C (A boy), Re

This case is about C, a boy. He was joined as a party to these proceedings by DDJ Greenfield on 27.10.2023 and is represented before me by his guardian, Graeme Allison, who instructs Naomi Madderson KC.

C’s mother is M. She applies for an order that C live with her. She is represented by Natalie Dean.

C’s father is F. He applies for an order that he spend time with C. Within proceedings he has been subject to a cognitive assessment by Dr Cant, dated 20.3.2024. This gave him a FSIQ of 62 which placed him in ‘the range associated with a significant learning difficulty’. Various skills, including his language skills, were assessed as being in the ‘extremely low’ range. He is also subject to an Intermediary report, dated 19.6.2024 which recommended that he have an intermediary and made recommendations with respect to his participation. He is represented by Helal Ahmed. He has the assistance of an intermediary, Ms Fatima and there have been Ground Rules, including regular breaks, that have been complied with. When it came to him giving evidence the Ground Rules required that questions be submitted in advance to the intermediary. This was complied with. He gave his answers at such a low volume that I had to ask his intermediary to repeat them so that the court could hear and they could be picked up for the recording. As soon as Ms Dean for the mother, tried to show him some relevant video evidence, he refused to answer her. Mr Ahmed suggested that, with the court’s approval, his client might answer the questions (which were already written out) if he asked them of his own client. Having heard brief submissions from all parties, I allowed that arrangement and F did generally answer questions put to him by Mr Ahmed, albeit usually with a one or two-word answer. He was given breaks whenever requested and allowed to remain outside of court at various points. I am satisfied that he has had a fair hearing.

This is my Judgment, handed down following a Finding of Fact hearing that took place over non-consecutive days. I heard evidence on the 10-12, 24 and 25 June and submissions on the 26 June. Today is the 30 June 2025.

The parents were in a relationship from 2014 until 2018 when C was two years old. At that point the mother moved out of the family home and C remained living with his father. It is agreed between the parents that she initially had limited, ad hoc, contact with C but over time this crystalised into a more regular pattern of C spending alternate weekends with his mother (one weekend) and paternal grandmother (the next) and the weekdays with his father. F was, on any view, the primary carer.

There were ongoing concerns about the standard of care F afforded his son, raised by his own mother, PGM, and C’s school. In particular, C was frequently late to school and often appeared tired, unkempt or hungry.

On the 20 December 2022, which was a Tuesday, C told his class teacher, D, that his father had touched him in between the legs. That triggered both social care and police involvement. The mother exercised her parental responsibility and C has lived in her care since that date.

The father applied for a child arrangements order (CAO) to spend time with C on 20.4.2023, well over 2 years ago. On 26.6.2023 and therefore also over 2 years ago, the mother applied for a CAO that C live with her and a PSO to prevent his removal.

On 3.7.2023 DDJ Osborne consolidated proceedings, making the mother’s application the lead, by virtue of which she is ‘the applicant’.

These proceedings have an extraordinarily protracted history. They have been case-managed by a variety of District Judges and Deputy DJs. More recently they were allocated to HHJ Cooper. They were listed for FOF before him in January of this year however due to ongoing and repeated problems with disclosure that hearing was ineffective. HHJ Cooper was then approaching retirement and it was in those circumstances that the case came to be listed before me on the first 7 days that I had available; that being the length of time that the court had determined the case required.

The case is listed for a fact-finding hearing to determine various allegations that the mother pursues against the father. The guardian supports the making of the findings sought. Those findings, although particularised in a schedule within the PDF bundle, can be broken down into 3 headings:

Some of F’s behaviours are captured in a series of 26 videos which he took whilst C was in his care and sent to the mother (apparently with the intention of showing examples of C’s poor behaviour, which the father complained of at the time but which others, including the mother and school, did not observe). In a response to a previously drafted threshold, filed prior to the videos becoming part of the evidence, F denied being verbally abusive towards C. Following the introduction of the videos – which contain multiple examples of the father swearing, berating and shouting at C – F accepted the factual content of the videos but disputed any intention to cause harm (and did not, in fact, concede that any harm was caused). As the fact finding developed, F finally accepted that his words to C will have caused emotional harm. In submissions, he conceded they could amount to emotional abuse. All other aspects of the schedule were and remain denied.

I have to determine whether, and to what extent, C has been caused emotional and psychological harm beyond the words spoken to him by his father and captured on video; whether the father has caused C physical harm; and whether the father has caused C sexual harm, in particular by touching him inappropriately between the legs prior to the 20.12.2022.

The following legal principles, relating to the fact-finding exercise are well known and uncontroversial. They are drawn from paragraphs 46-53 of the case of Re L and M (children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam), a decision of Baker J as he then was. I have modified them to reflect the fact that these are private rather than public law proceedings.

My numbering differs slightly to Baker J’s, as I have left out points that relate to medical evidence and non-accidental injury.

At all times I have had firmly in mind that F does not assume any burden of proof; he does not need to explain C’s allegations.

I have also considered the following with respect to ABE interviews, drawn from the case of Re JB (A Child) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2021] EWCA Civ 46, at paragraph 11 of Baker LJ’s Judgment, limiting myself to those parts which are most relevant to the case before me:

I have reminded myself of the following, further principles from the ABE guidelines (Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Guidance on Using Special Measures; January 2022):

In Re S (A Child: Findings of Fact) [2023] EWCA Civ 346, Peter Jackson LJ said, at paragraph 33, in the context of an allegation of sexual abuse by a 6/7 year old child, K:

In closing submissions on behalf of the child I have been reminded of the observation of Sir Mark Hedley in Re AA (Children) and 25 Others[2019] EWFC 64, where at paragraph 216 he said:

I have borne in mind that due to the delay in reaching this fact-finding hearing I was hearing from some witnesses up to 2 ½ years after events they were telling me about. I have therefore taken into account that their memories will have faded or, in line with the process described by Legatt J, as he then was, altered with the passage of time: Gestmin SGPS SA v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd and Another [2013] EWHC (Comm).

All parties accept that whilst there are discrete findings sought by M, it is open to me to make whatever finding are properly borne out by the evidence I have seen and heard.

There is a 903 page PDF bundle, of which I have read all the evidential statements and reports as well as all other documents that have been referred to in evidence. There is a supplemental bundle running to a further 10 pages (comprising documents that were filed after the hearing had begun) and further statements from the paternal grandmother and father; I have read all of those. There are 26 videos created by the father but produced as exhibits by the mother; I have viewed them multiple times. There is a video of the ABE interview of C which I have watched more than once. (For the avoidance of doubt, I have not watched video recordings of the father’s police interviews, nor did anyone invite me to; I have read the transcripts).

I heard evidence from the following witnesses:

At the conclusion of the evidence, on the 26.6.2025 I heard detailed submissions on behalf of all parties.

I am not required to rehearse all the evidence or submissions that I have heard, read and seen. Rather I focus on those elements of the evidence and submissions that have assisted me in making findings or which I otherwise consider it necessary to address.

The starting point for my analysis of the evidence is the set of 26 videos made by F of C. These were all taken prior to C’s allegations, and at a time when C remained in his father’s primary care. They were sent to M, apparently to evidence C’s poor behaviour. They did not come to light within these proceedings until November 2024, more than a year after proceedings commenced. The mother filed a statement, dated 25.11.2024, to produce the videos and explain their late disclosure. Within that statement she sets out that the father frequently sent her videos to evidence C’s behaviours and that they had remained ignored by her until just prior to a court hearing in November 2024, at which point she had opened them and realised their potential significance. That explanation was not challenged in court and in any event is likely to be true because it is inconceivable that anyone in the mother’s position, who was aware of the contents of the videos, would have failed to disclose them: they are supportive of her case. Before I turn to specific contents of those videos I make two preliminary observations:

The videos are all short, and the total time amounts to between 10 and 15 minutes. According to the mother’s statement they were all sent between July 2021 and January 2022 and C can have been no older than 5 in any of them. The following is a thematic consideration of them, rather than a blow-by-blow account of each of them; that said, I do break down some of the more significant individual videos. They evidence:

Overall, I found the videos deeply uncomfortable and frequently upsetting viewing. In some of them – in particular, videos 15, 16 and 18 – I formed the clear view that F was getting a kick out of his son’s sexually inappropriate behaviour.

Mr Ahmed asked a number of witnesses about C’s sexualised behaviours in school. It is clear that he did demonstrate such behaviours. Having viewed the videos that is of no surprise to me. C was passively and on occasions, in my judgment, actively encouraged to display such behaviours at home. As SP3, who was an excellent witness said, albeit in a slightly more general context, ‘he [F] is only seeing the behaviour that he is showing; we are here to model what we want to see from our children.’

All parties accept that it is open to me to make whatever findings are properly borne out by the evidence. The findings I make, based on my viewing of the videos are these:

With respect to the weight that I have placed on the videos, I made it clear near the outset of the hearing that I found them of significance. For his part Mr Ahmed accepted that the videos were not challenged and would be dealt with in submissions. In his submissions he did not seek to mitigate to any great extent what was seen in those videos. As for F, he refused to watch them in court. He was asked questions about them, having been given a description of what was seen in them. He has been given every fair opportunity to explain their content and has not done so in any adequate sense.

I have set out above significant findings of sexual harm based on the videos. The mother seeks specific, and separate, findings that the father has sexually harmed C by touching him in between the legs and rubbing his mouth on his. (At the close of the case she confirmed that she no longer sought a separate finding of sexual harm by kissing on the lips).

C’s allegation that his father touched him between the legs was first made to SP3 on the 20.12.2022, 2 ½ years ago. She is one witness who appears to have understood the significance of accurately recording dialogue with a child who is making allegations; that is all the more to her credit given that she, unlike the social worker and police officer, is unlikely to have received ABE training.

SP3’s written evidence said that on the morning of 20.12.2022 she checked in with C as he appeared very tired. Her witness statement suggests that that this was around midday and the corresponding CPOMs entry was made at 12.16 pm, but she was clear in her oral evidence that it was a discussion that occurred at around 9 or 9.15 in the morning. Nothing turns on the precise timing in my judgment. She set out the following discussion which she told me in her oral evidence was a verbatim note made immediately following the conversation (later entered word-for-word into CPOMS, with the original note being destroyed, as per standard practice):

Both PGM and F told me in evidence that there was no reason they were aware of for C to make this allegation up; there had been no fall out, for example. F accepts as a matter of fact that he shared a bed with C the previous evening. He says this was because he (F) was unwell and it was common for him to have C in his bed when he was not feeling well. The account given to SP3 whilst limited was freely given and there are no leading questions; nor realistically could there have been because it was clear SP3 was not anticipating this explanation for C’s tiredness. SP3 told me that C gave this explanation in a matter-of-fact manner and without apparent distress. She was a good witness and I accept her evidence.

Mr Ahmed has drawn attention to a social care note, prepared by SW1dated 7 February 2023, shortly after she was allocated to the case. In that note, under the heading ‘I have a social worker because?’ she has written ‘My school reported that I used age inappropriate language at school. I was calling other children words like ‘dick’ and ‘penis’. When I was asked about it I told teachers that my dad touched my private and he would kiss me’. I have cause to comment elsewhere in this Judgment about the poverty of SW1’s notetaking, and her eliding of separate information/occasions together. She told me that that is what she had done on this occasion: the challenge about inappropriate language and the allegation that his father had touched him were two separate things on separate occasions (notwithstanding the way SW1recorded it). There is no other record to suggest that C’s allegation arose out of the school challenging him about inappropriate language. There are records to confirm that that was an issue in school more generally. In the videos that I have referred to, C clearly uses inappropriate and sexualised language; that behaviour was encouraged and modelled by his father. However, I do not find that C’s allegation was made because he was challenged about this issue on the 20.12.2022. I accept SP3’s account of the circumstances in which the allegation was first made.

After the 20.12.2022, the investigation into C’s allegation has been blighted by poor professional practice.

The first social worker to speak to C, was SWa. He has since left the employment of the local authority and for a long time could not be located. Following a disclosure order against Social Work England he produced a statement on 27.5.2025 confirming that he had no recollection of working with C; had left the local authority in February of 2023; and would not be available to give evidence (at least across the first 3 days of the hearing). There was no application to require him to attend court on behalf of any party. The court is reliant on his social work notes. He met C at home on the 22.12.22, 2 days after his allegation to the school for an initial meeting. He did record C’s demeanour (relaxed and happy) and that he spoke to C alone. He does not record the questions asked (beyond the general ‘when I asked C how things were going’). He does, however, set out in quotation marks C’s words, ‘Dad was touching me on my privates and he pulled my hair. I told him to stop and he wouldn’t. I went to school and told my teacher. I was sad and angry’. He records C saying, ‘I feel safe with my mum and my nana, but not with my dad.’ He says, ‘C also said it was only once when his father had touched his privates’ and observes that ‘C was clear and consistent and confident when he spoke to me’.

Of note, there are some additional details in this account: asking his dad to stop; his dad pulling his hair. I don’t treat that as being an embellishment of the account. SP3 was simply asking for an explanation as to why C was tired – which he gave. It is unsurprising that C might give slightly more detail, in his home environment, and on a second telling. The core of his allegation – that his father touched his privates and that he told his school the following morning – is the same.

SWa was also part of the joint s47 visit with the police on the 23 December 2022. The social work note of that visit appears to record no more than, ‘Police attended to interview C who maintained his story’. There is no record of any planning (and the evidence of DC P would suggest that none took place). There is no effort to record any questions asked. There is no effort to record any words spoken by the child. This was a crucial visit and I am unassisted, by this note, as to what C said, beyond the proposition that he ‘maintained’ his account.

DC P told me that he was ABE trained. Notwithstanding his training, he appeared to have a poor grasp of fundamental elements of the ABE process. He had no recollection of who asked questions or what those questions were. He disputed that it was important that someone keep a verbatim note of questions asked and answers given in an initial meeting with a child, telling me that ‘my belief is that once [the meeting] is finished [a] summary suffices’. That clearly goes against the ABE guidelines. His reassurance that any question he asked would have been an open question, because ‘that is the sort of question I ask’ was therefore meaningless: if I cannot be sure that he has understood such a fundamental aspect of the guidelines, how can I be sure that he understood the difference between a closed and open question. That is precisely why questions need to be written down. He told me that his witness statement, which records that C ‘stated that “DADDY” had “TOUCHED ME IN THE PRIVATE AREA” and he confirmed that this is “WHERE YOU WEE FROM”’, in fact represented answers to 3 separate, unrecorded questions, from a person or people unidentified, those questions and answers being conflated into the summary set out by the officer. That simply serves to emphasise the importance of accurately recording questions and answers. He had no recollection, and no note, of C’s demeanour when giving answers.

It is then relatively clear that C retracted his allegation, although the circumstances of the retraction are less clear and, with respect to any retraction to a professional, poorly recorded.

The first recorded retraction was to his paternal grandmother, PGM. C continued to spend time with his grandmother (initially) after the allegations had been made. PGM is confused and wrong with respect to the timing of C’s allegation. In her oral evidence she was convinced it happened on a Friday, the last day of term. The 20^th of December was a Tuesday in 2022. Furthermore, in her written statement she says that the allegation was made to the school on the 22^nd December and that C had been in his mother’s care up to ‘Thursday 21^st December’. Those days and dates are incorrect: the 21^st December 2022 was not a Thursday. She says that on 31 December, New Year’s Eve, C came to stay with her and her husband. Her written statement says,

In oral evidence, PGM said that she had not referred specifically to C’s allegations, or any aspect of them; she had simply told him that he ‘must tell the truth whether it happened or not’. Accordingly, it is not entirely clear what C, then still aged 6, and 11 days after his initial allegation, would have understood she was referring to. Her written evidence (confirmed in her oral evidence) is clear that there was no straightforward retraction at that stage: C flitted between ‘it did’ and ‘it didn’t’ happen, with again no indication of precisely what he was referring to or, perhaps, which bits did and didn’t happen. In cross-examination she accepted that for a trusted adult to tell a six year old child that they ‘must tell the truth’ about something which they have already told people had happened, might well be taken as an indication that the adult does not believe them that it did. She fairly conceded that if C formed the view that she didn’t believe him it might not be surprising, given their close relationship, if he went on to tell her what he thought she wanted to hear: i.e. that ‘it’ didn’t happen. Furthermore, in my judgment, C was presented with an unhelpful choice by her phrasing, which was ‘tell the truth’ or daddy will get into serious trouble. C clearly loved and loves his father and the way his grandmother put this will inevitably have planted in C’s mind that his current account was likely to get his father into ‘serious trouble’. PGM’s oral evidence was also confused (and confusing) and at odds with the plain meaning of her written evidence insofar as she insisted that there were in fact two separate conversations with C and the one in which he said ‘Santa’ told him to say it occurred on a separate, unidentified, occasion.

M’s evidence was that she could not recall the conversation with C, in the presence of PGM, where he was reported to have told her that he had lied about the allegations. Although her memory generally appeared poor, and I have already set out that I did not find her to be a very sophisticated witness, that is a remarkable detail to be unable to remember. She said she ‘would’ have told social workers if there had been a retraction, and there is no record of her having done so. But in cross examination by Mr Ahmed, she said that the retraction by C ‘might have happened. I can’t remember, it is over 2 years ago’.

During the fact-finding hearing, those representing the father sought permission, which I granted, to file a further witness statement from PGM. This was prior to her giving oral evidence. In that witness statement she claimed, for the first time, that when she was driving C back to his mother’s house C asked if they could go to the soft play area. She said no as they were going back to his mother’s house. Her statement says, ‘C then said to me “I will tell the mister that you did it as well and get you into trouble”’. She said she didn’t think she had told the mother about this conversation. However, she claimed that she ‘believed’ she had told F’s solicitor during a meeting with him in preparation for her first statement. F’s solicitor thoroughly checked his notes and confirmed there was no record of this potentially key information being shared. It seems remarkable that if such a conversation took place, it would not have been mentioned previously. I discount as entirely improbable that the grandmother told F’s solicitor and he failed to make any note of it or include it in her first statement. That said, PGM did not strike me as an inherently dishonest witness: as set out in my pen picture she came across as generally straightforward. I am unsure what to make of this account as all explanations of it seem equally improbable (i.e. that it happened and she forgot to tell anyone; or that she made it up at court believing it might help her son). Ultimately, I am not assisted by it one way or the other, and so I have determined it is not necessary to make a specific finding with respect to it. Even if C did say what PGM alleges, it was in a context that she had already told him that his words (i.e. what he had ‘told the mister’) could get his father ‘into trouble’, irrespective of their truth. Therefore, even if C threatened this to his grandmother, it may have been no more than a childish attempt at manipulation seen in the context of what his grandmother had previously said to him. C didn’t get to go to the soft play centre. And he has never made any allegation again his grandmother.

PGM called the police after the 8 January 2023 to tell them that C had retracted his allegation. The significance of that date is that it was the day on which F was first interviewed under caution with PGM acting as his appropriate adult. There is no indication as to why she waited until more than a week after C’s apparent retraction to tell the police. In cross-examination she accepted that she had only told the police that C said, ‘it didn’t happen’ not, as per her written and oral evidence that he was flitting between ‘it did’ and ‘it didn’t’.

PGM accepted that on the 27 January 2023, as per SW1’s note, she may have told the social worker that the father was innocent and that C was lying, although she could not now remember saying that. It is clear to me that PGM did form the mindset that C was lying.

On 12 January 2023 a social worker, SWb spoke to C. He too has left the employment of the local authority. Despite orders against Social Work England, he remains untraced. His note of that meeting is woefully inadequate. It is so poor that it is not entirely clear that C actually repeated his retraction to the social worker. The full content of the note is:

The note is somewhat ambiguous as to whether SWb is reporting the retraction that C had made to the paternal grandmother and, possibly, mother, or that the retraction was repeated to him. All parties seem to have assumed that it was a separate retraction, and I will treat it as such. However, there is absolutely no indication of what was asked or what was said (beyond the words ‘private part’ being in inverted commas). It would be inadequate as a note of any discussion with a child; but as a note of a retraction, it is shockingly so.

DC P told me that the police closed their investigation as a result of the retraction made by C.

The evidential picture as to what happened between 31 December 2022 and 12 January 2023 is murky. What am I to make of it? I am clear about the following:

In submissions Mr Ahmed said it was relevant that between the 12 January and 27 January 2023 there is no record of C discussing his allegations one way or the other. I don’t accord that fact much significance. If the allegations were false, then there would be no reason for C to mention them again as he had now told at least some people that they were false. However, if they were true, there would equally be no particular reason for him to resurrect them: he was in a safe place, living with his mother.

The next occasion on which C is recorded repeating his allegation is on the 27.1.2023 to a school professional by the name of SP4. The CPOMs note for that date, which was entered by someone called SP5, reads, ‘SP4 told me that C had disclosed to her about how dad had touched his privates. Another child was taping her hands together, he then went on to say about how dad put cello tape on his mouth and dad rubbing his mouth and his own mouth’ . There is an email from SP6, the school’s Safeguarding Deputy which also relates to this occasion. (The parties were unable, despite extensive enquiries with the school, to locate SP6 and accordingly I did not hear directly from her). She emailed the, by then, allocated social worker SW1on the 27.1.2023. She said that C ‘mentioned to a TA [who I infer to be SP4] in class that a social worker was coming to the house today because Dad had touched his privates. Shortly after when another child was playing with cellotape and wrapping it around her hands C said ‘my dad used to cellotape my mouth’. He also made the comment ‘my dad has been rubbing his mouth on my mouth’’.

C’s allegation that F put Sellotape on his mouth was a new one. It is not, in context, an embellishment of his previous allegation; rather it is a separate allegation. What is clear to me, having viewed the videos, which are no more than a small sample of C’s homelife (and a sample of what the father was prepared to disclose), is that C will have many negative and frightening memories of living with his father. It would be entirely unsurprising, in that context, that C might have different memories at different times and that those memories might be triggered by his immediate environment (in this case, seeing another child apply Sellotape to herself). That said, for reasons that I explain below, I have not found it necessary to determine the particular finding sought by the mother about F putting Sellotape on C’s mouth.

It is clear that C was aware that the social worker was coming to visit his mother that day (which visit did occur); and that it related to his initial allegation. I have set out above that I did not find the mother to have sufficient guile to put C up to making allegations. Indeed, in my judgment if his mother had done this, C is the sort of child who would inevitably have told someone else that fact. He is anything but a closed book.

The next repetition of the allegation by C was on 30.1.2023 to his class teacher, SP2. (Although my note isn’t entirely clear, my understanding is that SP3 and SP2 were co-teachers; if one of them is in fact a TA, nothing turns on that). Her written evidence is that on the 30.1.2023 C told her he was sad.

Although SP2 does not record the precise question she asked, there is a verbatim note of what C told her. In her oral evidence she told me that the conversation arose because C ‘seemed quite quiet which was out of character; I leant over to check if he was okay … and he said what is in my statement. He was very chatty as he told me … it was as if he wanted to tell me, so I sat and nodded and listened.’ She went on to tell me that when C had told her this information she radioed for another adult to come to the classroom, ‘and then I got this written down as soon as possible because I was aware that C had told SP3 something previously and I wanted to get it down accurately. I made a note on pen and paper and it was then typed up on to CPOMS’. As with SP3 this was good practice and I am satisfied that I have an accurate note of C’s freely spoken words.

Mr Ahmed cross-examined SP2 as to whether she believed C; she told me she did. She denied that thanking him was reinforcing to him that he was telling the truth or that what had happened to him was ‘wrong’: ‘I don’t agree with that. When any child shares something we always thank them; that is common protocol’. SP2 told me that she is the DSL for her school and I am satisfied that she understood her duties well, and discharged them. She was a good witness. Nor do I find it wrong or bad practice per se for a schoolteacher to believe a child who is making an allegation to them. Social workers and police officers who are charged with investigating allegations, are subject to the ABE guidance which includes maintaining an open mind; schoolteachers perform a different function, which includes the accurate recording and passing on of information shared, irrespective of whether or not they believe that information. I have no reason to think in this case that SP2’s personal belief tainted this allegation or C’s subsequent repetitions of it.

The allegation made to SP2 on the 30.1.23 contains the detail that the father tried to pull C’s hair. That is in line with what he told SWa, that his father had pulled his hair. (I place no real significance on a child of this age describing an adult ‘pulling’ his hair and ‘trying’ to pull his hair. He will have been aware of no more than the sensation of his father’s hand on his hair and pulling; he will not have been able to see what was happening; it will have happened for a finite period of time and stopped. Nothing turns, in my judgment, on a 6 year old child describing that as the adult ‘pulling’ or ‘trying to pull’ his hair). It also repeats the detail, given to SWa, that C told his dad to stop and he ‘wouldn’t’ (to SWa) or ‘said no’ (to SP2). Those are 2 repeated incidental details.

However, the allegation to SP2 also contains the detail that C’s father had been arrested for showing naughty pictures. That is factually incorrect. It seems to me most likely that C gleaned that information either directly or indirectly from his mother or mother’s partner. I have weighed in the balance that C was living in a home environment in which he was exposed to information and, potentially in this case at least, misinformation. I have set out elsewhere that I don’t think C’s mother is likely to have coached him into making his allegations. I have not heard from her partner, C’s step-father. No one has advanced a case that he is the source of C’s allegations. What is relevant, in my judgment, is that by the end of January, having retracted his allegations as set out above, C was repeating them and was including some consistent incidental detail.

It is also highly relevant in my judgment, and this becomes a theme in C’s later repetitions, that he made his allegation to SP2 in a context of telling her he was sad that he might not see his dad anymore. C’s desire to see his father again has been fairly consistent throughout these proceedings (and before). He is well aware that the reason he doesn’t see his father (or, now, only sees him by video call) is because of what he has told people his father did to him. He is a bright child. Since the 12 January, he has not retracted his allegation against his father, despite the fact that he wants to see him. In my judgment, if C knew that his allegation was false, then it is unlikely he would have maintained it now for a period of nearly 2 ½ years.

The 1.2.2023 was C’s first meeting with the (then) newly allocated social worker SW1. She met him at school and C was aware that she was coming. Her note-keeping is poor and that is one of several clear training needs that came to light during her evidence. (The parties would no doubt say that deficits in her conduct were obvious prior to her oral evidence; however, I came to this case late and to that extent was less aware than the advocates as to concerns about her practice). She made no attempt to record C’s actual words to her on the 1.2.2023. Indeed, in her oral evidence, she told me (in the context of a later s47 investigation conducted this year), that she saw no need to write down questions or answers. She confirmed that she had received ABE training. When Mr Ahmed asked her what that training told her about taking notes her answer was, ‘I can’t recall off the top of my head’. (Pausing there, irrespective of ABE training, it would seem like absolutely basic social work to understand the importance of capturing words spoken by a child accurately). Mr Ahmed put to her that the guidelines say that she should attempt to record an accurate note of both the questions asked and answers given. She agreed that this ‘jogged her memory’. Mr Ahmed asked her why, then, she hadn’t done this. (For avoidance of doubt, this was in the specific context of her 2025 s47 investigation but is relevant to her attitude towards notetaking generally). She replied, ‘I assume that I had to gain the voice of the child; when you are handwriting, the information can be too much to write everything down; so I decided to catch C’s voice and not the questions’. Her ‘capturing of C’s voice’, was in fact her summary of what she understood C to be meaning, rather than any effort to put down his actual words.

Returning to the 1.2.2023 meeting, SW1’s note is that

Whilst SW1’s failure to take proper notes is inexcusable and frustrates the investigation into C’s lived experiences, it is clear enough that as with his better-recorded allegation to SP2, 2 days earlier, C is repeating that his father touched his privates (and that he told him to stop but he didn’t) in the context of also saying that he missed his father.

On 29.9.2023 when a social care professional SW2 (from whom I did not hear) was doing PANTS work with C in school, she described him as being ‘very engaging … [he] completed the activity around private parts are private. … C did say ‘That’s what daddy did to me’. C said he didn’t like this’.

On 11.1.2024 the previously allocated guardian, Gareth Edwards, visited C at his mother’s house. (Mr Edwards is currently off work unwell and was unable to give evidence; accordingly, his account set out in a position statement of 18.1.2024, is hearsay (and second-hand hearsay with respect to C’s allegations)). The position statement says, of C,

It has always been the father’s case that insofar as he shared a bed with C it was the father’s bed. This is the first occasion, so far as I can tell, on which C has specified which bed it happened in. It is not, on the face of it, an inconsistency in his own account (albeit it is a previously ungiven detail). That detail is, however, inconsistent with subsequent accounts given by C. He is clear, again, that he had told his father he did not want him to touch him, but his father had ignored this.

On 2.2.24 C repeated his allegation to his then class teacher, SP1. By this time C had moved schools. I heard oral evidence from SP1 on the first day of the fact find. She confirmed, as per her written statement and the corresponding CPOMS note, that the discussion with C happened on a walk back from a class visit to a church. She confirmed that C was talking about worries he had about his dad (or, as he described him to her, his ‘real dad’). In response to questions from Mr Ahmed she said she wasn’t asking C questions; ‘we are told just to follow the child’s lead; C was talking and talking freely’. She said that when she returned to school, she talked to the safeguarding lead straightaway leaving the class with her TA, and then, ‘wrote everything down I could remember at the time’ before typing it into CPOMS. She accepted that her notes were no more than a summary of what C told her. (There can be no real criticism of her for this, as the circumstances of the walk with many children, would not have allowed her to make a contemporaneous record). Her note sets out

The note goes on to record C alleging that his father made him watch scary movies (and he mentioned the characters Michael Myers, Pennywise and Chucky) as well as playing scary games.

Mr Ahmed put to SP1 that her note suggested that C was alleging his father touched his privates (inappropriately) more than once. SP1 didn’t accept that: ‘I don’t know when during that time [i.e. the time that C lived with his father] it happened and I can’t speculate if it was more than once’. Nor do I read the note that way.

On 6.2.24 SP7, the Senior Pastoral Lead and DDSL at C’s school spoke to him as a result of discussions he had had with other adults (including SP1) in school. Her note says that he told her:

SP7 wasn’t required to attend for challenge, and I didn’t hear from her. There is a relevant development in C’s account here. On this occasion, C tells a professional that his father touched his private parts ‘a lot’ which implies more than once (although it could mean ‘a lot’ on a single occasion). I weigh in the balance that by this time, C has repeated his account to multiple professionals and there may be an element of story creep.

On 31.7.2024 during work with a social care professional SW3 who was undertaking work around appropriate and inappropriate touch, she showed him a card which read ‘is it okay to touch someone’s private parts when they are asleep?’ and C is recorded as saying ‘My dad did that I think’. I do not treat this as being a variation or change in C’s account. He was not, in any obvious sense, alleging that the occasion which he had hitherto talked about of his father touching his privates had happened whilst he was asleep; he was speculating that his father may also have touched his privates when he was asleep. I don’t accord much weight to this, in circumstances where, as I have already set out at length, C was young and living in a confusing environment with blurred sexual boundaries and had repeated his primary account on multiple occasions by this time.

Within proceedings, given C’s consistently expressed wish to see his father and consistently expressed feeling that he missed and loved him, he resumed indirect video contact with his father. It is generally reported that this contact has gone well. C’s grandmother has been included in some of it. By February of this year it was taking place weekly. On the 28.2.2025 C’s concentration began to wane after around 30 minutes (which the contact note of that date, says was not uncommon for him). SW1 was supervising the contact. Her note says,

Again, there is no effort to record actual questions asked or verbatim answers given. As a result of what C said on this occasion, there was a further s47 investigation, conducted jointly with the police, on 5.3.2025. I have already set out that in her oral evidence, SW1was painfully unclear as to the fact that her discussions with C on the 28^th February were separate from her discussions, alongside PC Q, on the 5^th March. SW1’s note of that meeting says in relevant part,

SW1’s evidence was that there was no planning for this meeting: no discussion with the officer as to who would take the lead or who would take notes, nor any strategy for the meeting. She could not recall what questions were asked (and there is no note of them). It was in this context, as already set out in this Judgment, that SW1told Mr Ahmed she could not recall what the ABE training told her about note-taking. When Mr Ahmed put to her that the account of F’s girlfriend protecting him was a new one, she said that C had told her this previously. There is no other note of this being said by C previously, and SW1’s evidence was that she didn’t think such a note was ‘relevant’. She accepted that the allegations about his dad putting him in a quilt cover and threatening to throw him down the stairs and using a screwdriver to lock him in his room were new.

Most worryingly (although nearly all of SW1’s evidence about this meeting was worrying, with respect to her understanding of her role and responsibilities) SW1 accepted that she had deliberately asked the leading question ‘tell us more about an incident that happened in bed’ in an effort to prompt C to share with the police officer information that she (SW1) was worried he might otherwise forget to share. Mr Ahmed asked her ‘not only have you asked a leading question, you prompted him. Why?’ She frankly, if alarmingly, answered ‘I wanted for him to say everything in front of the police officer’.

The detail about C having nightmares (so he went to sleep with his dad) is new. The detail that C went to sleep with his dad is different to a previous account where he said this incident happened in his own bed.

In the summer of 2024 C asked SW1whether she believed his allegations against his father. There are two recordings of this, with different dates – 4.7.24 and 2.8.24 – but the notes are verbatim and identical. In my judgment, this is likely to be a single occasion for which the wrong date was given in SW1’s addendum s7 report, where the incident is recorded as occurring on 2.8.24. Her response was to tell C that she believed him ‘100 per cent’. To some extent, I accept that having been asked the direct question, SW1was put on the spot and any hesitation, or answer other than ‘yes’, could have been harmful to C. That said, I accept Mr Ahmed’s submission that a better trained or prepared professional would have found a way of deflecting the question by reassuring C that everything he had said had been written down (which, of course, it wasn’t!) and would be provided to the Judge. However, what is clear to me and more concerning than the immediate answer given, is that throughout her allocation to this case SW1 has never really approached it with an open mind; she has believed C’s allegations to be true. That is no doubt why she thought it appropriate to prompt and lead C to repeat those allegations to the police officer on the 5.3.25. That was wrong-headed and dangerous practice.

As a result of C’s allegations on the 5.3.25, tainted as some of them were by leading, he was subject to his first and only ABE interview on the 20.3.25. I have viewed the video of that interview and read the transcript. C comes across as a chatty and confident young man. (He was nearly 9 by the time of the interview). He understood the difference between truth and lies. He required some prompting but in context where he had told the officer that he couldn’t remember why he had come to speak to the police, the prompting was dealt with appropriately in my judgment. The officer, DC R, says that her colleague PC Q, ‘asked me to talk to you because she said that there were some things that have happened that have made you a little bit sad with Daddy. Is that right? (to which C says ‘yes’) So tell me what’s happened with Daddy that’s made you a bit sad’. C’s response is, ‘He’s touched me’ and then goes on to allege and demonstrate his father restricting his breathing. He said that the touching happened in his father’s bed. When the officer asked ‘describe for me exactly what has happened’ he said:

When the officer asked how many times that had happened, C said once. He repeated his allegation that his father would make him watch scary movies, again naming Michael Myers, Chucky and Pennywise.

With respect to C’s allegation that his father touched him inappropriately on the night of 19.12.2022 my job is to survey the broad canvas of the evidence. An unavoidable part of that canvas is the extent to which the professional investigation has been blighted by poor social work and police practice and note-taking. However, I have come to the conclusion, that on balance of probabilities this allegation is true. I find that it happened. In reaching this conclusion, the following have been the key factors that have weighed in the balance in favour of it having happened.

I have weighed in the balance that there have been some discrepancies in C’s accounts (which bed it happened in; the claim on one occasion that it had happened ‘a lot’); the possibility of story-creep or memory being affected is ever present. However, the core detail of C’s account – his father touching his penis with him telling his father he didn’t’ like it, and this occurring the night before he told school – has been consistent.

I find as a fact that:

Having made the finding above, and the other findings based on the videos that come under the heading of ‘sexual harm’, I do not consider it necessary or proportionate to determine the allegation that F has rubbed his mouth on C’s. The mother has already confirmed, in submissions, that she does not pursue a further, separate finding that F kissed C on the mouth. For the avoidance of doubt, in my judgment, a finding – if made – that F rubbed his mouth on C’s would not add anything to the welfare/safety planning that inevitably follows from the findings already set out.

I have set out above a number of occasions on which C has alleged that he was made to watch scary movies by his father. There are other occasions contained in the papers. He has consistently named 3 characters from different Horror film franchises – Pennywise, Michael Myers and Chucky. Those characters appear in films that are all rated 18 (or, in the case of Pennywise, 15). C has continued to talk about these characters and complain of disrupted sleep as a result of nightmares about them, years after leaving his father’s care. It is clear to me that he is genuinely frightened of them. I reject his father’s evidence that C would, aged 5, sneak out of bed and deliberately choose to watch these films, given how frightening he clearly finds them. There is evidence on the videos of C watching other age-inappropriate material with his father, as well as playing an 18 rated game. F lied to me on oath when he said that he didn’t let C watch Squid Game. I find that he is also lying when he says that he didn’t make C watch the various horror movies he has consistently talked about. The finding I make is this:

Having made the findings set out above, I do not find it necessary or proportionate to consider other findings with respect to physical harm. The additional findings sought by the mother are that F has smacked and dragged C and has pulled C’s hair as well as restricting his breathing. The source of those allegations is largely things that C has alleged after being removed from his father’s care (although the school report an occasion when it ‘appeared’ that F was dragging his son to school, and the case advanced by the mother was that one of the videos showed the father beginning to ‘drag’ C down the stairs). The hair pulling allegation relates to the same incident, that I have already found proved, of sexual touching and would add nothing to it. I have not found it necessary or proportionate to consider the evidence with respect to other findings for the simple reason that they largely pale into insignificance in light of the harms I have already found. Moving forward, any welfare planning that will keep C safe from the harms I have identified will also, per force, keep him safe from the risk of any future physical harm by way of smacking and suchlike. Of course the allegation that F restricted C’s breathing is a serious one that would raise very serious concerns if true; however, I note that aside from an allegation made in January 2023 that his father placed Sellotape on his mouth (which may or may not, if true, have been an attempt to restrict breathing, depending on context), this allegation really emerges in various forms in 2025. It is not repeated with the same consistency or regularity as the allegation of sexual touching. It is not necessary for me to spend further time analysing the evidence with respect to it because on the basis of the findings I have made, it is inconceivable that, at least until C is a much older teenager, and old enough to make decisions for himself, F could safely have any unsupervised direct time with his son.

For the avoidance of doubt, any risk assessment and/or welfare planning will be on the basis that the findings I have set out in this Judgment (and only those findings) are true.

I have been critical of both DC P and SW1in this Judgment. Both had received ABE training and neither complied with that training. In particular, proper planning and accurate note taking, including writing down both the questions asked and the answers given, are the cornerstones of Achieving Best Evidence. There are other criticisms of SW1contained in this Judgment that I don’t repeat here. It is important that both professionals (and their appropriate lines of management) are given opportunity to read this Judgment and reflect on the training and learning needs that arise from it.

I propose to give directions that this Judgment is sent to both the local authority and the relevant police force, for the attention of the head of social services and the Chief Constable or his nominated officer, and that both agencies are directed to attend the next hearing in this case. On that occasion they will be invited to make submissions with respect to:

In SW1’s case, in particular, I emphasise that whilst my criticism in this Judgment is directed at her, she was subject to management oversight. It seems to me that any competent or diligent manager ought to have realised from the outset that the quality of the notes taken was poor and should have provided appropriate advice and support. I have also wrestled with raising the following point but have concluded that it would be a disservice to other children moving forward if I did not do so: SW1’s English is not brilliant. In particular, in the context of her discussion with C following the contact on 28.2.25, referred to above, she told Mr Ahmed that the question she had asked C to elicit his account was ‘what did your dad did?’ When she said this for the first time, I simply noted it (and parenthetically added that she clearly meant ‘what did your dad do’). However, when Mr Ahmed returned to the point a little while later, she again repeated that her question was ‘what did your dad did?’. I am therefore satisfied on this occasion (despite the absence of any note of the question) that it is likely SW1 phrased her question to C as, ‘what did your dad did?’. It may well be that C is bright enough and has a sufficiently developed relationship with SW1 to understand her meaning. However, I have to question the propriety of having a frontline social worker, conducting interviews with young children by herself, who would articulate a question in this way. Many children have communication difficulties, and the question is at best poorly phrased and at worst confusing, if not meaningless.

Mr Ahmed did not pursue, in submissions, a case advanced in cross-examination that SW1was lying on occasions in her evidence or ‘making things up’. Nor would I have accepted such a case, if advanced. I did not detect any malicious bones in SW1. I did unfortunately, as set out, have real cause to question her understanding of her role. I also identified some basic and immediate areas in which she clearly requires further support and training. That is incumbent on her managers and her employers as much as it is on her.

Finally, the case has been beset by incomplete disclosure and this caused months of delay. I have not managed this case until very latterly and this Judgment, which is already over-long, is not the place to set out an overview of the procedural history. I have also decided, that in those circumstances and given the criticisms I have already made of individual professionals, it is not necessary in this Judgment to make further comment on the disclosure issues that have arisen.

I will invite submissions, in due course, with respect to publication of this Judgment (in anonymised form).

The parties are invited to make submissions with respect to timetabling through to a welfare hearing. This case has been ongoing for far too long, and C is entitled to resolution with minimum further delay.

That is my Judgment.

At a hearing listed as an adjourned part-heard final hearing on the 7 August 2025, the Humberside police and North East Lincolnshire Council attended as directed above. Each body outlined for the court extensive ongoing programmes of training designed to address the poor practice identified in this Judgment, which poor practice both the police and the local authority assured the court they were aware of (as a general concern) and took seriously. It would seem that in this case, that training was not sufficiently advance or embedded to have made an appropriate difference. The court nevertheless accepted the reassurances that the police and local authority are taking and will continue to take the concerns raised seriously. Having heard submission from all parties, the court was persuaded that in the case of the social worker the failings – at least at the outset of her involvement – lay with lack of adequate training, oversight and support. In those circumstances the court was persuaded that it was not necessary in the public interest to name the individual social worker. Having taken that view with respect to the social worker, the court took the view that it would be invidious to name the police officer involved and has, therefore, also drawn back from that.