L, M, N, O and P (allegation of sexual abuse by a sibling), Re

I am concerned with five children:

The children’s mother forty-three. She works in the home taking care of the children. Their father is forty-six. Until December last year he worked seven days a week as a taxi driver. The parents are originally from [Country Z]. They are practising Muslims.

The chronology shows that over the years the local authority has been involved with the family intermittently. In 2014, a referral was made (the evidence does not show by who) due to ‘concerns’ the children (at that point [L], [M] and [N]) were left unsupervised. The parents denied the concerns and the case was closed due to lack of evidence. In March 2018 [L] is alleged to have reported that his mother hit him with a stick. Both parents denied this. The children were put on a child in need plan and following interventions around positive parenting strategies, the family was closed to social services the following February.

A similar concern of physical chastisement of [L] was raised in January 2020 (again records do not disclose who made the referral). The case was closed due to lack of evidence.

In April 2021 the local authority received an anonymous report from a neighbour that the children were left unsupervised and there was a lack of boundaries in the home. Again, the parents denied the reports, and suggested that they had been made maliciously. Due once again to lack of evidence, the local authority closed the case. Following a report at the end of the month (once again, it is unclear who made the report) that [L] was ‘displaying worrying views around Muslims and Christians’ the local authority conducted an assessment of the family, but again took no further action.

There was another referral in January 2022 due to a report of bruising on [O] (again I do not have information about who made the referral and in what circumstances). No further action was taken.

In July 2022 [L] was said to have put a post on TikTok which gave rise to concern about his mental health. But again, following a limited investigation, no further action was taken.

In October 2023 the home school link worker made a referral in respect of [N] who was said to be expressing thoughts of suicide, self-harm, poor body image and low mood. After a second referral in February 2024, the parents agreed she could receive support for her worries within the school setting. She was assessed in July 2024 and a plan made to offer her ‘worry management sessions’ starting in September. However, the parents later reported that they had enjoyed a good summer break, and [N] had settled well into secondary school. They said she did not need any further support.

[N] had started her new school, [the school], in September 2024. Her older brothers [L] and [M] were also students there.

The precipitating event for these proceedings was on Tuesday 3 December 2024. [N] reported to teachers at school that while she was not sure whether it was a dream or had been real, she thought she had been anally raped at home the previous Saturday morning. She said this had happened once before, in August 2024.

The school contacted the police and the local authority. Later that day [N] was removed into foster care under the police’s powers of protection. She was placed with an experienced foster carer called [J]. She has stayed with [J] throughout these proceedings.

The father, [L] and [M] were each arrested and taken to the police station to be interviewed. [M] was interviewed at 11.18 p.m., the father was interviewed at 00.17 a.m. in the early hours of 4^th December, and [L] interviewed at 00.39 a.m.

[N] was seen at the Sexual Assault Referral Centre on 4 December 2024. Later on that day there was a multi-agency strategy discussion. It was noted that [N] thinks it was ‘one of her older brothers’. The note describes the mother as ‘very dismissive of concerns’, suggests that she, ‘can be quite aggressive as well’, and that the father was ‘verbally abusive to staff in front of the children’ when he attended the school. It is said in the note that the ‘parents have said they will not adhere to the bail conditions and mum is allowing father to remain in the house anyway.’

A decision was made that [N] should be invited to give a video recorded interview to the police, and that an intermediary was required to assist with that process.

On 6 December 2024, the local authority applied for and was granted an emergency protection order.

The father’s bail conditions were that he should not contact [N] by any means, and should not have unsupervised contact with any child under eighteen. However, he was allowed to be at home with the children, and his wife was identified as a suitable person to supervise him. Despite this, in the police record dated 11 December 2024, following a bail check the night before, when the father was found to be at home with his wife and children, it is posited that the children’s mother may not be a suitable person for supervision given that, ‘it doesn’t appear she is helping the investigation’. No reason is given to explain why the police had come to this view, but it appears that they were receiving some information from the local authority.

An email sent to the police by the children’s social worker at 10.03 a.m. on 11 December 2024 noted his plans to travel to [Country Z] on 26 December, and that his wife was currently supervising him with his other four children. The social worker writes, ‘however, we do not believe that this is likely to happen as she is very influenced by the father. Refused to speak to us or engage with us despite multiple efforts as she was listening to the father. Hence it is very likely that the mother is not a reliable person in my view.’

The sergeant review entry dated 11 December 2024 states that since the last review there have been issues around the bail conditions, ‘it appears that the wife of the suspect has intimated that they will not be abiding the bail conditions and suspect will be unsupervised with the children and will be taking one of the children to [Country Z] soon. …. There are significant concerns that the mother of the children is not being protective and does not believe the victim is telling the truth or there are any concerns. Social care are increasingly concerned about the protectiveness of mother and the father breaching conditions.’

As a result of the allegations, and the father’s arrest, his taxi licence was suspended. It remains suspended to date. He has not been able to find alternative work.

The local authority issued these proceedings on 12 December 2024. I was the judge who made an interim care order for [N], approving the plan for her to remain in foster care. I made interim supervision orders in respect of each of the boys. I saw the parties again on 7 January 2025, but at that time [N’s] VRI was awaited so little was done. The case was then allocated to other judges, and the first time I saw the parties again was on the first day of the fact-finding hearing.

On 31 December 2024 [N’s] foster carer sent an email to the social worker in which she wrote:

This note was either not seen, or not actioned until sometime in May 2025, when it was shared with the parties and their representatives.

[N] attended a police station on 14 January 2025 to give a video recorded interview (VRI) about the allegations she had made.

On 5 February 2025, [N] was interviewed again, this time at the behest of the local authority, but with the permission of the Family Court (given at a hearing on 23 January 2025). The interview was carried out by [SW5], an independent social worker, who is a specialist in conducting ABE (achieving best evidence) interviews of children and young people for the purposes of assisting with both criminal and family proceedings.

At a case management hearing on 27 February 2025 the Court directed a fact-finding hearing to be listed in the week commencing 27 May 2025.

In April the fact-finding hearing was adjourned until September. At that time, the father, and both [L] and [M] remained in the potential pool of perpetrators. The parties and the Court were preoccupied with the question of whether both [L] and [M] should have separate guardians, and whether both of them and [N] should give evidence at the fact-find. The arrangements for contact were also causing some difficulties, the local authority having applied for contact between [N] and her father to be suspended.

In June, a further note from the foster carer (dated 16 June 2025) was circulated, which read as follows:

There was discussion between the local authority and the police about whether [N] should be interviewed for a third time, but she said she did not want to.

On 15 July 2025, the local authority filed a revised threshold document, which names [M], [N’s] second oldest brother, as the perpetrator of the alleged sexual abuse. There are ten allegations of failure to protect.

The local authority, represented by Mr Forbes, seeks findings in respect of each of the allegations on its threshold document. It is alleged that [M] raped his sister on two occasions, and that the parents had failed to protect [N]. It is not alleged that they could or should have prevented either rape from happening. Essentially, the local authority’s case is that the parents’ response to [N] after she had made her allegations was such that the local authority could not have confidence that they could protect her or her younger siblings from the risk of sexual abuse in the future.

The parents (Miss Savvides and Mr Longhorne representing the mother, Mr Leong for the father) both expressed a view in evidence that they think it more likely that [N] has dreamed that she was sexually assaulted than that she has in fact been anally raped twice by her brother. Their formal position in the proceedings is that they leave it to the Court to make findings as to whether the allegations of anal rape are proved. They deny that they have failed to protect [N] or any of their children. They deny that any of their children are at risk of suffering significant harm attributable to the parenting they have or would be likely to receive, and they deny that their parenting has fallen below the standards to be reasonably expected of them.

Mr Bagchi KC and Ms Cann represent [M], through his guardian Mr. Lynch. It is their position that the local authority has not come close to establishing to the requisite standard of proof that [N] was raped as described, let alone that it was her brother [M] who raped her.

Notwithstanding that from July 2025 [L] has not been identified as a potential perpetrator, he continues to be represented, through his guardian Ms. Palayiwa, by Mr Vater KC and Mr Powell. They also submit that the local authority has not proved to the standard of a balance of probabilities that [N] has been the victim of sexual abuse, whether by her brother, or by anyone else. [L] believes that [N] has dreamed that she was sexually abused.

[N], [O] and C5’s guardian is Ms. Allen. Represented by counsel Stephen Crispin, she takes a neutral position on the allegations, although in submissions, she has raised some concerns about both [L] and [N’s] emotional welfare in the home, and the parents’ abilities to act protectively.

The applications for public law orders are made pursuant to section 31 of the Children Act 1989. The Court only has jurisdiction to make a public law order if the threshold test set out in section 31(2) for making orders is crossed:

The relevant time for the purpose of section 31(2) is the date on which protective measures were first taken, provided they have remained continuously in force until the application to the court. If protective measures were not continuous, the relevant date becomes the date of the court application itself. Re G [2001[ EWCA Civ 968 per Hale LJ (as she then was):

The relevant date for the purpose of these proceedings is 3 December 2024, which was when protective measures were taken under section 46 of the Children Act 1989 under the police’s powers of protection, and [N] was removed into foster care.

In its threshold document, the local authority relies upon matters which arose after 3 December 2024.

The extent to which a local authority can rely upon matters which have come to light or taken place since the proceedings have begun is not always straightforward. Hale LJ considered this at paragraph 13 of Re G:

And at paragraph 15:

So in respect of the findings sought post-3 December 2024, I must consider whether or not they go to establishing the circumstances as they were on 3 December 2024, and be careful to avoid ‘retrospectively validating a concern which was not in fact justified at the time’.

In Re A [2015] EWFC 11 (sometimes referred to as the Darlington case), Sir James Munby, President of the Family Division at that time, emphasised (at paragraph 9), ‘the elementary proposition that findings of fact must be based on evidence (including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence) and not on suspicion or speculation.’ And later in the same paragraph:

Further, the Court must be astute to analyse the findings and to determine whether, having made all (or some) of the findings, each of the elements of section 31 is met, and the threshold for making public law orders is crossed.

To that end, in Re A, the President stressed the need for threshold pleadings to be precise in their formulation. At paragraph 12 he said:

In two separate cases in which allegations of sexual abuse were made (Re P (sexual abuse (fact finding) [2019] EWFC 27 and AS v TH (false allegations of abuse) [2016] EWHC 532 Fam), Macdonald J set out fully the approach he suggests the Court should adopt in a fact-finding exercise of this nature, in the process providing a comprehensive review of case law and research. These judgments are essential pre-reading for any judge carrying out a fact-finding exercise of the sort that I am engaged in.

I have read the cases before, but have read and considered them afresh for the purpose of guiding my approach in this case. I direct myself to hold in mind all that he says as I evaluate the evidence in the case, but have highlighted below those paragraphs from each case which have particular relevance to my task.

With reference to both the allegations of sexual abuse and the allegations of failure to protect, the law is well-established, here summarised by Macdonald J in AS v TH at paragraphs 23 onwards:

The burden of proof rests on the local authority. There is no obligation on a respondent to provide, much less to prove, an alternative explanation for the allegations made. Further:

It is for the Court to assess the credibility of a witness’s evidence. No weight should be given to the opinions of others about the credibility of a particular witness.

The Court should consider how much weight to attach to discrepancies in accounts between witnesses or from one witness at different times. See Re A (A Child) [2020] EWCA Civ 1230 and in Lancashire v R[2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam): per Mostyn J:

See also Peter Jackson J (as he then was) in LCC v The Children (2014) EWHC 3 (Fam) about the notion of ‘story creep’:

At paragraphs 23 of AS v TH:

Care must be taken where evidence comes from a child. Per Baker LJ, Y and E (Children) (Sexual abuse allegations), Re [2019] EWCA Civ 206:

At paragraph 259 of Re P, Macdonald J expands more fully on the challenges of assessing evidence of a child whose evidence has not been tested by cross-examination:

Macdonald refers to academic research about memory, serious case reviews and the consequential guidance in respect of evaluating children’s allegations and achieving best evidence from children, and the need for caution. At paragraph 6 of Re P:

Macdonald J identifies ‘the manifest dangers’ from adopting an approach that the child is to be believed. At paragraph 579, he refers to the Cleveland Enquiry which made plain that:

Within the same paragraph he highlights guidance from the Orkney Enquiry, that all those involved in investigating allegations of child sexual abuse must, ‘keep an open mind and not fall into the trap of confusing the taking of what a child says seriously with believing what the child has said. ….

Macdonald J then draws a number of threads together, and summarises considerations which the Court must have in mind when evaluating the evidence of a child who has made allegations of sexual abuse (at paragraphs 600-601):

Mr Leong referred me to the case of Re L-W (children) [2019] EWCA Civ 159. At paragraph 62 of the leading judgment Lady Justice King said:

I take from this that any finding that a non-perpetrating parent failed to protect their children from harm, must be made with care. An approach akin to that set out in Re A above is required; to spell out the acts or omissions of the parents that constitute a failure to protect, the significant harm (or risk thereof) that has been caused as a result of those acts or omissions, and that this constitutes a standard of parenting that is below what might reasonably be expected.

I have read all the documents in the bundle and paid particular consideration to those which I have been directed to read with more attention, or to which I have been referred during the oral evidence. I heard evidence from the following witnesses:

Each of [N’s], [L’s] and [M’s] guardians carried out ‘Re W’ assessments to consider whether they could give evidence in proceedings, and if so, whether the guardians recommended that they should do so.

Having considered these assessments and the position more generally, none of the parties sought for [N], [L] or [M] to give evidence. None of them has prepared a witness statement for the purpose of the proceedings and I have not heard live evidence from them, nor has their evidence been tested by any form of questioning outside the Court arena.

What I know about what each of them has said comes from the video recorded interviews they have given, the transcripts of those interviews, and what others have reported they have said.

[M] has a learning disability, together with diagnoses of autism spectrum disorder. His IQ has previously been assessed at 60. Permission was given for an expert report to be obtained to gain a better understanding of his cognitive functioning. In her report dated 18 August 2025, Dr Annie Swanepoel concluded that [M] functions at the level of an eight or nine year old child, with some areas of functioning below that, for example washing, getting dressed, or crossing the road. He has extremely low verbal understanding and is not able to participate in the proceedings.

The video recorded police interview of [M] took place at 11.18 p.m. at night. He did not have an intermediary, but his uncle was there. He did have a solicitor, but it is abundantly clear that he did not understand the advice he was being given about no comment, and that he was not following all the questions.

[L’s] interview started at twenty to one in the morning. He coped better with the questions, but also looks tired and fidgety. The duty solicitor looks visibly tired and is seen to rub his eyes, and then close them for increasingly longer snatches of time throughout the interview. He is an adult, presumably well-used to the environment. It would not be surprising if [L] was also feeling the effects of the late night, and not giving his best evidence.

[L] has not prepared a witness statement, but did give an interview to the police in the early hours of the morning on 4 December 2024. At the outset of the interview he said that [N] used to have bad dreams, about a robber coming to the house late at night, and he thought these were due to the movies she was watching on Netflix. He went on to say:

This account from [L] is consistent with [N’s] in that she says that she spoke to her brother both times she alleges she was assaulted, and she remembers he said to her words to the effect that she was over thinking or that she had probably had a bad dream.

She also spoke to SW5 about some of the things that she had been watching on Netflix, including films with an 18 rating.

[N’s] allegations form the core of the local authority’s case. I have read the transcripts of the video recorded interviews and watched them. I have considered each of the different accounts of the interactions she had with others, and studied both original notes and recordings, witness statements, as well as the oral evidence that has been given. I set out within this judgment the impressions I formed of that evidence, and will then turn to consider each of the local authority’s pleaded allegations, setting out my analysis of [N’s] evidence as I do so.

The majority of witnesses that I heard from in Court were called to tell me about conversations they had had with [N]. They were asked to recount what she had said, the way in which she had said it, the context in which they had spoken to her, the means by which they had recorded her words, and how they had then relayed that information to others.

A number of the witnesses were asked whether or not they believed what [N] had said was true. The opinion of a witness about the truth of an allegation made by another person is not something that I should take into account in determining the truth of [N’s] allegations. However, it was submitted with force that an understanding of the perspective of the person who is receiving allegations, recording them, and then reporting to others, is essential to my assessment of their evidence. This is for the reasons set out by Mr Justice Macdonald in Re P. If the person speaking with [N] is going further than just taking what she says seriously, and is adopting an approach that any allegations she makes must be true, there is a danger that they are unwittingly and unconsciously applying a filter to what they hear. They may potentially be suppressing those parts of what she says that conflict or undermine or dilute the main substance of an allegation, and augmenting and emphasising those parts of what she says that point towards the allegation being true. In those circumstances, their account of what she has said may have become unreliable.

It was my impression that each of the witnesses who were reporting to me directly about the allegations [N] had made to them was sensible of their heavy responsibility in a challenging situation. They were all aware of the need not to lead evidence out of her by prompting or suggestion, not to react in a shocked way, not reflect back to her what she had said in a way that reframed or put undue emphasis on something.

I also take into account that the person speaking with the child may not have collection of evidence for future proceedings in the family or criminal jurisdiction as the dominant purpose of the conversation in their mind. When an allegation of sexual abuse is made the adult may be asking questions to elicit the essential elements of an offence, but will also be considering things such as whether the child needs medical assistance, whether it is safe for them to go home, will be wanting to reassure the child about the next steps, while formulating that plan in their minds as they are speaking to her, and considering who else needs to be contacted, what other things need to be done.

I take account of the guidance that despite training and good intentions an account obtained in line with the achieving best evidence guidance is not always possible. In this case there have been instances of leading, prompting, or reflecting back. There have been a number of conversations, and the content of each of them has not been transcribed, but recorded in very brief notes. I take into account that where deficiencies are identified, that should not lead either to the reporter feeling unduly criticised, nor might it necessarily undermine the whole of the report they have given.

SW1 had been a qualified social worker for just over two years at the time she was allocated to the children with whom we are concerned. She was working under the supervision of her team manager, with whom she would consult once a week (in the initial stages of the proceedings it was much more frequent, more like daily) or as and when issues arose. She then had monthly supervision meetings to reflect on decision making and care planning.

SW2 had been qualified for two and a half years in December 2024. SW3 was still a student social worker in December 2024, having begun her year of in-post training in July 2024.

Strategic decisions are taken and implemented by the local authority, an individual social worker is not personally responsible for everything that has happened in this case. They will have followed the direction given by managers, according to the local authority’s policies and the training which they have been given. It is helpful for the team manager to be in Court with the social worker when they give evidence as a reminder to them, the parties and the Court of this.

If I describe deficiencies in evidence or approach of a professional witness, I do not do so for the purpose of levelling personal criticism. I am doing so because it is relevant to my assessment of the credibility and reliability of the evidence that I have to weigh up in reaching my determination. A secondary reason for that may be to invite the local authority or agency concerned to consider and reflect on its policy, training or decision making process, so as to inform learning and its approach in the future.

Having said all that, I cannot shy away from setting out within this judgment concerns arising from the local authority’s approach, that I have found to be relevant. In summary, they are (i) the local authority’s approach to [N’s] allegations; (ii) its approach to [M] and [L]; (iii) the local authority’s choice to continue to include father in the pool of perpetrators until July 2025; (iv) cultural issues; and (v) the need for professional opinions to be substantiated by evidence.

Turning first to the local authority’s approach to [N’s] allegations. In her evidence to the Court SW1 made it clear from almost her very first answer that she believes [N’s] allegations to be true. She told me that she saw her role as [N’s] social worker to support her, to believe her, and to make [N] aware that she was believed. Within her oral evidence she repeated a number of times that [N] had been ‘consistent’. She said, ‘she has been consistent and not deviated from her initial allegations – I believe them.’ Later on, she said:

In her first witness statement to the Court, in support of the application for an emergency protection order, SW1 omitted to mention that in [N’s] first account to W1, and later to Dr I, [N] had said that she was not sure whether what had happened to her had been a dream or not. When asked by Miss Savvides whether it might have been important to include that detail, she answered that she had, ‘framed the overall allegation that [[N]] had shared with multiple professionals on that date.’ Further, she said (my note):

In excluding [N’s] words which wondered whether she had dreamt what had happened to her, and providing her own explanation for why she said that – that it was an indication of [N’s] hesitancy in speaking the truth of what had happened to her, but bravery to persist – SW1 has framed the allegation as being delivered with more certainty than it was in fact made. She excludes from her consideration, and the court’s, the possibility that [N] may have had a dream that felt real, or even that she experienced a sexual assault that felt like a dream. She interprets [N’s] account as one where she was sexually assaulted, but chose the language of a dream as a vehicle that enabled her to make her allegation. Any of those things may or may not be the case, but by framing the allegation in that way, the court has been presented with a different account than the one [N] in fact gave.

The omission or distortion of [N’s] true account at the outset had an impact on the way in which the parents, particularly the mother, were portrayed by the local authority to the Court. The mother had indeed said at an early stage that she understood from [L] that [N] had dreamed the sexual assault, not experienced it. And it later transpired that [N] had indeed questioned whether she had dreamed that she had been assaulted; in the first recorded account of her allegations (to W1).

But the mother was portrayed to the Court as being wholly dismissive of the allegations. There is an implication that it was she who sought to persuade [N] that she had dreamed an assault rather than experienced it. This evidence was significant because the Court was being invited to approve [N’s] continued separation from her mother in a foster placement far away from home on the basis that her mother could not safeguard her welfare. If it was the mother who was telling [N] it was all probably a dream, she looked as though she was not protective. If in fact this was something that [N] had been noted to say, then why should her mother be expected to disregard it? There was a need for accuracy and specificity. What did the mother know, how had she failed to act protectively, what was expected of her?

In respect of the local authority’s approach to [M] and [L]. It was put to SW1 that the support that she offered to [M] was on the basis of him being a sex abuser. In her response, she effectively confirmed that was the case, ‘I support both children based on [N’s] allegation she has been harmed – and [look at] the risk to the other children – and I need to ensure the other children are safeguarded where an allegation is made by one child to another.’

There are no records of her speaking with [M]. She said that on visits he would tend to be preoccupied with playing video games, their conversations had been limited to saying hello, even though she had tried to engage with him. She said that he had been supported through the child in need plan, that he had support through school and his parents could have had support if there were any difficulties with his behaviours, but they had not raised any significant concerns.

When it was put to SW1 that the mother was conflicted by the situation of her daughter having made allegations of serious sexual assault by a male in the household, SW1 said, ‘I don’t see it as a conflict, I see it as prioritising the male children over [N’s] welfare and safety …… she is acting against the interests of her daughter … your priority would be to safeguard your child and to believe them – I did not see this – it is about believing your child and working with safeguarding with the professionals. There were opportunities for [N] to come home if the mother had worked with us – engaging with the plan of support.’

There does not appear to have been any understanding that of course the parents were conflicted by this situation.

There does not appear to have been proper consideration of the impact upon [L] and [M] of the allegations. No strategy for working with them in the event that the allegations are not true, but even if they were true, no evident strategy for support to be given in the event that they are proved true. It is not hard to see that both [L] and [M] would be liable to feel neglected, to feel that their voices are not heard, to feel that they cannot confide in the social worker assigned to them, to feel judged and marked out as sex offenders. There has evidently been a need for them to receive emotional support at the loss of their sister, to cope with the stigma and shame from peers knowing about the allegations, the consequential interruption to their education and impact on their emotional well-being.

SW1 told me in evidence that the local authority was not operating by any local or national policy for managing cases of allegations of inter-sibling sexual abuse. It may be that upon reflection the local authority identifies what best practice might look like. These cases are complex and may require input from a senior social worker. It may be that cases could be co-worked with a different social worker for alleged victim and alleged perpetrator. Care plans may need to be formulated at an early stage to anticipate circumstances in the event that allegations are found proved or not proved. It may be that the truth or otherwise of the allegations is not needed in order to resolve the issues in the case, and that focus should be on parents’ ability to act protectively, and whether they are able to meet each of the children’s particular needs with appropriate support.

Considering the position in respect of the father. In her evidence W4 recalled that when [N] spoke with W3, witnessed by her, [N] was ‘very adamant’ it could not havebeen her dad who abused her, and that [N] had repeated this a number of times. W4 told me [N], ‘felt the assault was in the early hours of the morning – impossible for dad to do that – she heard him going out the door.’

This does not seem to have come out with such clarity within the school CPOMs records. However, W2, who spoke to [N] early on in the afternoon, made a note that, ‘dad was not in the house as he was on nights and she thinks it was one of her older brothers.’

This information did make it into the local authority’s notes of the multi-agency strategy discussion on 4 December 2024:

However, this vital information appears to have been ignored. Next steps are determined on the basis that the father remains in the potential pool of perpetrators with [N’s] two older brothers.

The witness statement dated 12 December 2024 in support of the local authority’s applications for interim care orders does not describe [N’s] allegations. It says nothing about the information received that father could be ‘ruled out’. Instead, criticism is levelled at the mother who is said to have ‘let the father back into the house’, and has ‘refused’ to supervise contact between the father and the two younger siblings. It is said that neither parent believes [N’s] allegations, and that they refuse to work with the local authority. The author of the statement says, ‘the nature of sexual harm [N] suffered, and the fact that the police has arrested three possible suspects including [L] and [M] in relation to the sexual abuse, indicates the possibility that [N’s] youngest two siblings [O] and [P] are also at risk of suffering sexual harm.’ The author of the statement goes on to express concern about the father remaining in the family home, and a belief that [L] and [M] may themselves be victims of sexual abuse ‘or may be groomed’.

The evidence base for these concerns is not set out within the statement.

As noted above, the 28 December 2024 [N’s] foster carer [J] made a note of a conversation she had with [N], in which she recorded that [N] was distressed, and believed that social services were, ‘targeting her dad. She did not want that and there was no way her dad would have done this to her. He is lovely and cares for her and gets upset over small things. She says she is 100 percent sure it was not him. She laughed over her chubby dad’s tummy. He is much bigger than her brothers.’

The email was sent to SW1 on 31 December 2024, a day that she was seen to be accessing her inbox. She was unclear in her evidence whether she had seen the note but then omitted to respond, or whether she had missed it altogether at the time. Either way, this vital piece of information was not shared with the parties and their representatives until May 2025.

On 22 January 2025, the local authority filed a statement in support of its application to suspend contact between [N] and her father, and to reduce contact between [N], her mother and younger brothers to six-weekly. It is noted again that the father had been arrested, along with [L] and [M]. The same fears about the mother’s ability to act protectively are raised. It is noted that the police have concluded the VRI and do not oppose family time re-commencing, but that ‘the local authority is not satisfied with the police VRI which has not explored [N’s] allegations into suffering sexual harm during Summer 2024’, and is proposing an independent ABE interview.’

Following the VRI the police closed the case and decided to take no further action, noting the difficulties in identifying a suspect.

The local authority obtained the Court’s permission for the further VRI. [N] did not identify a perpetrator in her interview with SW5.

The parents attended a meeting with the local authority on February 2025. The father was hoping the local authority may support him in his application to regain his taxi licence. But he was apparently told that it was, ‘the role of the fact-finding hearing to determine any potential candidate who may have perpetrated the alleged abuse. Hence, the father is not yet excluded from the list of perpetrators and therefore it is premature to consider his licence being reinstated.’

As noted above, the 28 December 2024 email was eventually circulated at some point in May 2025. A month later came the 16 June 2025 email from [J] in which [N] expressed surprise at the use of the word ‘abuse’ and it was noted that, ‘she said she’d always said it wasn’t her dad’, to which the foster carer’s note of her reply is, ‘I know you told me that.’ Inthe same conversation [M] is identified as the alleged perpetrator.

From this chronology, the inescapable conclusion is that the local authority abdicated itself of responsibility either to assess the information in its possession about the father, or to share information received with others. The parents were at the mercy of the local authority’s passivity. It was suggested that it was not for the local authority to interfere with the police investigation, but when the police reached the conclusion that there should be no further action, it was the local authority that pushed for further investigation.

In depriving the father and other parties of the information provided to it on 31 December 2024, the local authority kept the father in the pool of potential perpetrators when they did not have any evidence in their possession to justify that course. But notwithstanding that, they vigorously pursued an application to deprive him of seeing his daughter, and refused to help him take steps to regain his livelihood.

The focus of the hearing has been on the threshold allegations. However, I have seen and heard some evidence of misunderstanding and insensitivity around cultural issues towards the family in this case. This has caused offence and distress, but in addition, give rise to a concern that some of the allegations levelled against the parent are unfair, because they arise from a failure to understand and acknowledge cultural difference.

The mother was heavily criticised for her responses to the two social workers who visited her on 4 December 2024. At that time her daughter had been removed from her care the evening before, her husband and two sons arrested, taken to the police station and kept there until the hours of the morning. She was informed for the first time during that meeting that the allegations were of two instances of anal rape, and that the perpetrator was said to be either her husband or [L] or [M]. This was all conveyed to her through an interpreter who was speaking to her on the phone. Her husband was out at a medical appointment. She does not appear to have been offered the choice of an in-person interpreter, or to have someone with her for support. The meeting on any view would have been difficult, but it does appear to me that there was room for greater sensitivity towards the mother at that time.

The local authority filed its application for an emergency protection order at about 10.00 a.m. on 6 December 2024. A hearing was listed at 2.00 p.m. The parents came to the local authority’s family centre, where the social worker reports that they attempted to hand the parents the relevant pleadings and a list of solicitors, but this was declined by them. I do not believe the documents had been translated into  [language redacted]. The father is reported to have said they would not be able to attend the hearing because he would need to attend the mosque for Friday prayers, and that the mother would need to collect the younger children from school. In a subsequent witness statement filed by the local authority, the father was criticised for prioritising attendance at the mosque over the court hearing of which he had but a few hours’ notice. It may be that the father had other options available to him, which would have enabled him to both attend the hearing and Friday prayers, or it may be that within his religion and culture, missing Friday prayers for the reason of attending a court hearing is acceptable. However, the local authority cannot reasonably say this is the case. I have not seen evidence that discussions were had with the father to understand the situation from his perspective, or to think about how his religious and cultural needs could be accommodated.

The parents were criticised for ‘refusing’ to provide the local authority with details of family members or friends who could have presented an alternative to foster care for [N]. The parents are part of a close network of family and friends within their Muslim [Country Z] community. They have explained to the Court, and it would appear also to the local authority, that since these allegations have been made, they have not been able to speak to members of their family or friends about them, due to concerns about the shame that might attach to their children or to their wider family. In the circumstances, it is perhaps understandable that they would not have been able to put forward an alternative carer. I have not received specialist advice from an expert in the parents’ religion and culture. However, I can well understand that the parents would be mindful of the potential consequences for their daughter to be identified within this community as a victim of serious sexual abuse, or for either of their sons to be identified as the perpetrator of such abuse. In all the circumstances, I am drawn to the conclusion that the criticism is unfair, and that had the local authority made attempts to understand the parents’ culture, they may not have levelled such accusations against them.

[N’s] foster carer [J] has evidently become very fond of her, and spoke about her affectionately and respectfully. She has provided a loving and stable home in which [N] has thrived. [J] is a practising Christian. She has taken [N] to church, but it was made clear she could ‘sit out’. She said [N] was learning about Christianity and was in turn teaching her about Islam. [J] has taken steps to support [N’s] religion and culture, for example buying a prayer mat and prayer clothing. She explained why she did not feel it appropriate to take [N] to mosque herself, but she was not against that happening if [N] had expressed a wish to go. Despite all this, there have been issues. With the food that the parents have provided in contact. [N] has not continued with her online religious education. And there has been a continuing issue about [N] wearing the Niqab. The second part of [J’s} email of 28 December 2024 (the first part dealing with the conversation about [N’s] distress at feeling her dad was being targeted) describes a conversation she and [N] had. The note reads as follows:

At the child we care for review meeting on January 2025, the record reads, ‘you have talked about wanting to wear a niqab but you said that your mum is of the view that you are too young for this currently.’ I have not been taken to a record of a conversation between the social worker and the mother to check whether this was her view.

When being cross-examined, SW1 agreed that [N] should have been supported to make her own choice about wearing the Niqab. She said that she spoke to the foster carer about it, had further meetings with her and her supervising social worker to support her in understanding that [N] must be supported to follow her culture and religion. The child we care for note from 3 June 2025 does indeed set out a conversation between the social worker and [J], in [N’s] presence, in which the social worker does indeed challenge the foster carer on this topic, and [J] says that she will support [N] to follow her religion and cultural identity, but she does not agree with [N] wearing a niqab.

It is to SW1’s credit that she did tackle this issue head on in June, but on behalf of the mother, Ms Savvides questioned whether the mother had been properly informed about this issue, received any kind of explanation or apology, or been consulted as to her views about [N] wearing a niqab.

The local authority asserts that the parents have failed ‘to engage’ with the local authority. Engaging with something requires participation; active involvement. On a number of occasions within these proceedings, ‘engagement’ so far as the local authority is concerned appears to have been a requirement for the parents to sign forms, agree to the local authority’s plans, believe what the local authority believes, or otherwise do exactly what the local authority wishes them to do, notwithstanding the reasons must often have seemed opaque, bewildering, and at times, unjustified. On behalf of the mother, Ms Savvides submits that for its part, the local authority has conspicuously failed to engage with the parents in ways which might have led to greater understanding of them, the needs of all their children, language, their religion and culture. On the evidence of these examples, that submission is made out.

The final issue I raise in respect of the local authority’s evidence is a tendency to rely upon suspicion and speculation rather than evidence. Even experienced professionals can fall into the trap of concluding that because they are qualified and knowledgeable within their own field, opinions given carry the weight and authority of their profession. However, opinions must be reasoned, and supported by an evidence-base. Where those professionals are relatively inexperienced, it is the responsibility of their managers to instil that disciplined approach, and through supervision, to check the statements and other information that records such opinions, to check that they are founded on a sound evidence base.

In this case, I identify that there have been a number of occasions where such opinions have been formed, and then adopted as professional assessment, without underlying evidence. Examples are in the witness statement filed in support of the interim care orders, full of anxious speculation that by virtue of the father’s arrest by the police, all five of his children are at risk of sexual abuse by him, and that both [L] and [M] may already have been the victims of sexual abuse and grooming.

The case note prepared after the meeting between SW2, SW3 and the mother on 4 December contains a number of comments which are not supported by the evidence. The mother was supported by an interpreter on the phone, she had just been informed that her daughter had alleged that she had been anally raped by a male member of the household, that she expressed disbelief and shock was perhaps not surprising. It does not justify a conclusion that the mother was ‘very dismissive’ of the allegations. The bail conditions allowed the father to return to the home provided his contact was supervised. There is no evidence that the mother said that she would not comply with those conditions. Yet the email to the police fuelled a concern that she was ‘not reliable’ as a potential supervisor.

I heard from each of the teachers who spoke with [N] at school on 3 December 2024 (save for the very first teacher who found her in the corridor and took her to see W1). I am satisfied that each of them was doing their best to assist the Court and to give an accurate recollection of events which happened for a short time within a very busy day. Their notes were uploaded onto the school CPOMS system promptly. I am satisfied that they give a reasonable representation of the conversations [N] had with each of those teachers on that day, culminating in the pre-interview assessment.

It is instructive to remember, as a number of the teachers reminded me, that in the conversations they were having with [N], their main concern was not necessarily about preserving an accurate note word for word of what she was saying for the purpose of these proceedings. They were assessing her physical and emotional well-being, thinking about whether or not she might need medical treatment. They were assessing whether there was a need to call in the police for further investigation. They were assessing whether or not it was safe for her to go home to her family, and if not, they were thinking about what steps might need to be taken to safeguard her welfare.

There was no recording or transcript of these conversations. The notes are summaries of what was said, and inevitably the person taking the note has put down those parts of what [N] said that they judge to be the most significant. Some of the notes are but a few lines, when the timeline tells me that a conversation took place over half an hour or longer. The rest of the conversation may not have been relevant to the allegations, but might have told me something about [N’s] demeanour or what was preoccupying her mind at the time.

Dr I has been working at the Sexual Abuse Referral Centre (SARC) since 2022. She is a highly qualified and highly experienced forensic medical examiner. She is not a paediatrician, but I understand that within the last couple of years in this region examinations of children at SARC are no longer carried out by paediatricians within the NHS, but by doctors like Dr I, based at referral centres such as this one.

There is no suggestion at all that there was anything wanting in Dr I’s examination or her report. She gave a clear and professional account of the examination and her findings. Her contemporaneous notes and the report were consistent with the recollections she gave in her oral evidence. She examined [N] on Wednesday 4 December, which was the fifth day after the alleged sexual assault in November and four months after the alleged assault in August. She asked [N] what she believed happened, but her question was not designed to get a detailed account, but more to check where she needed to focus her examination. Her handwritten notes read as follows:

Dr I did not find any signs of physical penetration of the anus on examination, but noted in her report that in itself does not exclude the possibility that it occurred. In response to a question from Mr Bagchi she said it was unusual for a child to say that they were not sure if they had dreamed an assault. She is noted to have stressed in the strategy meeting later on 4 December, her impression that [N] was ‘very unsure’.

DC1 had been working at the Thames Valley Police’s Child Abuse Investigation Unit for about two years at the time she interviewed [N]. Both in the pre-assessment interview and the VRI itself, she allowed [N] to speak freely and to develop her own narrative. She did not lead or prompt, and she did not react with emotion to any of the answers she got. Mr Bagchi KC complimented her on the care that she had taken to enable [N] to give her evidence. No other party took issue with the manner in which she had conducted it, save that it was suggested there was perhaps some room for confusion in the way that she was said to have asked [N] if the alleged sexual assault had happened before. DC1 asked [N] to tell her about ‘any other touching that might have been happening.’ It does seem from [N’s] response that she understood the question to be whether she had been touched in other places on her body rather than whether she had been touched at another time altogether.

DC1 explained that she judged that to ask [N] more directly, by asking, ‘did this happen before’ or similar, would have been a leading question and not appropriate. In the same way, she did not press [N] to name a perpetrator.

DC1 explained that it was not her decision to take about whether to carry out a second interview, but that she was aware that the general policy was it could be seen as leading. If a child has been interviewed and is told they need to be interviewed again, they may get the message that what they had originally said was not good enough in some way, or that she needed to give a different answer.

The reason that it took five weeks for the interview to take place was the need to secure the services of an intermediary. Notwithstanding the delay, she said it would not have been appropriate to go ahead without that, ‘she did need assistance with her communication and we need that to help us communicate properly – we had some issues.’

SW5 is an independent child protection and safeguarding consultant, with extensive and specialist expertise in carrying out ABE interviews. She impressed with her knowledge and the consideration she had evidently given in preparation for the interview with [N], and in her responses to the questions asked.

Despite her evident knowledge and professionalism, she was visibly uncomfortable with fundamental aspects of her instruction. Like DC1, she acknowledged that second interviews for the purpose of ‘filling gaps’ did not sit easily with her, for the reason given, that a child may perceive that they did not give the right answers, or enough answers the first time round, and this might well have an effect on their answers the second time.

SW5 was uncomfortable with the list of questions to ask, none of which were in a format that complied with the ABE guidance. She was uncomfortable with the idea of pre-planned questions of this nature at all. To meet the challenges presented by her instructions, she chose to divide her interview into two sections. The first half was to cover ‘the gaps’ in the first interview, namely to elicit information from [N] about the alleged first sexual assault in August. The second half of the interview was to fill the gaps identified within her instructions, in particular whether she was able to name a perpetrator and to provide more information than she had the first time round.

SW5 evidently did her best in the circumstances to wrangle it into the format of a more conventional ABE interview, but it is difficult not to view the whole interview as undermined by its stated objective of filling gaps.

An intermediary was not present. SW5 is extremely experienced in her field, and told me that she is known for her skill at building rapport with children. She had made her own independent assessment at a pre-interview meeting with [N] and concluded that an intermediary was not necessary. I do not doubt SW5’s abilities. It can be seen throughout the interview that SW5 is attentive, has a calm and reassuring manner, and was well able to put [N] at ease. Nonetheless, as she fairly accepted in evidence, she was feeling under some pressure to get through the topics she had been instructed to cover. This meant that the interview went on for a long time. The first part was forty-five minutes, they then had a forty minute break followed by a further hour of questioning. Towards the end of the first part of the interview which lasted forty-five minutes, [N] asked if they were at the end, and SW5replied, ‘You’re not at the end. You’re doing well.’

There are a number of points during the interview where the services of an intermediary might have been helpful. Not just to notice whether [N] was flagging, but to help with basic understanding. For example, during parts of the following conversation, [N] seemed very confused by timings:

[N] was then distracted by some brownies she made and then just before the break seems to have lost concentration all together. Almost as soon as they came back and started the recording again, [N] asked, ‘when is this gonna end.’ SW5 replied, ‘when is it gonna end. It’s gonna end when it’s gonna end.’ [N] appears easily distracted, by a donut, by pink socks, and for much of the second part of the interview does not always have her full attention on the questions. The conversation takes quite a turn to other subjects, but SW5 does get through a number of topics with [N], including the films she has watched, access to social media, the layout of the family home and visitors.

As the interview goes on, [N] increasingly falters, and frequently apologises when she doesn’t have an answer or says she cannot remember, or when it is pointed out to her that the date she gave for the alleged assault, the 31 November, does not exist. At the very end the circumstances of the alleged November assault are raised again and [N] is asked again to describe the details. She is asked whether she knows who the person is, she says she doesn’t, says she is sorry, and begins to cry. She is asked what is making her sad, and says, ‘the talking.’

In her evidence SW5 told me that she would have much preferred to have been tasked with interviewing [N] from the outset, and not having to pick up a second interview. She evidently brought all her experience and skill to bear to enable her to fulfil the task she was set, but it is clear that despite her best efforts, the Court is left with a number of questions about the reliability of the evidence that was obtained by this process.

[J] was a helpful witness because she was able to bring [N’s] presence into the room. She described [N] as a chatterbox, who told a good story, was very funny, and who had become a valued member of a busy household. I have already referred within this judgment to notes or emails of significance that [J] has prepared. I have read all the foster care logs and contact records, which give a helpful description of the ways in which [N] has been spending her time while in care, some of the issues that have arisen and the progress she has made. It is evident that [J] has been a source of stability, friendship and comfort to [N] at a time when separation from her family and friends must have been very difficult for her.

The mother was assisted to give her evidence through a translator. Although she speaks only a little English, she has a quick understanding, often got to an answer before the question had been fully answered. I do not expect that she enjoyed the process of giving evidence much, but at the same time, I did have a sense that she benefited from the opportunity to speak in these proceedings with her own voice, to express herself clearly, and for her personality to come through. There were a couple of moments in court where she had a quick answer back to Mr Forbes who was cross-examining her, causing everyone to laugh, and a mischievous smile passed across her face. Mr Forbes took it in very good grace.

The mother’s love for her daughter and for all her children came through strongly. I was struck during the course of her evidence, as well as the father’s, that she spoke of [N] only with love and affection, and entirely without judgment or negativity. She did not call [N] a liar, or suggest that she had any tendency to make up stories, she did not suggest that [N] was an attention-seeker or over-dramatic. The impression I formed was of a mother who has desperately wanted to support her daughter and to bring her home, but is utterly bewildered as to how that might happen.

In her response to the local authority’s schedule of findings of 5 March 2025, the mother confirmed ‘that she believes the allegation of rape made by [N], but does not know who raped her. The mother accepts that this will have caused [N] significant emotional, psychological and sexual harm. The mother accepts she initially thought [N] could have had a bad dream as this is what [N] was telling the professionals but after watching the police interviews her instructions have changed.’

Given the mother’s evidence at the final hearing that it is her belief that [N] has in fact dreamed that she was sexually assaulted, it was put to her that in making this statement she has lied to the Court. I consider the Lucas direction.

The mother gave this explanation for her threshold response (my note of the interpreter’s evidence. There may be some missing words):

At this point she repeated a further two times, that she had said this so that her younger children would not be taken away from her.

The mother does not believe [N] has been raped in the family home, so it was not true to state that she did believe the allegation.

The reason for putting this false statement forward is clear and obvious.

The parents are entitled to hold their own beliefs as to whether or not [N’s] allegations are true. It has been confusing and bewildering to them that the local authority’s approach has been that unless they believe that [N] has been anally raped by her brother, then they cannot be regarded as safe parents. This is the position articulated by SW1 in her evidence.

I accept the mother’s evidence that in these circumstances, and for fear of her younger children being taken away from her, she felt compelled to say in her response to threshold that she believed [N’s] allegation, even though she does not know by who.

I accept the mother’s evidence that in the months leading up to 3 December 2024 she did not notice anything out of the ordinary about [N] or her behaviour. She did not notice anything strange about the relationship between her and her brothers, nothing that would give an indication that anything was wrong. She recalled to me with a trace of a smile how the night before [N] was removed from her care, she had made a yoghurt and mint sauce, ‘which [M] was pouring repeatedly and [N] was saying “eat more eat more”, they were happy with each other.’

The father speaks more English than the mother, but was still assisted by an interpreter to ensure he understood each question and could express himself as he chose. As with the mother, the overwhelming impression I formed of the father was of bewilderment and incomprehension of what has happened to his family over the past ten months. He did not however speak with anger or negativity about [N]. He did not defend his sons’ interests before hers, but spoke of her fondly and affectionately as a much longed-for daughter, who he doted upon.

Like his wife, he too has responded to the allegation in the March threshold document that [N] has been raped. He replies that he accepts that this is what [N] has said, and this would have caused her significant emotional, psychological and sexual harm.

In a witness statement filed at the same time he wrote,

The paragraph concludes as follows:

In his oral evidence to the Court, the father told me that he does in fact believe it more likely than not that [N] has dreamt of an assault. I find that he felt compelled to say something different in his response to threshold and statement because, like his wife, he has come to understand that if he said that he believed [N’s] allegations, he would be seen by the local authority as being supportive of her, and there was a greater prospect of her returning home. Similarly, that this would reduce the risk that the younger boys might be removed from the home.

The father told me that he has not worked since his arrest. [N] has said a number of times that it was not her father and this information has been in the hands of the local authority as early as 4 December 2024, confirmed again by email of 31 December 2024. [N] said nothing at all in either of the VRIs to give any ground for suspicion that her father had sexually assaulted her at any time. The police confirmed after their VRI that they were not taking any further action with respect to [N’s] allegations and did not see a need to conduct a further interview.

In all the circumstances, it is bewildering that the local authority told the father on February 2025 that he remained in the frame so far as the Family Court was concerned, and that any consideration of him being supported to regain his taxi licence was premature until after this fact-find.

He has not been able to work for all this time, amassing significant financial liability which is causing untold stress.

Yet in the midst of all this, he and the mother continue to strive to meet the local authority’s expectations, in the hope of their family being reunited.

The revised schedule of findings sought is dated 15 July 2024.

It is pleaded that the relevant date for establishing threshold is 6 December 2024, the date upon which an emergency protection order was applied for by the applicant local authority.

I disagree. Following Re G, I am satisfied that the relevant date for establishing threshold was 3 December 2024, the date upon which protective measures were taken. In this case, those measures were the removal of [N] into foster care by the police pursuant to their power of Police Protection under section 46 of the Children Act 1989.

Paragraphs 2 and 3 rehearse the names of the parents and children.

It is pleaded that at the relevant date, and as a consequence of the matters set out in the schedule below:

If it is established to the standard of a balance or probabilities that [N] was raped in the home then a finding that she was caused significant harm as a result must follow.

The local authority has not pleaded with sufficient clarity in what way all the subject children were likely to suffer significant harm, from who, and how that harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to the care given to the children by the parents, or likely given to them. It has not set out in terms in what ways the parents’ care has fallen below the standard reasonably to be expected. However, I understand the local authority’s position to be that all these matters are set out in the following paragraphs of the document, and so proceed to consider each of them in turn.

My starting point is [N’s] voice. I have looked in detail at each of the separate accounts that [N] is recorded as having given on 3rd and 4th December. The very first accounts she is recorded as giving show her oscillating, interrogating whether what she thinks has happened to her was real or a dream. W1, who took the first note of her account, said in evidence that she appeared unsure and confused. His note from 3 December 2024 reads:

W1 took [N] to see W2 at about 12.45 p.m. While speaking to [N], she added to W1’s notes. After ‘felt somebody on me’, she added the words ‘behind her. laid on stomach. Pressing down on me.’ After, ‘can’t fully remember what happened’, W2 wrote, ‘man -penis – went into bottom’. There is then a further note, ‘didn’t see their face. Not sure – kind of had pain – can’t describe. Share room with 6 yo brother – separate beds’. In her oral evidence, W2 told me that [N] had said something similar to her about it being a dream. My note of her answer is, ‘she wasn’t sure if it was a dream or not - it could have been, but she wasn’t sure.’

W2 was then present when [N] spoke with W3 at about 2.55 p.m. W2 noted that [N] said she didn’t want it to happen, but it did happen so wasn’t a dream. There are no handwritten notes of this conversation, the summary is written up later.

At 4.45 p.m. [N] spoke with the police and is noted to have said, ‘a few days ago I was sexually assaulted. I think it was real but it also didn’t feel real. It felt like both at the same time.

Within that same conversation, when asked what happened for the rest of the day, she said, ‘No it felt weird, I felt confused. It felt like it didn’t happen but it did. I’m scared if I say it didn’t feel real people will think I’m lying.’ She was asked how did this end, and she is noted to have replied, ‘I don’t remember. I heard someone leaving the room.’

Dr I’s note of [N’s] account the next day, is, ‘child said it might be a dream, not sure if it happened.’ DrI gave evidence to the Court that it was unusual to receive an account of this kind. The notes of the strategy meeting later that day suggest that Dr I felt this was important to draw to the attention of the group, ‘[N] was constantly saying throughout the examination and questioning that she was not sure, not sure.’

The overwhelming impression of these accounts throughout the first day are of uncertainty, oscillation, and of [N] trying to grab hold of a feeling that she had experienced, and being very unsure of the explanation for it.

I take judicial notice that sexual abuse is often bewildering, because it transgresses everything that is normal for a child. But [N] is not presenting as a child who is trying to make sense of an extraordinary and confusing thing that has happened to her. She presents as a child grappling with whether something has happened to her at all.

The local authority asks me to find that [L] planted the idea of a dream in [N’s] mind.

[L] and [N] have both separately recounted that in August and in November, [N] woke up distressed, spoke to her brother and received the message from him that she had probably been dreaming, or overthinking.

Can I conclude from this that [N] was not expressing her own feelings about what she had experienced but was saying only what her brother had told her? It appears that the inference I am being asked to draw is that [L’s] explanation must have thrown [N] off course in some way or contaminated her account, polluting it with uncertainty.

It appears that the implication is that [L’s] explanation was not offered in good faith, that he had some vested interest in telling [N] that she was mistaken in what she had experienced. But [N] says that [L] was not really too interested.

[N] does have a history of having bad dreams. She has described that to her foster carer and to SW5.

[N] had, as her brother had said, been watching 18-rated films, some with graphic and violent content. Those included Squid Game, which I understand to have some sex and nudity in it, and to include extreme violence, gore, and severely frightening and intense scenes. She told SW5 that she had also watched a film called Silenced, which I understand to be a fictionalised account of real events that took place in South Korea, in a school for the deaf, where young deaf students were the victims of repeated sexual assaults by teachers.

On a balance of probabilities, it seems more likely than not that [L] offered this explanation because he believed [N] had been dreaming. He knew that she had bad dreams in the past. He knew that she had been watching horror movies and programmes with an 18 rating, and that she regularly had vivid and frightening dreams. There was no evidence of an intruder in the house on either occasion. In the circumstances, it is not an unsurprising conclusion for him to have reached.

SW1 suggested something different, that [N] was using the language of dreams as a way of tentatively testing out her allegation, and then, seeing that she was taken seriously, being able to repeat it with conviction. The difficulty with that analysis is:

Having regard to this evidence, I find it more likely than not that the reason [N] has repeatedly questioned whether or not she dreamed of a sexual assault or experienced it in real life is that this has been a genuine question in her mind.

[N’s] description of the alleged rape in November taking place in complete silence, and of her being asleep, then waking and then drifting back to sleep again, and of her little brother remaining soundly asleep throughout, is more consistent with a dream-like experience, than of the violent assault she has recounted.

The absence of any clear description of pain, either at the time or afterwards is also more consistent with a dreamt assault than what might be expected from a twelve year old experiencing anal rape, while being pinned down face down on a bed.

By the end of the day on 3 December, [N] had recounted these events a number of times. The evidence is unclear, but it appears that before that she had also talked to school friends about a rape, and she had told [L] in August. I have tried to describe in the summary of the judgment above the experiences that we can all have of memories in our minds being laid down in different ways, and then over time, particularly through repetition of stories about them, genuine confusion setting in as to whether that was a true memory and part of our experience, or something that has woven itself into our experience over time. The way in which real memories formed from our own experience can become confabulated with memories formed more externally, by watching television, seeing photographs of ourselves, hearing stories, or dreaming, is explained fully by Mr Justice Macdonald in Re P. In this case, there is evidence that [N] watched television that appeared to be laying down vivid imprints in her mind, and that she had bad dreams. It is not unrealistic to consider that the number of conversations she had about her allegations during the course of 3 and 4 December, prior to that and subsequently has formed part of a process in which the distinction between a memory of real or dreamed experience has become confused.

Paragraph 2.5 of the ABE guidelines says the following about initial questioning:

[N’s] teachers explained why it was that there were so many different conversations; essentially, as understanding developed of the nature of the allegation, the situation was escalated from a deputy to the senior safeguarding lead, then there was the question of involving the police, and questions of assessment of whether or not it was safe for [N] to go home. However, whatever the intention, the outcome has been that [N] had a number of conversations over a number of hours during that first day, where [N] was asked to repeat what she had said, and there was an element of ‘reflecting back’ to her some of what she had said.

Dr I’s medical examination did not provide any evidence to corroborate the allegation. It is acknowledged that she was not able to exclude the possibility of sexual assault. Her contribution to the strategy meeting is perhaps notable, emphasising that [N] was not sure. There is no other evidence to provide corroboration of [N’s] account, either of a rape having taken place at all, or of its aftermath.

By the time [N] came to give the video recorded interview to the police on 14 January 2025, it was five weeks after the alleged assault in November and four months after the alleged assault in August. [N] would not have had the same level of recall as she would have done within days of the alleged incident. Because she had given such scant detail at the first opportunity, there must be a question as to how any further details provided would have come into her mind in the intervening period.

It is right to note that [N] did not say during that interview that she thought she might have dreamt the November assault. But I must be cautious about how I interpret that evidence, given the delay. [N] will both have had time to ruminate further on what she has said, and will have had the opportunity to speak to others about it. There is a risk that this will have impacted what she said in the interview in January.

One example of this is seen in the record of the conversation between [N] and her foster carer on 28 December 2024. [N] is once again noted to be questioning the reality of what she thinks she experienced:

Despite her brother’s prompt and her saying out loud I knew it wasn’t a dream, she immediately then interrogates her own statement, by saying, ‘but it felt unreal it felt weird’. So she knew it wasn’t a dream, but to her it still felt like it was a dream. There is a direct conflict between what her brain is telling her she knew, and what her memory or her senses were telling her she felt.

The foster carer noted her own response to be as follows: ‘I said you are such a deep sleeper I can understand that someone could come into your room and not wake you straight away. She is clear it was not a dream.’

No doubt this statement was intended to reassure and settle [N]. However, there is a clear risk that it could operate to provide [N] with an explanation that resolved her uncertainty; it introduces the idea to her that she is a deep sleeper, that someone could well have come into her room and she would not have woken up. It seems to have taken [N] to a place of greater clarity; ‘it was not a dream’. This is a significant shift from her first account.

The first VRI interview was conducted carefully and sensitively by DC1. [N] is given every opportunity to give her own account, is not led or prompted into her answers. [N] did not mention anything about the ‘rape’ perhaps having been a dream. However, the interview did not result in [N] giving a clear account of an assault. She did not identify a perpetrator. She did not mention the alleged previous incident in August. She does not give any details of what she felt, or saw or heard, before, during, or after the alleged assault.

I have reviewed the video and the transcript of the second ABE interview. SW5 was placed in a difficult position by the nature of her instructions. She did her level best to conduct an interview in line with ABE guidance, but in many ways her efforts were undermined by matters out of her control.

Before any questions were asked, there was the potential for [N’s] answers to be affected by her understanding that she needed to give another interview to fill gaps from the first one. There is a clear risk that she would have understood that her first answers were not good enough, and needed to be improved upon. As the interview wore on, [N] apologised a number of times for the answers she gave, or was not able to give, suggesting that she did indeed feel some responsibility to perform.

In those circumstances, I must be cautious about the weight that I place on this interview.

[N] was visibly tired, losing concentration and easily distracted. She asked a number of times how long she had to be there.

She was not able to recall any details about how the alleged assault had felt, whether it had been painful or not, and if so in what way. She was asked a number of questions about this, but was not able to describe any detail of her experience.

[N] gave many more details to SW5 than she had before, but many of these details did not make sense, or contradicted earlier accounts.

For example, when she spoke to her teachers, she was adamant that her father was not in the house at the time and that she heard him go out. The impression is that was the first thing that she heard. But in response to SW5 asking her about what happened after the alleged assault, she gives a detailed explanation of staying in her bed for a while, looking at her tablet, then hearing her father snoring, seeing him get up and go to the bathroom. This would suggest he was in the house after all.

[N] told W1 that she and her brother [O] slept in the same room but in separate beds. When she spoke to the police later that day she said it was one bed, but with two mattresses. In fact the bed has just one double mattress.

[N] told the police on 3 December 2024 that she could not remember what she was wearing. She told Dr I her trousers had been pulled down. When speaking to SW5 about the August allegation she first said that she had clothes on but could not remember what, then that the thinks she had a black velvet nightgown and nothing else, then she says she also had black velvet trousers on. SW5 explores with her whether she could have been assaulted while fully clothed, [N] says, ‘I think they pulled down trousers’. She says then she had underwear on too, and reasons, ‘I think that was pulled down. I don’t remember I’m sorry.’

She said to SW5 when her brother told her it must have been a dream, she felt ‘disgusted’. However, this was an entirely new feeling that she had never expressed before, and was not in keeping with her presentation on 3 and 4 December.

[N] initially said the first assault was in August, but told SW5 it was July. A note of a long conversation with her social worker in June 2025 records that she told her that she had told her school friends in primary school that she had been raped, that their response had been the same as [L’s] that it was likely a dream. When questioned how she could have had this conversation at school if the incident happened in August, [N] is reported as saying that it must have been June or July. The notes record that at this point things got a bit awkward, and [N] was no longer interested in talking about her allegation.

At first she was clear that the assault took place by means of a penis penetrating her anus. Later she was not clear whether it was a penis or a finger.

So far as identification of any potential perpetrator is concerned, the evidence has been scant from the outset. [N’s] initial description to W1 was of a ‘man’ carrying out the assault, but on that same day she was ‘very adamant’ it was not her father. Both [L] and [M] are boys, slight in build.

[N] has maintained that she did not see the face of her alleged attacker. She said that she did not know who it was.

[N] did eventually name her brother [M] as the perpetrator in June 2025 to her foster carer. The note of the conversation is a summary not a verbatim account. It does appear that rather than revealing knowledge that she had held throughout, she has worked out that it must have been her brother [M]. She says it must be him because there were times he had come into her room uninvited, for example when she was having her Quran lessons there. That is not convincing evidence that he was in her room at 6am on Saturday 30 November 2024 and carrying out a violent rape. There remains no explanation as to how she knew [M] was her attacker if she did not see his face.

[M] has learning disabilities. He looks to be a young fourteen year old on the VRI, and his working and processing age is said to be equivalent to an eight or nine year old boy. There is no evidence before this Court from [M’s] parents, from [N], from school or the local authority, to suggest that [M] has displayed any kind of sexually inappropriate behaviour within the household, at school, or anywhere else, at any time before these allegations were made or since.

Apart from the bad dreams described by [L], [N] did not demonstrate any emotional or behavioural difficulties that were picked up on by either her family or anyone at her school between August and December of 2024. There had been a concern about self-harming and her emotional well-being towards the end of her last year at primary school, which were connected to friendship issues. There were some similar concerns reaching back a year or two previously. The evidence is that over the summer holidays she had a nice time with her family and was feeling much better in herself, such that the referral for the ‘worry’ sessions was cancelled. She was said to have settled well into her first term at secondary school. She got on well with her brothers, they all speak fondly of one another, and there is no evidence of animosity between them, let alone of [N] being scared of them. When she had a conversation with her foster carer about seeing her brothers, [N] apparently acted with surprise to be told that she had made an allegation of ‘abuse’ against them. She is reported to have said, they didn’t hit me.

The alternative to [N] having dreamed the assault, is that her fourteen year old brother, slight in build, has entered her bedroom first thing in the morning, climbed on top of her, pulled her clothes down, pinned her down, and anally raped her, on two separate occasions four months apart. There is no evidence that he has ever shown any tendency or desire to exert physical strength over her or anyone else. There is no evidence that he has shown hostility towards her. There is no evidence that he has exhibited any kind of sexualised behaviour.

It is improbable that these assaults took place in the house without anyone else noticing, in particular, [N’s] younger brother who she says was in the room with her at the time of the November assault. It is highly unlikely that such an assault could have taken place in complete silence.

It is improbable that [N] could be subject to the violent assault that she has described; being pinned down on the bed face down, and anally raped, and confuse this with a dream. The suggestion from [J], that this could have happened while [N] remained asleep, is improbable.

If such violent assaults had taken place, it is highly unlikely that they would not have caused immediate and very noticeable pain, not the kind of pain that is forgotten, that one is equivocal about, or unable to recall.

Against all of this, we are left with [N’s] repeated accounts, maintained over a period of time, that she was indeed sexually assaulted within the home. It was said a number of times that she has been consistent, and that she has persisted in her allegation.

However, once a closer analysis is carried out, there is in fact little consistency in the accounts. She has said a number of times that she thought it was real, that it definitely was not a dream, but there has never been a consistent core narrative about what actually happened. The narrative has shifted and developed. There is scant detail and no context. I find that the local authority’s choice to ‘believe’ [N’s] allegations, has led to selective listening. There has been a tendency to place weight only on those parts of what she says that are consistent with her having suffered the sexual abuse she described, to suppress those parts of what she says that do not align with that view, to explain away inconsistencies, or to ignore them altogether.

I have considered each piece of the evidence in the context of the whole and considered the weight to be given to that evidence. Having regard to all that I have heard and read, I cannot conclude that it is more likely than not that [N] was anally raped in August 2024 or in November 2024.

As I have set out in the summary, I make clear that I have not made any finding that [N] has deliberately lied. To the contrary, I find that she is more likely to have been wrestling with the question of what is the truth, than to be constructing lies. She has not wanted to get her brothers into trouble. She has been hesitant to say things that she knows not to be true. She was annoyed when she felt that the local authority had not listened to her about saying her dad did not and could not have assaulted her. She has presented as profoundly unsure about what happened to her. I find that the very process of enquiry, repetition and investigation has likely not helped. I cannot give her a clear explanation for what she felt she experienced. What I can say is that following thorough investigation it has not been established that she was raped.

The local authority has not established to the requisite standard of proof that this allegation is proved.

This allegation is not proved because the local authority has not established that [N] was raped by anyone, let alone her brother.

This allegation adds detail to what has gone before, and presumably is there in order to intimate that the parents’ presence in the home at the time of the alleged rape is a signal of some responsibility on their part. But I do not have to explore how or whether this pleading satisfies Re A, because it is not proved.

This statement fails to set out what the specific risks of sexual harm were faced by [N] and by her siblings (or which of those siblings), and what the parents should or should not have done in order to adequately protect them from sexual harm. It is not proved.

Having regard to all the evidence I have heard and read, I do not find this allegation proved to the requisite standard.

The mother was told about [N’s] allegations in conversation with SW2 and SW3 on 4 December 2024, so the day after protective measures were taken. The father found out in the very early hours of 4 December 2024, again, after [N] was taken into foster care.

Assisted by an interpreter, the mother engaged in conversation with them, told them about her sons and her husband, and shared with them her view that it was unimaginable to her that, knowing them as she did, they could have carried out such an assault. She gave her consent for [N] to have a medical examination. She then became somewhat overwhelmed, was hyperventilating and physically sick. In my judgment none of this suggests that she was ‘dismissive’ of the local authority’s allegations.

These parents had raised two sons to the age of fourteen and fifteen. They had been raised to share in and respect the values of the family, its culture and religion. The parents knew their sons to love them, to love their siblings and in general to be happy. There is no evidence that either of these children had showed any kind of tendency towards violence, let alone sexual violence of the kind described. The local authority has not set out in its evidence what it was about the circumstances that existed that meant the parents should have found themselves in a position to contemplate the possibility that their daughter had been anally raped by one of their sons.

The father is of a devout Muslim [Country Z] background, to whom the sexual abuse of his daughter by a family member is deeply horrific and shameful. He gave evidence that he could not contemplate that one of his children had anally raped another. He himself had been arrested on suspicion of a rape that he knew he had not committed. It is not perhaps surprising therefore that he found himself reacting to the suggestion that either of his sons had perpetrated such an act with disbelief. The police told him in interview that [N] may have dreamt the abuse and was not sure if it really happened. [L] then told the father of his conversations with [N] and of his firm belief that she had dreamed of an assault, not experienced it in real life. In all the circumstances, it cannot be said that the father has simply dismissed [N’s] allegations out of hand. The terms in which he wrote his witness statement suggest he has tried hard to wrap his head around the idea that they may be true.

The local authority has not established that the parents’ response fell below what one might reasonably expect from a parent. The local authority has not established that their response to the allegations in the day or so after [N] was removed to foster care means that she or any of the children were at risk of harm as a result of the parenting they were likely to receive from their parents at the time protective measures were taken.

I find that the mother did say on 4 December 2024 when confronted with [N’s] allegations, that she did not believe she had been harmed by anyone in her family. I find that this was the mother’s genuine response. [N] was not there to hear her say this, so cannot have been harmed by it.

The pleading is misleading because the wording, ‘she later attributed [N’s] allegations to a bad dream’ implies that it was the mother who came up with this theory. In fact, we know that [N] said from the outset and repeated a number of times that she did not know whether or not she had dreamed an assault or experienced it. It is not unreasonable for the parents to have entertained this as an explanation for [N’s] allegations.

The local authority has failed to set out in its pleading why it is that the mother’s or father’s stated beliefs fell below what would reasonably be expected of a parent, or why it caused significant harm or put [N] at risk of significant harm.

No date is given, but the father’s bail conditions were imposed after the date that protective measures were taken in respect of [N].

The police allowed the father to return to the family home. His bail conditions precluded him having contact with [N], but she was living with her foster carer. He was permitted to have contact with his other children, but it had to be supervised. The mother was an appropriate supervisor.

There is no evidence that the father breached his bail conditions. It has been asserted that the mother and father threatened to breach them, but I have not seen any evidence to substantiate that. The emails sent by the local authority to the police were unhelpful, prejudicial to the parents, and not based on evidence. If a professional has personally formed a negative impression of a parent they must keep it to themselves unless and until they have evidence to justify a real concern.

The mother did allow the father to return to the family home, but he was entitled to be there. There was no risk to [N].

For all these reasons, allegation 11 cannot be proved.

This version of the threshold document was filed in July 2025 at which time the local authority was no longer alleging that the father was in the pool of potential perpetrators for sexual abuse. In the circumstances, why should the mother have required the father to leave the family home? What was the risk to [N], or to any of the children? When is she supposed to have required him to leave? Not before the time that protective measures were taken.

The allegation is misconceived and is not proved in any event.

Once again, the events that are pleaded arose after the time that protective measures were taken.

It was not put to the mother that she refused to supervise the father’s contact with the two youngest children, and I have not been taken to any evidence to substantiate this assertion.

It is not clear who suspected the father of perpetrating anal rape against [N] at that time as the strategy notes recorded that he could be ‘ruled out’.

Again, the allegation is misconceived, and is not proved.

In her evidence SW1 confirmed that the only visit that was attempted with the father was a home visit on 5 December 2024. She confirmed that both she and her colleague were invited in to the house and spoke with both parents. SW2 and SW3 visited the mother at home on 4 December 2024.

Thereafter, times and dates were not put to either of the parents in cross-examination and I was not taken to any case note, statement or other document to evidence that the parents had at any time refused to speak to the social worker.

The local authority would need to establish that a refusal to speak to the social worker, whether once, twice or more, either caused the children significant harm or put them at risk of significant harm. They would then need to establish that this was not just a one off event during the proceedings, but that it demonstrated a tendency in the parents to refuse to co-operate, which existed at the time protective measures were taken, thereby satisfying the threshold test.

The pleading is wholly inadequate, is unfair to the parents and cannot be established as a basis for crossing threshold.

Again the pleading fails on timing.

Again, the local authority did not put to the mother in cross-examination when it was that she was presented with a safety plan, and that she refused to sign it, whether once or repeatedly, as is alleged.

There is in fact a signed safety plan in the bundle.

The local authority has not established the harm or risk of harm this caused to any of the children, nor that, if the mother did refuse to sign the safety plan, the mother’s refusal to do so was unreasonable, and fell below the standard expected of her.

As Miss Savvides, submits, the parents are of course entitled to refuse to give their consent to a child of theirs being accommodated under section 20. If parliament had intended to equate refusal to agree to causing significant harm, it would have said so.

SW1 gave evidence that the purpose of the visit on 5 December was to discuss [N] returning home, rather than seeking the parents’ consent for her to remain in foster care. She said that given the difficulties in the conversation, she did not get the chance to explain to the parents what section 20 was, and did not ask the father to sign a section 20 consent form.

The mother did not give her consent to [N’s] accommodation in foster care when it was raised with her on 4 December, because her husband was not there, she did not have a copy of the agreement translated into  [language redacted], the interpreter was on the phone, and she had just been informed of an intensely shocking set of circumstances.

Even if this were to be classified as a ‘refusal’, it is hard to see that this fell below the standard that might reasonably be expected of a parent. It arose after the relevant date.

This allegation should not have been pleaded, and is not proved.

Again, this allegation does not give details of times or dates or in what ways the parents are said to have refused to supply details. The local authority has not established that the parents did in fact have family members that they could put forward. This was not put to the parents in cross-examination.

The father’s cousin did attend the police interviews of [L] and [M] and went to some meetings with social workers.

Mr Leong submits on behalf of the father that the local authority’s pursuit of this finding is characteristic of its lack of understanding of the cultural environment and background of this family. He submits that in all the circumstances it is entirely unsurprising and reasonable that parents of this background may be reticent about involving wider family members in proceedings involving allegations of this nature. I accept the submissions made.

The local authority has not pleaded or proved how this is said to have caused significant harm or put any of their children at risk of significant harm.

Again, the local authority has not pleaded the date, the time, the specifics of the conversation (or conversations) and this was not put to the mother in cross-examination.

On any view this has arisen a long time after protective measures were first taken. Contact has been difficult; [N] is a long way from home, she has been seeing her parents infrequently and has not seen her older brothers at all. In all the circumstances, her parents appear to have done extremely well at trying to make contact a positive experience for [N]. It is not surprising that at times [N] has felt upset and tearful after contact. It may even be that sometimes the mother has inadvertently said something that made [N] feel sad, for example that they miss her and would like her to come home. That is a long way from a finding that she is being placed under pressure.

This allegation cannot succeed.

It may be said that there was no need for me to go through each of the allegations of failure to protect, as the local authority submitted that without a finding of sexual assault, the allegations of failure to protect would fall away.

Having examined each of the pleadings, I am of the view that none of them would have been made out even if the allegations of sexual abuse had been proved. None of them is Re A compliant, and all has the characteristic of a ‘bolt-on’ pleading, which seeks to place blame on the parents for matters which were out of their control, which arose after the time protective measures were taken, which did not specify the link to harm caused, nor explain why the parents fell below the standard to be reasonably expected of them in all the circumstances.

I understand that in anticipation of the Court finding that the threshold findings are not made, the local authority has considered the steps that would need to be taken to restore [N] home.

I will write a letter to [N] and to her siblings, broadly in terms of the summary at the start of this judgment.

The final order will record clearly that the father was not in the pool of perpetrators, that the police decided in February 2025 to take no further action in its investigation, that he is not subject to bail conditions, and has not been since February 2025. The order will recite [N] did not name him as a potential perpetrator, that the local authority sought no findings against him, and that the Court has made no findings that he has harmed any of his children or failed to protect them in any way. I will give permission for a copy of that order to go to the taxi licencing authorities. I hope that his work permit may be restored to him as soon as possible.

I wish the parents and all of their children the best for the future.