IN CONFIDENCE This is an approved note of a judgment given orally in private on 24 October 2025 at the Great Grimsby combined court centre. This anonymised version has been prepared and approved for publication by uploading to the national archive. |
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT GRIMSBY CASE NO: KH25C50026/KH25C50079
IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989
AND IN THE MATTER OF:
P, a girl aged 15.
Q, a boy aged 9.
R, a boy aged 5.
S, a boy aged 5.
T, a boy aged 4.
U, a boy aged 1.
B E T W E E N:
NORTH LINCOLNSHIRE COUNCIL Applicant
-v-
M1
F
M2
THE CHILDREN Respondents
(Through their children’s guardian)
APPROVED ANONYMISED NOTE OF JUDGMENT
The parties and representatives
There are 2 sets of proceedings before me which have been consolidated for the purposes of fact-finding. The common link, by reason of which these proceedings have been consolidated, is the father of the eldest and three youngest of six subject children, F. He is represented before me by Gemma Taylor KC, leading Joanna Hawkett.
The children are:
P, a girl, aged 15.
Q, a boy, aged 9.
R, a boy, aged 5.
S, a boy, aged 5.
T, a boy, aged 4.
U, a boy, aged 1.
The children’s guardian is Helen Goodwin represented by Richard Lee.
The mother of P, Q and R is M1. She has not attended this fact-finding hearing and largely disengaged with her solicitor in the run up to it. Prior to the start of this hearing her solicitors, who instructed Tania Woodliffe, made an application to come off record. At the outset of the fact-finding hearing, which commenced on 13 October 2025, I adjourned that application on the grounds that it was unclear whether those representing F were going to apply for a witness summons. They reserved their position in that regard until after P gave her evidence (which happened on day 3, being 15.10.2025). When, in due course, they confirmed that they would not be applying for a witness summons, I permitted the application to come off record. Accordingly, M1 has neither attended nor been represented at this hearing, albeit Ms Woodliffe was present for the first 3 days in a noting capacity.
The mother of S, T and U is M2 represented by Joanne Jenkins leading Rachel Woad.
The father of Q is G. He was negatively assessed as a carer for Q in 2018 care proceedings issued by Doncaster City Council. Within those proceedings, Q was placed alongside P with F, initially subject to a Supervision Order and, thereafter, under private law orders. F has been a father figure to Q. The papers in this case set out that G has been involved with the police due to suspected child sex offences; he played no part in the private law proceedings that preceded these public law proceedings. I took over case management of consolidated proceedings in May of this year and have not particularly focussed on G; according to the papers before me, the local authority has been unable to locate or contact him during these public law proceedings.
The father of R is named on his birth certificate as H. However, his actual father is said to be J (which information comes from M1). H, the registered father, is subject to a Restraining Order until 2026 due to domestic abuse against R’s mother. J, the putative father, is described in the papers as being a ‘known domestic abuse perpetrator and drug user’. R lived with his mother from birth until he was removed during these proceedings; there were previously safety plans in place by virtue of which J was not to attend the family home, but M1 breached these and allowed him to spend time in her house, exposing R to risk of harm. Neither putative father has been involved in proceedings to date.
The local authority which brings these public law proceedings is North Lincolnshire Council represented by Stephanie Hine. The allocated social worker for the older children is Nikole McIntyre and for the younger children, Evie McCoy.
Background
There is an extensive history of on-off social care involvement documented in the papers, spanning the entirety of the younger children’s lives. For the purposes of this judgment, it is not necessary to set that history out in any detail. However, it is important to note that social workers have been involved with these children for a considerable period.
In the documents before me, there is Cafcass safeguarding letter from 2018 that references what were then the third set of proceedings between M1 and F. As already referenced above, P and Q were the subject of public law proceedings brought by Doncaster in 2018. The threshold issues in those proceedings related to neglect, inappropriate supervision, physical chastisement and poor home conditions, whilst the children were in the care of their mother. Despite Q not being F’s biological child both he and P were placed with F.
F suffers with a medical condition. He told me that on a bad day this meant that he could not get out of bed. As a result of this, P was required to do work around the family home, including childcare for her younger siblings. The extent to which she was required or expected to do work over and above what might be expected of any young person in a busy household is disputed, and one of the issues I must resolve. However, what is accepted as a fact is that P was involved with the Young Carer service from 2023 onwards.
F’s relationship with M2 began around 2017-8, when she was 18 years old. M2 is an incredibly vulnerable individual, and there is a clear power imbalance between the couple due to her poor mental health and the significant age gap between them.
The younger children experienced significant disruption throughout their formative years by reason of the unstable relationship between their parents. M2 was in and out of F’s home and from 2023 onwards spent periods of time in and out of a Refuge, often, but not always, with the children. The father talks in his evidence of a 50:50 shared care arrangement. If this was, at times, the reality for the younger children it is clear from the papers and the parents’ accounts that it was an ad hoc arrangement that cannot have provided any real sense of stability for the children.
In 2023 M1 issued further private law proceedings with respect to P and Q. The court directed a s37 report within those proceedings which recommended that the children remain living with F but that there be a stepped, and initially supervised, plan of contact with M1.
On 17 November 2024 there was a significant incident between P and her father. It is not disputed that this involved a physical altercation in which F pinned P to his bedroom floor. Immediately following this he drove P to her mother’s house where she continued to live for several weeks.
By the end of 2024 F and M2’s relationship was falling apart for what would become the final time. In early 2025 she issued private law proceedings for a CAO (live with) with respect to her children. She was pregnant with her fourth child, V, who was subsequently born in May of this year. F is not V’s father, and she is not subject to these proceedings.
On 9 January 2025 P moved to M2’s home after a night staying with a maternal aunt. This was due to P’s unhappiness at the care given to her by her mother (M1).
The local authority issued public law proceedings, separately, for both sets of children. At the point of issue, Q and R were living with their mother. However, they were subsequently removed to foster care under interim care orders. R has tested positive for drugs within these proceedings, which drugs he can only have been exposed to in the care of his mother. S, T and U have remained in their mother’s care under interim supervision orders.
P subsequently left M2’s care and now resides in foster care. The local authority’s care plan is for her to remain in long-term foster care with her current carer, a plan with which P agrees.
In May, DJ Regan consolidated the public law proceedings for the purposes of fact-finding and reallocated them to me for case management and hearing.
The issues
The case was listed on 13 October 2025 with a time estimate of 10 days as a fact-finding hearing. Due to the personal circumstances of one of the advocates in the case we did not sit on 20 October. Evidence was heard on the 13th to the 17th and 21st to 22nd October, with written submissions being filed by all parties on the morning of the 23rd and talked to that same day. This is my judgement being handed down on the 24th October.
As the case developed all parties invited me to make final welfare decisions for P. They are not opposed although F invites me to comment on the local authority’s proposals for indirect contact between himself and P.
There is a composite schedule of findings set out in the bundle. It runs to 21 separate findings many of which are sub-particularised by the local authority. In addition, M2 seeks findings against F. There are some concessions made by the relevant adults. Furthermore, as noted, M1 has not attended court to answer to any findings sought against her. Insofar as findings relate solely to her, I have therefore treated them as being unchallenged.
The findings that I am required to determine can be summarised thus:
F denies that his relationship with M1 featured domestic abuse other than a single incident on her 21st birthday in which he says they were both perpetrators.
F denies specific elements of an otherwise accepted fall out between him and M2 on 6 March 2023. He denies that he sent M2 to a pawnshop, that he threatened to push her down the stairs, or that he physically assaulted her.
F denies that he followed M2 in his car in December 2024. He does accept that there were words exchanged between the couple through his car window.
F denies subjecting M2 to controlling and coercive behaviours.
F denies pressuring M2 to return to his property from a refuge in which she lived on and off between May 2023 and August 2024.
F denies that he ever asked P to buy cannabis for him. (The local authority’s pleaded case also asserts that he required P to make cannabis joints for him. However, P said that she had not done this in her oral evidence to me. Although in submissions the local authority still pursued this aspect of its case, I do not find it proved or consider it further in light of P’s evidence).
F denies that he is called P names or made inappropriate and hurtful comments to her. This aspect of the local authority’s case was not put to F in evidence and therefore I am clear, notwithstanding what P has said about this, that it would be unfair to entertain any finding against F in this regard.
F denies that he has ever shut P in her room or used either a hosepipe or dressing gown cord to do so. He accepts this behaviour with respect to Q.
F denies asking or requiring P to do excessive chores for a child of her age.
F denies hitting P hard enough to have left marks.
F also denies pushing P down the stairs in 2023. This was another aspect of the local authority’s case that was not put to F in cross examination. I do not accept the local authority’s submission that because P was asked about it, I could fairly make a finding against F. Accordingly, I also dismiss this finding and say no more about it.
F denies using excessive force when putting Q in his room.
He denies throwing Q onto his bed.
F denies pushing Q into his room causing him to bang his head on a wooden bed frame.
F accepts that there was a physical altercation between him and P on 17 November 2024. However, he denies specific elements of this, in particular that he caused P injury or, as she has on occasion described, strangled her.
F denies a series of discrete findings with respect to behaviour towards P that the local authority pleads under the heading of sexual abuse.
The findings that M2 seeks against F, and which are denied, can be summarised thus:
That he was addicted to or obsessed with pornography.
That he searched for pornography with the search terms ‘teen’ or ‘young teen’.
That he lacked permission to download pornography onto either P or M2’s laptops.
That he was physically abusive or injurious to M2 during sex.
That he pressured M2 into having sex with him.
The law
The following legal principles – which are well known and uncontroversial – are drawn from paragraphs 46-53 of the case of Re L and M (children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam), a decision of Baker J as he then was:
First, the burden of proof lies at all times with the local authority. (I add that in this case, given that M2 seeks findings against F, the burden of proof lies on her with respect to those findings. Whoever seeks findings, must prove them).
Secondly, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Third, findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation.
Fourthly, when considering cases of suspected child abuse the court must take into account all the evidence and furthermore consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. The court invariably surveys a wide canvas. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof.
Fifthly … the evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability.
Sixth, it is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas[1981] QB 720).
My numbering differs slightly from Baker J’s, by reason of the fact that I have left out points that relate solely to non-accidental injury.
I have had firmly in mind at all times the fact that F does not assume any burden of proof: even if he raises alternative explanations for the allegations against him, a failure to prove them does not mean that the local authority (or M2) succeeds on their case.
I have also considered the following with respect to ABE interviews, drawn from the case of Re JB (A Child) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2021] EWCA Civ 46, at paragraph 11 of Baker LJ’s Judgment, limiting myself to those parts which are most relevant to the case before me:
The importance of complying with the ABE guidance, which is directed at both criminal and family proceedings, has been reiterated by this Court in a series of cases including TW v A City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 17, Re W, Re F [2015] EWCA Civ 1300, Re E (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 473, Re Y and F (Children) Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2019] EWCA Civ 206 and in the judgments of MacDonald J in AS v TH and others [2016] EWHC 532 (Fam) and Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27. … (Save where indicated, the paragraphs cited are from the ABE guidance.)
The ABE guidance is advisory rather than a legally enforceable code. However, significant departures from the good practice advocated in it will likely result in reduced (or in extreme cases no) weight being attached to the interview by the courts: Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing), supra, paragraph 856.
For all witnesses, interviews should normally consist of the following four main phases: establishing rapport; initiating and supporting a free narrative account; questioning; and closure (paragraph 3.3 of the ABE guidance).
The rapport phase includes explaining to the child the “ground rules” for the interview (paragraphs 3.12-14) and advising the child to give a truthful and accurate account and establishing that the child understands the difference between truth and lies (paragraphs 3.18-19). The rapport phase must be part of the recorded interview, even if there is no suggestion that the child did not know the difference between truth and lies, because “it is, or may be, important for the court to know everything that was said between an interviewing officer and a child in any case” (per McFarlane LJ in Re E, supra, paragraph 38).
In the free narrative phase of the interview, the interviewer should “initiate an uninterrupted free narrative account of the incident/event(s) from the witness by means of an open-ended invitation” (paragraph 3.24).
When asking questions following the free narrative phase, “interviewers need fully to appreciate that there are various types of question which vary in how directive they are. Questioning should, wherever possible, commence with open-ended questions and then proceed, if necessary, to specific-closed questions. Forced-choice questions and leading questions should only be used as a last resort (paragraph 3.44).
Underpinning the guidance is a recognition “that the interviewer has to keep an open mind and that the object of the exercise is not simply to get the child to repeat on camera what she has said earlier to somebody else” (per Sir Nicholas Wall P in TW v A City Council, supra, at paragraph 53).
In Re S (A Child: Findings of Fact) [2023] EWCA Civ 346, Peter Jackson LJ said, at paragraph 33, in the context of an allegation of sexual abuse by a 6/7 year old child, K:
the evolution of K’s statements needed to be charted. The judgment did not do that (so that time during the appeal hearing was spent in constructing a chronology) but instead summarised each witness’s evidence in sequence. It then considered the ABE interview process and placed it against a broad account of the other evidence. It would in my view have assisted the judge if he had identified and focused on the chapters of time covered by the evidence. These might conveniently have been arranged under these headings: the background, the first accounts, the ABE process, K’s subsequent statements. This approach would have allowed the judge to focus on the situation K found herself in at various stages and to address F2’s case effectively.
In Re AA (Children) and 25 Others[2019] EWFC 64, Sir Mark Hedley said at paragraph 216:
A lack of reliability may obscure truth, but it does not altogether eliminate its perception. So long as the judge remains alert to the dangers arising from unreliability and exercises the caution due to that, it may be possible to discern
flashes of truth or incidents that have about them the ring of truth. Where the judge meets that, and having exercised all due caution, is convinced of it, then the court has not only the right but the duty to act upon it.
I have borne in mind that due to the delay in reaching this fact-finding hearing I was hearing from many witnesses between 1 and 2 years after events they were telling me about. I have therefore taken into account that their memories will have faded or, in line with the process described by Legatt J, as he then was, altered with the passage of time: Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd and Another [2013] EWHC (Comm).
In their closing submissions Ms Taylor and Ms Hawkett remind me of the case of Re P [2019] EWFC 27, a decision of Macdonald J. I am familiar with that case but have reminded myself of the key paragraphs with respect to the ABE process.
The evidence
There is a consolidated bundle running to well over 2 500 pages. I have read all of the evidence to which I have been referred as well as viewing the ABE videos of P’s police interview, conducted on 13.2.2025 and lasting for 1 hour, 31 minutes. In addition, I heard from:
13 October 2025
Mxolisi Ndlovu, the allocated social worker for the older children between July 2023 and August 2024.
SP1, the inclusion coordinator and Deputy Designated Safeguarding Lead, at an academic provision where P was on roll.
14 October 2025
SP2, who was previously the Deputy Designated Safeguarding Lead at a different academic provision where P was on roll between September 2023 and February 2024.
Shelley Greenwood, the allocated social worker for the older children after Mr Ndlovu’s involvement. She was therefore the allocated social worker in November 2024 which, as set out in the ‘Background’ section was a key time for these families.
Mary Maw, who was a police officer in November 2024 and one of 2 officers who initially attended on P and her mother, on 18.11.2024, in the aftermath of her allegations against her father.
PC Wayne Sharp the officer who attended with PC Maw.
Investigating Officer Paul Wells, who attended on P and her mother after PCs Maw and Sharp had been in attendance (and taken an account from P). He remains the OiC and was the second interviewing officer for P’s ABE interview.
Detective Constable Molly Cross who was the interviewing officer for P’s ABE interview.
15 October 2025
P. She gave her evidence from a separate, smaller court room in which were present: me, Ms Taylor (who was the only advocate who wished to put questions to P), Gemma Booth, the court appointed intermediary and Helen Goodwin, the guardian. All other advocates and parties were in Courtroom 4 observing and listening via video link. There were ground rules with respect to P’s evidence, including regular breaks, which were adhered to. The questions had been approved in advance by the intermediary (for form) and by me (for content).
OP1, a Young Carer Practitioner who was allocated to work with P between July 2023 and June of this year.
16 October 2025
Evie McCoy, allocated social worker for the younger children, but author of the initial social work evidence for both sets of children.
Nikole McIntyre, allocated social worker for the older children.
17 October 2025
OP2, a Child Exploitation Intervention worker, assigned to work with P from March 2024 to March 2025.
21 October 2025
M2. Initially she gave her evidence over video link from one court to another courtroom, by way of an agreed special measure. I was present in court with M2 as were her legal team and the advocate asking questions. However, M2 was incredibly quietly spoken; I struggled to hear her sitting a matter of a few feet away and those who were listening via live link found it harder still. It was quickly conceded that this was not at viable way of her giving evidence. The courtroom was rearranged so that everyone other than the lead advocates and me were sat behind a screen. This worked and M2 was able to complete her evidence.
22 October 2025
F. Although he was the second respondent to proceedings and M2 the third, it was agreed by all that they should give their evidence in this order given that M2 sought findings against him.
It is not necessary for me to rehearse all of the evidence or submissions I have read and heard. Instead, I focus on those aspects of the evidence and submissions which have assisted me in making the findings set out in this Judgment.
My impression of the family witnesses
Before turning to the evidence and my analysis of it, I will give an overview of my assessment of each of the family witnesses:
P initially looked extremely apprehensive, which is an understandable presentation for a child about to give evidence. She took some, although not many, breaks during her evidence. Overall, she struck me as a straightforward witness who gave no indication of any desire to be unfair to her father or get him into undue trouble. She showed good insight into the extent to which her mother had let her and Q down. She was firm in her answers but, at the same time, fair in conceding positives about her father. She did not take the opportunities, that were presented to her in cross-examination, to make things worse for her father. That all said, I bear in mind that apparently compelling witnesses can nevertheless give inaccurate evidence. In some cases that is because people are convincing liars (although that is not my assessment of P). In other cases, it is because people come to convince themselves of the truth of a memory which has, in fact, morphed over time. In this regard, the passage of time and the re-telling and re-playing of an incident can be the enemies of truth.
M2’s vulnerability was the overriding impression I was left with from her evidence. She was also clearly highly suggestible to the extent that at one point Ms Taylor – to her credit as an advocate – reminded her that she did not have to agree with a suggestion simply because it was put to her. M2 was not a particularly impressive witness and her recollection of many key issues was unclear. I attach little weight to her recollection of P alleging she had been punched during the 17 November incident. She did have a degree of insight with respect to her on-off relationship with F, acknowledging that she kept going back to him because, at the time, she loved him. On the other hand, she lacked insight into the impact on P of sharing adult issues with her.
F came across as a superficially plausible witness. However, there were significant aspects of his evidence that lacked credibility or insight – albeit given in the same manner as his evidence generally – and which therefore cause me to question the impression of plausibility that he otherwise gave. To give just some examples of this:
He repeatedly told me that he was completely unaware that he had been given a police caution in 2009 with respect to what is described in the papers as a serious assault, resulting in injury to M1. He must have been present to accept that caution and I don’t believe him when he told me that he was unaware of its existence.
He told me that he did not think there was any risk of P coming across pornography which he had downloaded and saved onto her laptop in a file entitled ‘KEEP OUT P’. He told me that she was always under supervision when she used the laptop. That was an entirely implausible answer. It is inconsistent with the clear picture that emerged of a man who was frequently in bed for large parts of the day and/or in his own room smoking cannabis. Furthermore, there would have been no need to name the file in the way he did if he himself didn’t see the risk of P finding the material. Finally on this issue, F demonstrated absolutely no insight into why it might be unacceptable or unsafe to download and save pornography onto a child’s laptop.
He told me that he believed the reason that M2 was in and out of Refuge over a period of more than a year was due solely to her poor mental health and self-harming. When it was put to him that he must have realised there were problems in his relationship when M2 first accessed a Refuge he told me, ‘I brought this up; when you think of a Refuge you think of domestic abuse; she said, no, no she was going there because there was always someone there to help her with mental health and self-harming; I believed it but then I had some doubt; I spoke to the health visitor and she said yes refuges do do that. I didn’t know that there were allegations against me at that point; I was told it was down to her mental health and due to self-harming’. I found that answer entirely implausible and I don’t accept it. F clearly knew that at least part of the reason that his partner was in a Refuge was due to her need to escape what she perceived to be the abuse in their relationship. (Whether that perception was correct is an issue for me to determine). F’s evidence on this point struck me as one example of a general tendency to weave a narrative in which he is a benign figure bearing no responsibility for the troubled lives of those around him; he repeatedly relied on what he reported as being the views or words of professionals to vindicate this self-perception. In some cases, I accept, professionals have expressed the views that he relies on to justify his self-perception. He has been positively assessed, on more than one occasion, as the better carer for P and Q. However, those positive assessments do not act as a trump card over P or Q’s lived experiences. Returning to the current point, I simply don’t believe F when he tells me he thought the only reasons M2 had access to a Refuge related to her poor mental health and self-harm.
Many witnesses, including Mr Ndlovu and SP1 agreed that F had worked well with them and had not denied them opportunities to engage with the children. That much is to his credit. However, before I turn to the disputed evidence there are two accepted incidents which give me further insight into F as a parent and partner.
The first occurred around 7.5.2024 when F threw a cup of cold coffee towards P, with the cup smashing on a wall beside her. M2’s evidence was that the contents of the cup went all over her and U, who would just have turned 1 at the time, and that U was crying. That is extreme, dysregulated and unusual adult behaviour. F sought to minimise the gravity of this incident. When it was put to him that the coffee went over M2 and U he said ‘I am unsure if that was the extent. I am not going to say it didn’t happen, but as far as I am aware, no’. For the avoidance of doubt, I prefer M2’s evidence on this point and find that F’s evidence was an effort to downplay the consequences of his own actions. It further struck me that F said he couldn’t remember what the incident was about. For most parents an incident during which they had lost control to the extent of throwing a coffee cup, that smashed against a wall, in the presence of 2 of their children, would be seared in their memory. It is unnecessary for me to find whether F’s claim that he could not remember the cause of this incident was simply a lie, or whether losing control and acting in a like manner was such a frequent occurrence that he can no longer recollect individual instances. Possibly both are the case.
The second is an incident pleaded on the local authority threshold and accepted by F. On Christmas day 2022, when P was 12, she was not given any presents other than a notebook and pen in which F made her write down her feelings as she watched her siblings opening their presents. F has claimed previously that this was a punishment for P’s earlier behaviour. I find it to be a very particular example of targeted and planned cruelty. For a parent to conceive of and carry through with this humiliation of their child would require a wholescale lack of empathy and a strongly controlling streak.
Overall, the impression I get of F both from the papers and the oral evidence is of a brooding and often sulking character, thin-skinned and quick to anger. He has a strong sense of entitlement allied to a need to control his immediate environment. M2, P and Q have all separately talked of being frightened of him. Q, in particular, is reported to have evinced tangible fear of bumping into him whilst with his foster carers. That is not fear that a child of Q’s age could fabricate (and nor would Q have any reason to do so). For his part, F shows neither insight nor curiosity into why it is that his family members are frightened of him and his behaviour.
I turn then to the contested factual matters.
Prior to 17 November 2024
The sexualised behaviour that P complains of is all alleged to have occurred before 17 November 2024. Several witnesses, including Mxolisi Ndlovu and SP1 said that P had a number of professionals with whom she had good relationships and with whom she would have been able to share any concerns she had. SP1 identified herself as P’s key trusted adult within her education setting. A point developed by Ms Taylor in cross-examination and submissions is that prior to 12 November 2024 P made no allegation or complaint of sexualised behaviour by her father to any of these professionals. That is, until just before the events of 17th of November themselves, P did not make allegations of sexualised behaviour by her father.
The CPOMS record, completed by SP1, for 12.11.2024 records the following:
Shelly Greenwood allocated Social Worker came to complete a visit within school. SP1 Inclusion Coordinator was present for the majority of the meeting. During the meeting P shared she had cooked Gammon Sunday dinner for all the family, she went to the shop to buy it cooked it and washed the pots. I was made to clean the kitchen and all the pots and these had mould on them. Dad put Q (younger sibling) in his room and Dad locked him in there. P spoke about historic incidents. Dad tells her nobody wants her. Q walked himself to school on Monday and Dad shared not to tell anyone about this. After the meeting Shelly shared prior to SP1 entering the room P has shared that during the Summer Dad made her get into bed with him. P shared this was not right but Dad shared that nothing was wrong with it and become agitated so P got into bed with Dad. P shared she did not get much sleep that night. Dad did not touch her but she is not sure if he touched himself. P shared that Dad made her get in bed with him again on holiday and said there was [no] other bed for her but she said she would sleep on the floor but felt like she had to get in bed with her Dad.
In her oral evidence, when she was taken to this CPOMs record, Shelley Greenwood recalled that P had also told her about feeling uncomfortable about her father walking in on her when she was in the bathroom.
Accordingly, prior to the events of 17.11.2024, P was complaining of being required to cook for and clean up after the family; F’s treatment of Q; her father’s hurtful words towards her; her father pressuring her to share a bed with him and walking in on her whilst she was in the bathroom. I accept some of the behaviours now reported could have been complained of earlier and that P had adults to whom she could have made such complaint had she wanted. However, I also take into account that many children do not complain of abusive experiences immediately for a variety of reasons including loyalty, fear or confusion as to what it is they have been living through.
The 17 November 2024
As already set out, F accepts that there was a physical altercation between him and P on this date. The largely agreed context is that F wanted to prepare a chicken casserole for the family. He says he was unwell and for that reason wished to prepare it in a slow cooker in his bedroom to which end he wanted P to gather up the necessary ingredients and kitchenware. She says, and this does not appear particularly contentious, that she was also required to go to Sainsbury’s to buy some of the ingredients. There was clearly, and on either account, a bad atmosphere between father and daughter on this day. F’s evidence is that P was refusing to help out in the preparation of a casserole that she herself had requested. P gave evidence in a more general context that she did not always believe her father was as incapable as he made out. Certainly, however unwell F may have been feeling on 17 November, he was well enough to fight with his daughter and pin her to the ground and well enough, immediately thereafter, to come downstairs and drive her to her mother’s house.
It is agreed evidence that F physically moved P, whether by pushing or pulling or ‘leading’ her from her bedroom and that in so doing she collided with a chest of drawers. It is further agreed evidence that Q heard the ongoing commotion and came upstairs causing M2 to take him back downstairs to shield him from what was going on. It is also agreed by F and P that he took her into his bedroom and ended up pinning her down. Other aspects of that incident are in dispute.
The 101 call
After P was taken to her mother’s house and told M1 what has happened, her mother called the nonemergency, 101 service. There is a transcript of that call in the bundle. P spoke to the operator during that call. This then, is the first recorded account that P gave of the altercation with her father. Whilst it is correct that M1 made the call and told the operator that P had been assaulted, it was P herself who provided the detail of what she alleges happened. She said, ‘I was in my room and then dad grabbed my arm and, like, pulled me towards him and then he went behind me and pushed me into the chest of drawers’. When she was asked what injuries she had she said, ‘the front bit of my chest hurts from when I hit the drawers and then my neck hurts and my arms hurt a little bit, but not much’. She told the operator that she had marks on her arms from where her father had grabbed her and also a mark round her neck. She went onto say, ‘after the drawers, he, like, pushed me into his room and I got pushed onto the bed and then … he pulled me off the bed and pushed me down onto the floor. That’s when he got on top of me and he started, like, trying to grab my neck and that … and then I fought back and [he] put both my hands together and he sat on top of my legs and then once I managed to wiggle and get him off me I kicked him by accident’. She said that her father had put two hands around her neck.
The police attendance on 18 November 2024
The police attendance on P and her mother, the day after their joint 101 call, was on any view mishandled. The initial 2 officers who attended, PCs Maw and Sharp, were not ABE trained and had limited understanding of why they were attending. Indeed, it is clear that they shouldn’t have been the attending officers because whilst they were still there IO Wells (who was ABE trained and part of the PVP team) attended, as did the allocated SW, Shelley Greenwood. Neither group of professionals was expecting the attendance or presence of the other. By the time IO Wells and Shelley Greenwood arrived, PCs Maw and Sharp had taken an account that went significantly beyond the brief, initial account envisaged in the ABE guidelines. When IO Wells attended, and notwithstanding his ABE training, there was a wholly inadequate note of what was said, which did not include any record of questions asked or words spoken in response.
There is BWV of PCs Maw and Sharp’s attendance, and a transcript of what was said. It is clear that M1 prompted P’s recall on a number of issues. That said, many of those issues are non-controversial and accepted by F: for example, the fact that P was asked to bring the slow cooker upstairs. With respect to the physical altercation on 17 November, in my judgment P’s account is free-flowing and in response to the non-leading question, ‘tell me what happened in your own words?’ She again described her father pulling her towards him, then getting behind her and pushing her out of her room and into the chest of drawers. On this occasion, unlike the 101 call, she said that at this point she went downstairs to get the tin opener and that it was after this that F dragged her into his bedroom, pushing her initially onto the bed and then onto the floor where he got on top of her. She again describes in putting his hands to her throat, her fighting back and accidentally kicking him.
With respect to allegations of sexualised behaviour, also made during that police attendance, it was M1 who first gave information to the police about F asking P to sleep with him. P told the police that she didn’t sleep in the same bed as her father during a caravan holiday, despite him asking and getting annoyed when she said no, which is at odds with what she had said previously. She said that ‘when I’m in the shower or … the bath … he always seems to come in … it makes me feel, like, really uncomfortable’. When she was asked if her father did anything else that made her feel uncomfortable, she said ‘I don’t think so. He comments on my body though. He, like, comments on, like, my boobs and that. … He just says they’re, like, really big and that and, like, he, like, comments, comments on, like, my bottom, like, saying that it’s really big’. Later when she was asked if there was anything else she could remember, she said ‘well, he’s never, like, touched me, or that I can remember anyway’.
The medical on 18 November 2024
P attended for a child protection medical on 18 November 2024. This was conducted by Dr Hussein and the notes are contained in the evidence bundle. P’s account was again that her father had pulled her by the arm out of her bedroom and then pushed her into the chest of drawers. She said she fell to the ground and that F sat on her legs holding both of her hands. She did not make any direct complaint to Dr Hussein of being strangled but did complain of pain to a number of areas including her neck. He noted a round reddish blue 2.3 cm bruise to P’s sternum, a 3.3 cm long bruise to her left arm and a 2.2 cm bruise to the back of her upper right arm. Notably, in my judgment, P volunteered that she had caused scratches to her upper thighs herself; she did not take the opportunity that was available to her to allege that her father had caused those injuries. Dr Hussein’s opinion was that the bruises seen to P were consistent with her description of the altercation with her father.
P’s ABE interview, 13 February 2025
There was significant delay in interviewing P. It took 3 months from her initial complaint to the 101 operator, on 17 November 2024, to the ABE interview. One theme of Ms Taylor’s cross-examination of various witnesses including P herself was the number of people P had spoken to about events prior to her police interview. This of course brings with it the risk of story creep as well as the risk of third parties consciously or unconsciously affecting P’s account. Those are all factors which I must weigh in the balance when considering the reliance I can place on P’s allegations against her father. It is also clear that P had, prior to her interview, written down her recollections in a notebook, which she had access to during the ABE interview. I do not find anything inherently strange or, in and of itself troubling, about a teenage girl having recourse to a journal to write down her experiences. I do though bear in mind that P herself volunteered that some of the factual matters, with respect to dates, had been checked with M2.
Although DC Cross told me that she spent 10 to 20 minutes building rapport with P immediately prior to the commencement of her ABE interview, in breach of the guidelines this was not recorded. However, the truth and lies exercise was recorded and P had a good understanding of this as well as the consequences of telling lies, including not being believed in the future.
P’s initial account of 17 November was free-flowing and unprompted. There was a lot of spontaneously given detail and incidental detail that, in my judgment, a child would be unlikely to fabricate, such as dropping a tin of carrots. She once again described her father pulling her by the wrist and then pushing her out of her bedroom and into the drawers. As with the account given to the police on 18 November, she described going downstairs to get the tin opener at this point, before her father pushing her into his room, onto the bed and then onto the floor where he got on top of her and, she says, ‘put his hands around my neck’. She immediately followed that up by saying, ‘I think it was that hand his right one’. Accordingly, there is some equivocation as between her father using hands plural or a hand on her neck. Later in the interview, and in response to follow-up questions, she seemed clearer that it was one hand on her neck, specifically saying ‘I’m not sure what he was doing with his other hand’. She said, ‘I know this hand was on my neck because I felt his thumb there [puts hand to neck] it was like on my neck, like there ish but because his hands are really big it’s got to the top bit of my chest as well where like the bones are’. She said, ‘he was like putting quite a lot of pressure on it. I felt like I couldn’t breathe … I felt like I could feel my face going really red but I don’t know whether it was going red or not. I just felt like I couldn’t breathe unlike I don’t know if I was being like a bit dramatic or not … But the corner of my eyes were going like black’.
I weigh in the balance that M1’s non-engagement with this hearing has deprived F of the opportunity to cross-examine her about the extent to which she may have influenced or otherwise contaminated P’s evidence.
P’s oral evidence
I have already set out my overall view of the quality of P’s evidence. With respect to the local authority’s allegations of sexualised behaviour, P was clear that her father had never touched her on any of her private parts. With respect to being touched on the leg, behaviour which her father accepts in the context of a car journey, she said ‘in my opinion it felt very sexual’. She denied that she had ever fallen asleep in her father’s bed whilst watching a movie, which is F’s explanation for an occasion when they have ended up sleeping in the same bed together. She was clear that her father hadn’t touched her whilst they were in bed together. She told me that they did not sleep in the same bed together whilst on the caravan holiday in September or October 2024. She denied that her father would always knock before walking into the bathroom whilst she was using the shower or bath.
P was also clear that her father was not telling the truth when he said that he had never shut her in her bedroom. (I note in this regard that F accepts doing this to Q).
With respect to the allegation that her father had strangled her, P told me that her father had one hand holding her hands and the other hand around her neck. That is a different account to some other accounts (with respect to being one, rather than two hands).
My finding with respect to the 17.11.2024 and ‘strangulation’
F’s evidence with respect to 17 November was in my judgment significantly minimising. When he was asked whether, even on reflection, he thought he might have caused injuries to P’s arm in anger he said, ‘no I never touched or restrained her there the only restraint I did was on the wrist’. For the avoidance of doubt, I don’t accept that what F was doing during this incident is properly or fairly characterised as restraint. He showed no restraint and nor was he simply restraining his daughter. I reject his hypothesis that P or her mother caused P’s injuries to incriminate him. For one thing, given P’s repeated allegations that her father had strangled her, if they were going to cause injuries to get him into trouble, they would be much more likely to have done so around her neck. F denies that his hand or hands were anywhere near his daughter’s neck.
I find that this was an incident, as with previous incidents such as throwing a coffee cup at P, during which F lost control and acted out of dysregulated anger. He was angry at what he perceived to be disobedience by P in not doing all of the legwork to make the family dinner. It is clear to me that he was not too unwell to do this himself given his ability both to fight his daughter and drive her to her mother’s house. I further find that this will have been a confusing and terrifying experience for P. I accept that P has given somewhat inconsistent accounts as to whether it was one or two hands on her neck. I further accept that she did not complain directly of strangulation to Dr Hussein albeit she did complain of pain to her neck. I weigh in the balance that there are no observed injuries to P’s neck and that her account during the ABE interview contains significant additional detail, such as feeling like her vision was going black, not previously mentioned. In fairness to P in that regard, she acknowledged to the interviewing officer that she might be being dramatic. That all said, the basic complaint that her father put his hand or hands to her neck was made at the outset, during the initial 101 call, and has been consistently repeated. What I am less sure about is the use of the specific term ‘strangulation’ in the sense of a deliberate attempt by F to restrict her breathing. My findings with respect to 17 November 2024 are as follows:
On 17 November 2024 F lost control and in anger subjected P to a sustained physical assault, causing her physical and emotional harm:
He forcefully pulled and pushed her out of her bedroom by her arms causing her to collide with a chest of drawers.
He pulled her into his bedroom, pushing her onto the floor.
He sat on her, pinning her to the ground.
He placed a hand or hands on P’s upper chest/throat area. This, in conjunction with everything else that was happening, caused P to struggle to breathe.
This incident resulted in P having bruising to her arms and chest.
P was caused significant distress throughout and as a result of this incident.
Other evidence with respect to P’s allegations of sexual harm
M2 told me that she had heard F commenting on P’s boobs and bottom and that P had looked visibly shocked at this. She told me that she had seen F smacking P around the bottom but that she did not view this as being sexualised. She told me that she had not witnessed other sexualised behaviour complained of by P. Accordingly, I do not form the view that M2 was simply trying to get F into trouble on this issue. For the same reason I reject F’s evidence that P and M2 have got their heads together to fabricate a case against him (whilst always reminding myself that F does not have to prove anything).
My conclusion with respect to the allegations of sexual harm
When I weigh up all of the factors I have already outlined and consider the totality of the evidence, balancing in particular the compelling and straightforward nature of P’s oral evidence to me against the poorly conducted ABE process and those elements of P’s evidence with respect to sexual harm that have changed and/or evolved, I have come to the following conclusions. In so doing I remind myself, as well as anyone reading this judgment, that it is not and never was for P to prove anything and the flaws in the ABE process are no fault of hers. I have concluded:
F continued to slap P on the bottom by way of punishment or expression of his own anger beyond the age at which that could possibly have been considered age appropriate.
F has on multiple occasions walked into the bathroom whilst P was using the bath or shower. He has not given P any choice in this.
F has commented on P’s developing breasts and bottom in her hearing and in a way that made her uncomfortable.
F has put his hand on P’s thigh whilst they were in the car in a way that made her uncomfortable.
F has on one occasion required P to sleep in his bed and on other occasions suggested that she do the same. This behaviour occurred after the age at which it would be appropriate for a child to sleep in bed with a parent. For the avoidance of doubt, I have preferred P’s evidence to her father with respect to this and do not accept that this occurred in the context of P falling asleep during a film.
Those are my findings with respect to F’s behaviour. I find that that behaviour taken together was unreasonable behaviour by F. I find that it has caused P emotional harm not least by causing her to question her father’s motivation towards her. However, what I do not find, because the local authority has not satisfied me on balance of probabilities that it is the case, is that F’s behaviour was sexually motivated. I do not therefore find that he has sexually abused P. Nor, for the avoidance of doubt, is a parent’s motivation for unreasonable behaviour a required aspect of threshold. It seems to me entirely likely that F’s behaviours in this regard were manifestations of his need to retain and exercise control over those living in the same house as him and/or a reflection of his scant concern for the emotional well-being of those around him. It is relevant, in my judgment, that F accepts downloading pornography on P’s laptop and saving it in a file named ‘P keep out’. This shows his reckless disregard for the sexual and emotional safety of P and his preferring of his own immediate appetites over the well-being of his children. There is no evidence before the court that P in fact accessed this material however F’s willingness to take the risk that she would, tells me a lot about him as a parent. I specifically reject his evidence that he did not think there was a danger of P accessing the pornography he had downloaded; the title of the file he saved it under gives the lie to that.
In terms of future welfare planning for the other children I do not find that F poses a direct risk of sexual harm to children or has a sexual interest in them. Rather, my findings in this regard point to the indirect risk of a range of harms, including sexual and emotional harm, that F poses to his children by virtue of his thoughtless, unreasonable and selfish behaviour.
Finally, in this regard I have no doubt that the harm caused to P by her father’s behaviour is just one aspect of the overall harm caused to her by living in an environment in which the intentions of the adults around her were confusing and were frequently focused on matters other than the children’s welfare.
The children’s lived experiences more generally
When P was asked about how her father presented when he was unwell with his medical condition she said, ‘he mostly stayed in bed regardless. I don’t know how painful it is but in my opinion he described it as worse than it was because if he wanted to go out and get something he would but if it was tidying the house he would stay in bed’. She acknowledged that on bad days he would struggle to get to the toilet and that she and M2 helped him. In this regard, as in others, she was fair to her father. It has been a consistent theme however that she was required to do a lot around the house including cooking, cleaning, tidying and looking after her younger siblings. She describes being worried about them when she was at school. I find that she was required to do more than was reasonable even in the context of F’s illness.
When P was asked whether she sometimes took letters to her father’s friend from her father she said this, ‘he wrote me a letter one time and told me to take it round to get cannabis but not to show it to M2 because he had told her he’d stopped taking cannabis. I showed her the letter. I was 11 or 12’. For his part F denies ever asking P to get cannabis for him. There is a note, which he accepted is in his handwriting, contained in the papers in which he asks the recipient for cannabis. M2’s evidence is that this is the (or at least a) note that P showed her. F’s evidence is that this was a note he in fact gave to M2 and not his daughter. It is unclear to me why he would need to give a note to his adult partner when she could simply request the cannabis herself. That aside, I prefer and accept the evidence of P and M2 on this point. I find that F did send P to collect cannabis for him.
P told the police that she had seen her dad picking up Q and throwing him. F accepted in his evidence picking Q up under the arms to enforce time outs by placing him in his bedroom. F’s evidence, in that regard, was consistent with the overall picture he wished to portray of a calm and regulated parent. I have already found that on multiple occasions he has become dysregulated and in anger pushed, pulled or otherwise manhandled family members. P’s description of his treatment of Q is consistent with that behaviour. I have noted elsewhere in this judgment that Q manifested palpable fear of bumping into F whilst with his foster carers.
Domestic abuse between F and M2
The local authority raised domestic abuse between F and M2 as a suspected issue in their initial social work statement for the older children, dated 24.1.2025 (the same concerns were noted in the initial social work statement for the younger children filed slightly later). They alleged that F was the perpetrator of abuse in that relationship (as well as his previous relationship with M1) and that, for her part, M2 had reported high levels of coercion and control.
M2 accepted that her poor mental health predated her relationship with F, which is a matter of record. He is not the original cause of that albeit anyone with mental health issues is likely to be impacted by the behaviour of those around them.
In March 2023 M2 gave a statement to the police, complaining of assault by F. She alleged that there had been at least one previous assault and a number of occasions on which he had kicked her out of the family home. She said that on 6 March, F stayed in bed to around 2 o’clock in the afternoon (which description is consistent with P’s description of her father). She said that an argument began because she refused to go to cash converters to get money in order to buy him cannabis. She says that in this context he threatened to throw her down the stairs. He then told her she had 10 minutes to leave or he would drag her out by the head. She said that when she went upstairs to get belongings so that she could leave with the children, F locked the children into their bedroom so that she could not get to them. She said that when she tried to get clothes for herself, F pushed her into the bedroom door, albeit without causing injury. He then grabbed her by the back of the neck and pushed towards the same chest of drawers that P would later come into contact with on 17 November 2024.
M2 told me in oral evidence that the reason she did not pursue the complaint against F, initially made to the police in March 2023, was that she was scared that he would not let her see the children and that things would get worse if she supported a prosecution. She told me that there had been more than one occasion on which F had used the children as leverage against her; ‘it has been a few times but I am not sure of dates; if I go to his house and we talk and I say no to sex he kicks me out and says I am not allowed to come back and take the kids; I wasn’t allowed to take them out of his house’. F denies that apart from one occasion in 2024 he ever kept the children from M2. I prefer her evidence on this. I find that there was a significant power imbalance in the relationship; that F had a sense of entitlement, which is evident more generally throughout the papers; and that he is precisely the sort of person who would use his children as a means to his own ends, including to exercise a degree of control over M2. She said that in the latter stages of the relationship, as it was breaking down, she only agreed to a 50-50 shared care arrangement because she believed it was either that or him having the children 100% of the time. I find that entirely believable in the context of her vulnerability and his behaviour.
I also note that M2’s description of the assault in March 2023 bears striking similarities to F’s manhandling of P in November 2024. I have considered the possibility that this is two family members colluding to give similar evidence to the court. However, I discount that possibility. It is inherently unlikely that M2 would have planted evidence as long ago as 2023 (not pursued at the time) with a plan of eventually getting F into trouble. The description given by P of her father pushing her into the chest of drawers is accepted by him as factually accurate and so she has not fabricated that aspect of her account.
F accepts that there was an occasion in December 2024 when he exchanged words with M2 through his car window as he drove with T and S in the back. He told me he could not recall the words spoken. I accept M2’s evidence with respect to him shouting at her that she was a bad mum; she told me that this ‘got’ her. The children will have heard their father describing their mother as such.
Late within proceedings, M2 filed a statement in which she made various new allegations against F, with respect to which she now seeks findings. I have summarised those findings above, insofar as they are disputed by F. These allegations are serious but I am going to deal with them briefly. I did not find either M2 or F to be especially compelling witnesses and with respect to these allegations I simply have her word and his. I do not find that M2 has satisfied me to the requisite standard that F was addicted to pornography or that he searched for pornography using the search terms ‘teen’ or ‘young teen’. F accepts downloading and saving pornography including on P’s laptop. That, by itself, is serious enough. There is no evidence that P accessed the material, a point which I have addressed elsewhere. I find that:
F downloaded pornography onto P’s laptop and saved it in files with names including ‘P keep out’.
It is unnecessary to make a separate finding with respect to downloading pornography on M2’s laptop; it would add nothing.
I am not persuaded, on balance of probabilities, that the couple’s sex life was abusive and violent in the ways alleged by M2. This evidence emerged very late within proceedings. I have found that he was abusive and controlling in other ways, but M2 has not satisfied me to the requisite standard, that his abuse extended to behaviours described in her most recent statement.
My findings
The following findings are either agreed or, in some cases with respect to M1, unopposed in light of her non-engagement with this hearing. For my part, I am satisfied that they are properly borne out by the evidence before me.
M1 has breached safety planning by allowing contact between the children and ‘JF’, an individual who is known to the local authority to be a perpetrator of domestic abuse. M1 was aware of this risk when she allowed him to come into contact with the children thereby placing the children at risk of significant physical and emotional harm.
M1 has breached safety planning by allowing J to attend the family home despite knowing that J posed a risk of harm due to his substance misuse and domestic abuse. In doing so, M1 placed the children at risk of significant physical and emotional harm.
M1 misuses cannabis and cocaine. P, Q and R have been exposed to M1’s substance misuse which placed them at risk of significant physical, emotional harm and neglect.
Hair strand test results confirm she has used cannabis and cocaine from around November 2024 to mid-February 2025 at least several days each month.
M1 has offered P cannabis and pills. P’s HST results indicate she used cannabis for a few days each week during October to December 2024. The ingestion of such substances places P at risk of significant physical harm.
Whilst in the care of M1, R has been exposed to cocaine, crack cocaine, heroin, Oxycodone, cannabis and Pregabalin, resulting in a positive drug test results for all of these substances.
F misuses cannabis, his hair strand test results confirming that he has used cannabis on a regular basis during the period of December 2024 to mid-February 2025. Exposure to substance misuse places the children at risk of significant physical and emotional harm and neglect.
P, Q, S and T have been exposed to F buying and smoking cannabis generally and in an enclosed environment, namely his bedroom.
M2 has suffered with periods of low mental health. On the 13th February 2025, M2 told the social worker Ms McCoy that she had self-harmed by cutting her thigh prior to the court hearing on the 10th February 2025. During periods of low mental health, her ability to meet the needs of the children is compromised. (For the avoidance of doubt, I have removed a disputed sentence with respect to whether the children were exposed to M2’s self-harming; they were on any analysis exposed to her low mental-health and have been harmed as a result of this).
M1 has subjected the children to inappropriate parenting and caused the children physical and emotional harm:
In and around November and December 2023, M1 instructed the children (P and Q) not to tell professionals working with the family about issues which occurred in the family home.
On the 6th December 2023, Q and M1 had a fallout at home. This resulted in Q leaving the home around 7pm. Q, who was barefoot and with no coat, left the home and ran away and was found about half a mile away from the family home. This was on a cold and wet night.
On the 14th December 2023, Q reported that M1 had called him stupid and dumb and had hit him on the back of the head. Q stated that this had been due to a fallout between him and M1 as he had not wanted to go to school.
M1 has used physical chastisement to discipline R by slapping him.
F has subjected P and Q to inappropriate parenting, causing them physical and emotional harm:
He has used smacking and hitting the children as a form of discipline.
He has asked P to pack her bags and get in the car and then driven her to a building in Scunthorpe where he told her to get out of the car as she was ‘now going into care’.
On Christmas day in 2022 P was made to watch others open presents while she was given a notebook to write how she felt about seeing others open their presents.
R has presented as being unkempt, tired and unengaged at nursery and often dropped off and picked up late whilst in the care of M1.
Neither F nor M1 have met the children’s educational needs whilst the children have been in their sole care:
P’s attendance at school while living with M1 was at 86.1%.
Q’s attendance at school whilst living with M1 was at 88% with 6.9% unauthorised absences.
On the 29th February 2024 (whilst in F’s care) P’s academic provision reported her attendance to be at 87.5% with 12.5% being unauthorised absences.
On 15th April 2024 (whilst in F’s care) Q’s academic provision reported that his attendance was at 49%.
On 28th November 2023 M1 hit Q and scratched both of his arms.
On 28th November 2023 M1 pushed P who bumped her head on a door whilst she was trying to protect Q from M1.
I make the following findings with respect to disputed issues.
I accept submissions on behalf F that it would be wrong to go beyond the admitted evidence, with respect to the nature of his relationship with M1, and certainly wrong to place reliance on what M1 has alleged in circumstances where she has not attended court to give evidence. The finding I make is as follows. The relationship between F and M1 was toxic and the children were exposed to the significant acrimony and protracted litigation between them. There was an incident, albeit in 2009, of physical abuse for which F received a caution.
For reasons I have set out above, I find that: The relationship between M2 and F featured domestic abuse to which the children were exposed, including by way of instability in their living and care arrangements.
On 6th March 2023 there was a verbal argument between M2 and F as a result of F asking M2 to go to the pawn shop so that he could get money to buy drugs. F threatened to push M2 down the stairs and drag her outside by the head. F then grabbed M2 by the back of her neck and pushed her into a door. This incident was reported to the police.
In December 2024 F followed M2 down the street in his car with both T and S in the back. M2 was pushing U in his pram. F was verbally abusive and shouted at M2 that she was a bad mum, which the children will have heard.
F has subjected M2 to controlling behaviour by keeping and threatening to keep the children from her care if she did not return to the relationship. (For the avoidance of doubt, I have found it unnecessary to make a separate finding as to whether F’s installation of cameras in the family home was an instance of controlling behaviour).
Despite moving to a refuge from May 23 to Nov 2023 and Nov 23 to Aug 24 in order to flee F, M2 has returned to F’s property on a number of occasions and therefore failed to protect the children from further exposure to domestic abuse.
On at least one occasion, F has asked P to buy cannabis for him.
F has used a hosepipe and dressing gown cord to hold P and Q’s bedroom doors shut.
F has been unable to maintain adequate home conditions and has required P to do more than it was fair or reasonable to expect. The family home has often been dirty, cluttered and smelling strongly of cannabis.
The local authority plead physical harm to P, but sub-particularise allegations that relate solely to Q. I do not find it necessary to make additional findings with respect to physical harm to P, over and above those, set out elsewhere in this judgment with respect to the 17 November 2024. For reasons I have also already explained, given that the local authority did not put an allegation of him pushing P down the stairs to him, it would be wrong for me to make that finding against F. Based on P’s evidence, which I have preferred to F’s I do make the finding that: On at least one occasion F has, in anger, grabbed Q by his arms. He has also, on at least one occasion thrown him onto his bed, again in anger.
The findings I have made with respect to the 17 November 2024, the local authority’s pleaded case with respect to sexualised behaviour and F’s downloading of pornography are set out in bold above in this judgment.
Care planning for P
As set out above, as the case has progressed, all parties have invited me to finalise matters for P. P wants this to happen. The local authority has filed a final care plan that sets out a permanence plan of long-term foster carer with her current carer. All parties agree that that is the right placement for P. The plan also sets out the support that will be available for P in that placement.
With respect to contact I have read the position statement from the guardian. I also heard directly from P who told me that she does not want to see or spend time with her father. The guardian’s position statement sets out that she will not refuse indirect contact from her father by way of letters although she does not intend, at this stage, to respond. The local authority’s care plan in this regard is for three indirect contacts per year around Easter, P’s birthday and Christmas. Given when P’s birthday falls, that will correspond with roughly every four months. In addition, they propose to support F to write a letter to P in the aftermath of this hearing. F, in submissions advanced on his behalf by Ms Taylor, seeks indirect contact at a level of six times per year, whilst accepting that P herself can’t be required to respond. In this regard my invitation to the local authority, an invitation I am confident they will accept, is that they review the position with respect to contact and P’s response thereto after Christmas. Given that their plan is to support the father to write to P following this hearing and that the first contact thereafter will be at Christmas he will in practice have had contact roughly every two months up to that point. If P has responded well to that level of contact, then there is no reason why the local authority wouldn’t support contact at a level of six times per year as per the father’s wish. Beyond that I approve the local authority’s care plan as currently drafted. The matters I have just set out can be contained in a recital to the order following this hearing.
For the avoidance of doubt then, I place P into the care of North Lincolnshire Council and approve a plan of long-term foster care. In so doing I have specifically considered the welfare checklist set out in s1(3) of the Children Act 1989. In particular, I have given weight to P’s wishes and feelings which are to remain with her current carer. And I have taken into consideration the harm that P has suffered and is at risk of suffering which have been the principal focus of this judgment as well as the capabilities of each of her parents of providing her with care that meets her holistic welfare needs.
That is my judgment.
HHJ Stephen Brown
24 October 2025