the burden of proof and that I should make all bar one of the findings as stated based on the balance of probabilities, and that decision is based on the overwhelming evidence, the majority of which was unchallenged. I rely upon Re K and G (Care Proceedings: Fact-Finding) [2025] EWCA Civ 910 as stated, in not addressing each one individually.

The Welfare Analysis

I will briefly assess the most pertinent issues here although P and B’s welfare has been my paramount consideration throughout this judgment and I have addressed the welfare considerations throughout this judgment.

I have found that both children have suffered from harm perpetrated by Mr E. It is clear that the hurdle for state intervention is crossed in this case and interference with the Article 8 rights of the children and Mr E is both necessary and proportionate, the only order which will protect these children is a care order which removes them from the care of Mr E and ensures their safety in any future contact arrangements. Both children need to live in a safe place together where they can have nurturing care and try to rebuild their lives.

Dr Craig filed a detailed assessment of the children, which will assist in their future support if needed. Their “basic need for stability and protection from harm has not been met. I am also concerned that their emotional and identity needs have not been met and it is unclear how or if they have been supported by Mr E to understand and process the death of their mother. Both children have a minimal sense of their identity and heritage and I would recommend that this is something to give consideration to (alongside carers) once some permanence in achieved. I would note that any attempt to assist either child in developing a more accurate coherent and emotionally protective account of their life to date must include carers(s) who will need to contain it and reinforce it. They will need specialist support alongside their carers.

They now have complex psychological profiles, with insecure attachment issues. Although P does not wish for therapy, it is clear Dr Craig thinks that this could benefit her in the future. B has cognitive issues and even though he was preferred by Mr E, that relationship with Mr E did not give him stability or security. He has also witnessed the brutal behaviour towards his sister over many years. This will affect him profoundly as he grows.

I have also read the personal statement of P filed in the criminal proceedings. It is a truly moving document, where P pours out her hurt. She talks about the physical hurt which she has suffered but also about her emotions which are relevant for her future welfare. The statement shows her maturity. Thankfully she now feels safe and happy and is treated kindly.

Neither child can return to the care of Mr E, whether he is convicted and receives a custodial sentence or not. Mr E has accepted no responsibility for any of his actions and the children according to all the evidence, would remain at risk of significant harm. There would also be the risk of harm from repercussions and blame from speaking out, for both children. Mr E would not work with the local authority or professionals and I have found that he is dishonest. P herself refuses to see him in any event. In my judgment, there is a clear need for these children to remain together and not be separated. The guardian’s position was that the children could potentially be separated with B returning to the care of Mr E if no findings were made. Findings have been made so this is now irrelevant, but I consider that any future separation would be devastating for these children. It is only through P’s love, care and protection for her brother and her surprising but delightful lack of resentment at their different treatment that their relationship has remained strong. Mr E has accepted none of either child’s allegations, calling them both liars in his oral evidence and in my judgment it is highly likely that he will bear considerable resentment towards P despite some of his carefully crafted words in his evidence in chief. If B was ever to be rehabilitated to his care there would be a real risk of his relationship with his sister being damaged or severed and this would be a huge loss to both. The sibling relationship is usually the most enduring and these siblings have lived through devastating experiences in their lives with the loss of their mother and the appalling abuse perpetrated by Mr E.

The Local Authority have not completed any connected kinship carer assessments. B’s paternal aunt did initially engage with a viability assessment at but the outcome was negative because of her own history of previous social care, police involvement and her lack of open-ness with the local authority.

Parental Responsibility

In accordance with section 4(2A) of the Children Act 1989, where a child’s parent has acquired parental responsibility for the child by virtue of a court order, he can only lose parental responsibility by an order of the court to that effect. In Re D (Withdrawal of Parental Responsibility) [2014] EWCA Civ 315, Ryder LJ said ““When a court is considering an application relating to the cessation of parental responsibility, the court is considering a question with respect to the upbringing of a child with the consequence that by section 1(1)(b) of the Children Act 1989 the child’s welfare will be the court’s paramount consideration.” By section 1(4), there is no requirement upon the court to consider the factors set out in section 1(3) (the ‘welfare checklist’) but the court is not prevented from doing so and may find it helpful to use an analytical framework not least because welfare has to be considered and reasoned. Given that the cessation of parental responsibility is an order of the court, the court must also consider whether making such an order is better for the child than making no order at all (the ‘no order’ principle in section 1(5). Removal of PR is rare and there is a high hurdle to cross. I have considered the relevant caselaw including where a birth father was found guilty of inflicting grievous bodily harm to the child (Re P (Terminating parental responsibility) [1995] 3 FCR 753]), where a birth father pleaded guilty for committing sexual assault against the child’s siblings (CW v SG [2013] All ER (D) 117 (Apr)) and where a birth father was imprisoned for extreme domestic violence (A v D (Parental Responsibility) [2013] EWHC 2963 (Fam)). In this case there is a fundamental difference, Mr E is not P’s biological father.

The Local Authority could apply to revoke or discharge the PR, as can P herself with permission of the court.The court may only grant such permission if it is satisfied that P has sufficient understanding to make the proposed application. I have no doubt from the evidence I have seen from her and heard from others that P has sufficient understanding. The advocates agreed that no formal application needed to be filed as the application would be considered in the face of the court.

P was visited at my request during the hearing to ascertain her views and a note of the meeting was supplied to all parties. This showed that P understood the concept of parental responsibility and had held previous discussions about it with the guardian earlier in the year. It was clear that she was able to weigh up what removal meant, calling her decision tricky at the start of the meeting but at the end of the meeting, she was clear that she decided that there were “more bads and no goods” to him retaining PR. One of her main concerns was Mr E having the power to try to discharge the care order in the future but there were others. I was satisfied that the decision was one which P understood and would support. I left the option open for her to change her mind before I wrote this judgment, in case she needed more time and thought. She has not.

I do not accept that P would feel rejected by the removal of PR nor that its removal would drive a wedge between her and B, he is too young to understand and does not need to know at this time. There may be limited emotional impact by the removal of PR but the local authority will retain PR to exercise when necessary and can provide explanations and support to the children. Some form of therapy is likely to be needed for the children as they develop in the future as Dr Craig and I have already mentioned and this issue can also be addressed then if necessary. Any effect upon the sibling relationship can also be minimised by life story work and input from the local authority but it is clear now that P and indeed B to some extent are aware of their differences in any event and that they are half siblings. The removal of PR does not change their relationship and bond. In any event, all of these potential issues are minimal compared to P’s clearly expressed wishes and feelings.

In my judgment, these are exceptional circumstances and Mr E’s actions and behaviours were so extreme that significant protection must be put in place for P. He has been found to have caused serious harm to P, persistent neglect and abuse, a history of serious violence and an ongoing risk of significant harm.

In my judgment, allowing Mr E to retain parental responsibility creates an ongoing risk to P’s physical or emotional wellbeing. Throughout this judgment I have set out the harm caused by Mr E to P, and indeed B, and considered what is in their best interests. I have no hesitation in saying that it is not in P’s best interests for Mr E to have any say in her future whatsoever or indeed for him to be consulted or updated as to her future welfare, nor for him to have access to information about her and certainly not the power to attempt to discharge the care order and seek her return. Obviously he will receive some limited information from his ongoing relationship with B but this should be minimised for P.

I discharge the order for parental responsibility dated February 2021.

I send my best wishes to P and B for their future together and I will write them a letter each about my decision which can be shared with them by their foster carer at an appropriate point. I will prepare a draft letter for each and send this to the Guardian for approval. Given the criminal proceedings are imminent, I query whether I should await the outcome before preparing the letters, as there will be an additional impact if Mr E is convicted, potentially imprisoned. I invite the Guardian’s comments on this issue.

I would be happy to meet P and / or B if this was their wish. Again I seek the guidance of the Guardian as to timing.

I also express my thanks to each of the experts and witnesses who have give evidence in this matter. Please ensure that they are appropriately notified of the outcome.

I give permission for this judgment to be released to any professional offering therapeutic support for the children in the future, at the discretion of the local authority.

I delayed publishing this judgment, in an anonymised format, on the National Archives until the criminal proceedings were concluded, so as not to have any potential impact thereon. Those proceedings have now concluded with Mr E being convicted of various offences in relation to P and sentencing is pending.