Plymouth City Council v M & Ors

This is my judgment in a fact-finding hearing within public law proceedings, where the subject children are A and B. The mother of both children is M The father of both children is F. The local authority who brings these proceedings is Plymouth City Council and the Children’s Guardian is Julie Skilton. All parties have been represented by counsel.

Both the local authority and M seek findings against F. There are two schedules setting out the findings sought.

The local authority seek findings against F that he engages in grooming and sexually abusive behaviour in relation to a total of four girls. The girls are two sets of sisters. The local authority seek findings that F groomed two sisters P and Q who were the daughters of his best friend back in periods between 2011 and 2013, and it also seeks findings that F groomed and sexually abused two other sisters , X and Y in a period from about 2015.

Other findings sought in the local authority’s schedule are consequent on those main findings and it is the case of the local authority that in relation to each set of girls, F was in a position of trust, something that he does, in fact, accept.

The findings that M seeks are under the heading of domestic abuse. She alleges that during their relationship he was physically abusive towards her, that he behaved in a controlling and emotionally abusive way towards her and that he was controlling towards the children.

The evidence is set out in a main digital file of over some 2000 pages. Within that bundle are included the applications, orders, statements, reports, the Welfare assessments, police documents and intermediary reports, schedule of expectation, child protection documents, and documents from the criminal trial that took place in 2014. There are professional welfare documents , and a vast number of messages which, for the most part, the parties sent to each other. It also includes transcripts of the interviews and transcripts of certain witness evidence that was given at the criminal trial. The court has viewed all the ABE interviews that were made available and read the transcripts that were provided. There is a further bundle which was for further statements that came in.

I have also seen photos of the attic, which was located in the paternal grandmother’s home, where the first set of allegations made by P are alleged to have taken place. I have seen a photo of the children X and Y, which was taken on the foreign holiday when they were ten years of age. I have read every document that I have been taken to and more.

I have heard oral evidence from, the parents of P. They attended via CVP, as did P. Case management directions were made that father’s counsel prepare a list of questions for P. The final list of questions which were put to P were approved by the court and the intermediary. They were read out to P by counsel for the Guardian.

I also heard oral evidence via CVP from X and Y who make the second set of sexual allegations.

I heard evidence in court from the maternal grandmother, the mother of X and Y, M, F, the paternal grandfather, paternal uncle, paternal grandmother, and G .

First, the burden of proof lies with the party that seeks the findings. Therefore, the local authority has the burden of proving the sexual abuse findings it seeks, and M has the burden of proving the domestic abuse findings that she seeks.

The standard of proof that each has to reach is the balance of probabilities. If findings are made, the court will treat the fact as established and all future decisions concerning the future of the children will be based on those findings. Equally, if any findings are not made the court will disregard the allegation completely.

As Hoffmann J observed in Re B (Children) [2008], if a legal rule requires a fact to be proved – that is a fact in issue – a judge or jury must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which there are only values of zero and one. Further, the burden of disproving a reasonable explanation put forward by the parents falls with the local authority. Further, the inability of a parent or carer to explain an event cannot be relied on to find an event proved. Next, findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence, not on suspicion or speculation. Findings must be based on all the evidence and should have regard to the wide context of emotional, ethical and moral factors. When considering cases of suspected child abuse, the court must take into account all the evidence and further consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. The court is not bound by the cases put forward by the parties but may adopt an alternative solution of its own.

Further, the core central factual questions which require determination in a fact-finding hearing was articulated by Jackson LJ in Re A. The questions for every fact-finder are what, when, where, who, how and why. Their significance in difficulty varies from case to case. Some answers will be obvious while other questions could be extremely hard or even unanswerable. Sometimes a question may not need answering at all. At all events, the questions come in no set order and each inquiry will suggest its own starting point. It will no doubt find apparently solid ground and progress from there, but conclusions can only ever be provisional until they have been checked against each other so as to arrive at a coherent outcome. At each stage regard is had to the inherent probabilities and improbabilities surrounding what are inevitably abnormal circumstances.

The inherent improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred. Common sense not law requires that in deciding this question regard should be had to what extent appropriate to inherent probabilities. The evidence of parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. They must have the fullest opportunity to take part in the hearing and the court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence and the impression it forms on them.

I remind myself that caution should be used by a judge in assessing credibility and reliability. There are a number of issues for the court to consider when assessing the reliability and the credibility of a witness, including the use of contemporaneous notes or incontrovertible facts.

Further, that it is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must always bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything.

The allegations concerning P and Q refer to a time from about 2011 up to 2013, when the father had volunteered to take P out to give her parents a break. He was then not married but in a relationship Those allegations resulted in a Crown Court trial taking place in when the F was accused of six counts on an indictment, including three counts of causing or inciting a child to engage in sexual activity, a count of sexual activity, a count of exposure and an account of causing a child to watch sexual acts. The father pleaded not guilty to that indictment.

After a Crown Court trial he was found not guilty of causing a child to watch sexual acts and the jury were unable to come to a verdict on the remaining five counts. The Crown Prosecution Service did not seek a retrial.

Attempts have been made to obtain transcripts of the hearing that took place a couple of weeks after the Crown Court trial, where the court was informed that the Crown Prosecuting Service was not seeking a retrial. At the time that this court was hearing evidence in this case, no such transcript was available and, despite counsel involved in that criminal case being contacted, no information again was available. However, prior to finalising this judgment the court was forwarded a handwritten note that was made by the CPS at the time of that hearing. That note records that it was the view of the CPS that a further trial was not in the public interest and, further, that not guilty verdicts were entered against the outstanding counts. The court notes that until he gave evidence, F’s case was that the judge at that hearing had, in fact, sent him a letter of apology. At this hearing he said that he had got that wrong.

At around the time that the trial was taking place in, F was starting to get to know M and the parties agree that around this time F spoke to M and another colleague and revealed that he had been accused of things by a child. M recalls that he said that he had been accused of doing a naked handstand and of removing the child’s clothes.

A year later, as a result of making those allegations against the father, the child P was interviewed again. In this interview she claimed that F had asked her at times for her to remove her clothes and that on one or two occasions he had asked her to hold his penis while he urinated and then asked her to wipe his penis, which she complied with. She said in that interview that she now wanted to forget about everything.

F was interviewed about this allegation. He denied that it had taken place and no further action was taken against him. By then he was about to start a relationship with M. She had a number of siblings, including two younger sisters, X and Y. When they started visiting , they were about seven or eight. Initially they visited when the mother would take them with her when she visited F at his flat.

Concerning that flat, the girls recall that they were aware that during those visits they had become uncomfortable with F and both recall that F put Naked Attraction, the television programme, on for them to watch.

In 2017, M and F purchased their first home together. X and Y were now about nine years old. The allegations that X and Y make in 2024 against F relate to the time that they visited M and F at that house. It is accepted that around that time that M and F moved into the house that they also took X and Y on holiday . In 2024 both X and Y made allegations against F’s behaviour during that holiday in 2017.

M and F continued their relationship thereafter and by 2019 M was pregnant with A. M and F married , X and Y were bridesmaids. In 2020, B was born.

In March 2020, the country went into lockdown so visits were stopped. After lockdown M and F moved home. The court has heard that X and Y would occasionally babysit for the parties, either together or on their own.

The allegations of domestic abuse range from the whole of the parties’ relationship and continue into the period after they have separated. M has a raft of allegations which she makes about F under the heading of physical aggression towards her, that he was controlling and emotionally abusive towards her and that he was controlling towards the children.

F’s response to the allegations is as follows.

Concerning the 2013 allegations, that he acted in a sexually inappropriate way towards P and Q. He says that although he accepts much of what was said, there was no sexual intent.

Concerning the allegations of domestic abuse, he says that M is exaggerating her complaints and that the only time that he was physically forceful was towards inanimate objects and not M. Concerning being controlling towards M, he denies the allegations that she makes and concerning being controlling towards the children, he does not accept that.

Concerning the allegations of X and Y, F denies them and it is his case that he has never been sexually attracted to children. His case is that, therefore, those allegations are false and initially he claimed that they were made up as a result of a vicious response to the mother hearing that he intended to activate divorce proceedings. However, it would seem that within this trial he has accepted that the chronology was not supportive of this contention but still contends that these allegations by X and Y never occurred.

The court will now consider the allegations in the context of the history of the case but before it does so it is necessary to set out the court’s assessment of the parents’ credibility and reliability concerning their evidence. The court has had a long time to assess each parent. The views that it formed impact on the findings.

I consider M first. It was apparent throughout the hearing that M found the whole process very difficult. She was making allegations of domestic abuse and was granted screens. The court was able to observe her presentation when she viewed the interviews of her sisters for the first time. She was aware of what they were going to say but it was apparent that seeing them articulate the catalogue of events was distressing for her. This was not open crying distress. I noticed that, if anything, she was trying to hide the fact that she was wiping tears away, putting her head to the side. The court is satisfied, from having heard from M, that this was not a sophisticated sham performance to hoodwink the court into thinking that she was distressed at seeing her sisters talk about such abusive behaviour, but rather a genuine reaction that she tried to hide but could not. M does not present as a complex, sophisticated individual, but rather as a trusting and naïve, straightforward person who takes much at face value.

The court heard that in around 2014 M was told by F that he had been falsely accused by a child of taking off their clothes and doing naked handstands. This, it seems, she accepts without question. Someone more sophisticated, more cynical, would perhaps have been questioning what had actually gone on and would have taken time to consider whether it would be a good idea to get involved with him in the first place. Her evidence, which I accept as F supports it, is that she was in fact supportive of him from the very start. If anything, her focus from the start was how these allegations had impacted on him and his mental health and wellbeing. There seems to have been no concern in her mind that he had done anything wrong.

Prior to her sisters making the allegations, there is no evidence that at any time M brought up the 2013 allegation in the context that he might be to blame. Indeed, none of F’s family, who the court consider really came with the only purpose to protect F, none of those suggested that M did not believe F’s innocence about the 2013 allegations. The court has seen a number of emails between the parties, some of which are written when they are unhappy with each other, and in none of them does M suggest that she did not believe the father was innocent.

It is the view of the court that M has not relished in the fact that F was facing the allegations that he does but, at times, has in fact shown some reticence. When giving evidence about the allegations of domestic abuse, M was frank in relaying to the court that she only makes the allegations after others had pointed out that F’s behaviour could be described as abusive. She gave compelling evidence that for a long period of time her older sister did not speak to her because she was so concerned about the way that M was accepting F’s behaviour towards her.

Her actions throughout these proceedings have not been those of someone who considered that F was all bad and was out to make things worse for him. If anything, there seems to have been almost a reluctance by M to make matters worse for F. Examples of this are when she informs X and Y that the allegations are serious. In other words, this is a warning to them that their words might have consequences, so she gives that warning to them before they say anything to her.

Further, the evidence of the maternal grandmother is that initially she and M decided not to report the allegations X and Y because they were both concerned about the impact the allegation would have on F’s career and pension. The mother gave very compelling evidence of when she spoke to a superior officer after she had heard from X and Y about their allegations and asked whether there was any way of working around it, in other words, other than going through official channels which would impact on F.

Further, that although M reported to Welfare at her employment that she had been raped by F, she has refused for this court to consider that allegation. These actions are also underlined by the fact that even though she was concerned about the domestic abuse, M allowed the father to join her for Christmas and, even though she was aware of the allegations, she allowed the father into the home on Mother’s Day in 2024.

It is hard to see, in the context of all this, that M was someone who was out to destroy F. It is the view of the court that she has really tried to present the true evidence before the court and the court considers that she has been a credible and reliable witness.

F has a habit of not telling the truth. A blatant example of this is when, in his 2024 interview, he is asked about the context of how he heard about X and Y’s allegations against him. He said, “I believe it’s a vicious response to me initiating the divorce.” When he is asked to explain, he states that they had been separated for a number of months, that he was then informed that M had had sex with someone else, and that he then contacted her via email to say he did not want to be treated like this and he was going to initiate the divorce, and that twenty minutes later the accusation came up.

The truth, which F had to accept when shown the emails and documents, is that it was M who found out a rumour that he had slept with someone else, that it was she who had emailed him and, as a result, she divorced him and that the next day, not twenty minutes later he alleges , she refers to the fact that she has heard that the sisters have said something.

In his oral evidence, he accepted that what he said in interview was inaccurate but he claimed that he had not raised it at the time because he was not aware that she had filed for divorce. The court does not accept that because within the messages that she sent him she made it very clear that, in fact, she had filed for divorce.

It is also apparent that F has had a habit of changing his account as to what has happened. In his interview in 2013 he accepted that his penis touched P’s face. On six more occasions that fact is referred to in the questions put to him and at no point does he dispute that. Yet his evidence at the criminal trial in 2014 and, indeed, in this hearing, was that on reflection he did not recall feeling her face on his penis so her face may not have touched it .

Within the allegations of domestic abuse, there are allegations that on occasion he would be in a car outside the mother’s property. The court noted that even when faced with his very own message that he had been outside her property for twenty minutes, he could not accept that he had been sitting and waiting outside the property.

It was apparent that he was not able to be transparent with the presentation of his case. His case was that he told the mother all the details of the 2013 allegations and when his counsel was given time specifically to carefully take instructions from F so that those details could be put specifically to the mother of exactly which allegations he had informed her of, only a limited list was put and yet F, in his oral evidence, was expansive. He gave a much longer list.

It became apparent within this case that F had at various times told various people that P was a compulsive liar. It was certainly an impression that his family had from him. Yet his very experienced counsel did not put that to either P or, more importantly, to P’s father. It was a surprising omission, especially as F expanded his evidence to suggest that P’s father had not mentioned any concerns about P having a learning issue, but rather that he had ongoing concerns about her continued lying. Yet when F was asked about what, in the interview of 2013, of P was an example of her telling lies, the only example that he could give – and he was asked more than once – was that P has said that he had given her his phone to look at, whereas he claimed that the truth was that she had taken it off the mantlepiece. That was the only example that he could think of. It was not persuasive evidence to convince the court that he really considered that she had compulsively lied in her interview.

The court reminds itself that at the end of his interview in 2013, after all P’s allegations had been put to him, at no point did he say that she might be a compulsive liar. But it comes as no surprise to the court that he did not say that because, in fact, he accepted almost everything that was alleged. It is the court’s view that his throwing out the label of P being a compulsive liar was just another example of him trying to mislead the court.

Further, his counsel, who as I have said is experienced counsel, put to M that the allegations of physical aggression, such as throwing the bottle of water, took place when the relationship was over, yet in his own evidence he would not accept that he did throw the bottle. In his response to the schedule, he accepts pushing the door in a moment of frustration, although his son was in the way. M’s case was that F did not realise that his son was in the way and that, although he managed to prevent the door closing on him, he would never have intended to harm him. F’s evidence was that instead of pushing the door, he had his hand around the edge of the door so that at all times it was under his control.

Again and again the court reminded him that it was important for him to tell the truth, that he would be assessed as to his credibility, but he did not seem able to stop. Many of his answers were just blanket declarations. “I would not have done this” or “I would have done that.” It seemed that he did not want to engage with the actual issues of the question. I found him to be a very unreliable witness.

I mention now F’s family. F called members of his family to give evidence that they were aware that there were many occasions when the details of the 2013 allegations were discussed with M present and, that therefore M would have been aware of the details of those allegations.

The evidence of his mother, his sister and brother caused initial concern because all used the word “refreshed”. They used it to describe that their memories were refreshed as a result of the impact of viewing the videos of F’s police interviews. The surprise at them using such a word arose out of the fact that the independent social worker considered that she was satisfied that all of them had accepted that they had learnt new detail, of which they had not been previously aware. So the word “refreshed” would not have been appropriate. The court was concerned at this stage that there might have been collusion but, on another matter, the sister confirmed that she had in fact colluded with her older brother, , when discussing their evidence to support F. That the sister and brother were prepared to make up evidence leads the court to have concerns about the reliability of these witnesses.

There was, however, one matter where the sister gave apparently unguarded evidence which was not in F’s favour. This was when she accepted that prior to the Crown Court trial F had, indeed, informed her that his penis had touched P’s face.

My starting point is to consider the allegations of domestic abuse that M makes against F in the context of what is known of their relationship. The court is aware that when the parties started the relationship, in November 2017, the mother was only twenty-two, whereas F was thirty. The mother has spoken about the fact that she was very young and it is the view of the court that the difference in age, as well as the fact that M had a more junior role at work than the F, impacted to an extent on the dynamic within their relationship. The mother’s case is that for the first few years everything was fine and it seems to the court that in fact they were very busy before having children. Both decided to train as physical trainers. They both seemed dedicated to their careers and when M did not initially qualify, as F did, first time round, she waited a year to try again and then eventually succeeded.

Focusing on their careers meant that at times they were working in different locations away from each other. The court notes however that within the early years of the relationship it seems to have been decided by the couple that they would make their home far from the support of the mother’s family . The mother accepted in cross-examination that the reason was because property was cheaper near the father’s home, but the court does note that it was to the advantage of F, who historically felt very connected to the area.

The fact that M had no support in the area became very evident after she had given birth to their first child, as it is accepted that sadly she had serious postnatal depression and felt very isolated. Lockdown was implemented in their home area in around March 2020 and with it came severe restrictions on travel. There was a possibility of being in a bubble with others on the basis that it was a regular bubble. The court heard that the mother’s postnatal depression prompted medical staff to suggest that she should travel to her family’s home to be in a bubble with her own mother and maternal family. It is what M wanted and needed but F was at that time living away and coming back to see M and the baby. It is a fact that if M moved to her family’s home it would have been very difficult for him then to visit as there were restrictions on being in more than one bubble.

In allegation 1(f) of the mother, she accuses F of being controlling by not allowing her to seek comfort from her mother’s family and move to live with them. F says he actively encouraged the mother’s family to come up and see her but that he was not in favour of her going to live at her family’s home as that would impact on his own ability to see his child.

The court takes the view that lockdown was an extraordinarily difficult time for many people, where people had to make sometimes impossible decisions about who in their family they could or could not see. It may be that this was an example of F being selfish and persuading M that it was more important that he, as father, should see the child, but the court on this point does not consider that it can fairly rely on it as an example of controlling behaviour.

By July 2020, M was receiving medication for her postnatal depression. F says that he was instrumental in making sure that there was accommodation for her near to him so that they could live together and, in November 2020, the mother moved to that accommodation near F. It is apparent that M wanted to be closer to her family and, in August 2021, the parties were allocated housing near her family. F relies on this fact as an indication of how he was bowing to M’s needs and this could not have been an example of him being controlling.

By the time that they moved , M was about to give birth to their second child. This is allegation 2(g) of the mother’s allegations. It relates to M’s contention that due to F being controlling she did not attend a local natal unit in Devon, as advised, but was driven by F all the way to his home area so that the baby could be born there..

F does not take issue with the fact that the mother’s waters had broken when she was in on 18 August. M’s evidence is that she was advised by medical staff to attend a local natal unit. However, back in March 2021 the parents had booked holiday accommodation in Father’s home area. This would then be around the time of the birth. M accepts that initially she hoped to have a water birth similar to that that she had with A. She accepts that the holiday was booked. Her allegation, however, is that her waters having broken she would not have been able to have a water birth and having been advised to go to a local hospital it was F who decided that they needed to drive to his home area.

However, in this case the court accepts the evidence of the mother that she was advised to go to a local hospital and also accepts the evidence of the mother that it was only because of the influence of the father that he decided that they were going to go to his home area..

By October 2022 the mother had started talking to F about separating. So what were the issues? F, to the extent that he accepts that there were any real problems in the relationship, claims that the issues occurred only after he and M separated. M’s case is, no, that is not correct. She says that although there were issues after the parties’ relationship finishes, and after they physically started living in separate accommodation, that before they finished the relationship things were so bad that they sat down on 21 March 2023 to discuss their issues. We know this because in August 2023 the mother resends the father the handwritten list that sets out her concerns that she wrote out on 21 March. This list is the earliest corroboration of M’s contention of concerns about F’s behaviour before she asked for a separation.

It is fair to say that the list indicates that the marriage had already got a bit stale as the list includes comments such as about their sex life and the need to get out more, but it also includes the following: “Bad mood, flashing at me and the kids”, and the court notes that the word “flashing” here is a naval term which means getting angry. There is also reference to “never make me feel great about myself” and further “eating. I’m doing well. Still shit comments”, and then later, “Violence/SARMs”. It was explained to the court that M was aware that F at one stage was taking a testosterone-affecting drug called SARMs and that she was concerned that it was making him more aggressive. The court also notes that the mother lists :“when I ask you to do something it’s like ego”.

The court notes that it has also heard that when the parties had arguments, M’s evidence was that F would forcibly take A from her arms. She gave compelling evidence that when he was trying to do so, she had no option but to let A go.

The court accepts the evidence of M as set out in her August email that by March 2023 they had sat down to consider issues within the marriage. What is known is that by April 2023 she tells the father that she wants to separate and it is M’s case, as confirmed by the email that she sent between the parties, that F became very suspicious that her request for a separation must be because she was seeing someone else. In these early emails and messages it is clear that F absolutely does not wish this relationship to finish. His stance is not helped by the fact that until August 2023 they were sharing accommodation.

It appears to the court that whatever was going on before this time, M felt under enormous pressure from F. M’s allegation 2(h) is that from the time she began speaking to F about separating, his behaviour got worse, the court noting that to be around October 2022.

The court has read the messages sent between the parties. The court recognises that such messages are sent by parties with no real intention that others should see them, and so they help the court to understand what was actually going on between them at the time. The messages reveal that F just refused to accept that the relationship could be over. By 1 May 2023, after telling F it was over, M was telling him that he had in fact won. Her just caving in and accepting F’s wish to continue with the relationship was at her cost as the court accepts M’s evidence that on 7 May, upon his criticising her again about something, when she was alone she contemplated taking her life.

Allegation 2(i) is that F’s lack of acceptance that the relationship was breaking up, and his insistence that they should keep going, led to the mother’s depression and sadly her suicide attempt. It is always sad when someone is so unhappy that they contemplate taking their life, but the court needs to be cautious of immediately presuming that the blame of such unhappiness was on the partner. It is therefore necessary to scrutinise the evidence.

It is apparent that M understood that F believed that the separation was just down to her choice and down to her mental health, rather than his behaviour, as on 12 May there are numerous messages on the issue. She says:

“You say I have caused all this but you’re forgetting I feel the way I do because of both our actions in this relationship.”

So here the court notes that M is accepting that she also has a role in the breakdown of the relationship, that it was not just F. She goes on to list as to how she feels that he has been emotionally abusive to her. She says: “Making me feel low about myself. Talking down to me. Gaslighting me so everything is my fault. Narcissistic behaviour. Saying stuff about my body. Controlling what I can and cannot do on social media, even down to my eyebrows.” So here she is listing the complaints that are set out in her schedule.

His response is that she has overexaggerated and messages that he has only mentioned three things that she has worn in the past few years, and that he recollects that he did mention that her shorts were too small. He comments that as to her eyebrows, he expressed a preference to which she then responds, “How about you being violent?” So this is now a far more serious allegation that M is making and F responds,

“Hitting a door in rage, being violent in a relationship should surely only be an issue if it’s to another person, not me hitting a door three times cos you said you didn’t want to be with me, a justified outburst of emotions don’t you think?”

This is allegation 1(c). So here is F accepting that he hit the door in rage three times. It is a different position from his response in his schedule where he claims he only hit the door in frustration. It is relevant, however for the court to note that F dates this as being a reaction to M’s wish to separate. M’s evidence in her statement is that the children were present. F denies it. However, on the basis that the father in his response to 1(c) was that he was not aware that B was behind the door when he had an emotional response, the court considers it highly likely that the children were present during these rows. The court also notes that M, in her later message, refers to the number of times the children have witnessed rows and F, in his evidence, although he claimed that they were careful not to row in front of the children, he also accepted that it had taken place.

On 12 May, F goes on to list the supportive things that he has done for M, such as being supportive over her relationship with her sister, facilitating motorbike lessons. However, the mother is not finished in listing the physical aggression and she responds: “What about throwing stuff the other day, throwing the door at B? What about throwing the ironing board, water bottle?” Again the court notes that the dating of these allegations seems to be recent, that these incidents occurred since the talk of separation. F replies: “Yes, outburst I should have controlled but wasn’t directed at anyone, reactions to words. I’ve never been hurt so much before.” So here he is accepting a non-specific incident as a result of an outburst but again linking it to the date of separation. He seems to be repeating this earlier assertion that if physical force is not in contact with someone, it really does not count and cannot be accused if someone is just really upset. The court observes that someone exhibiting their disappointment or anger, or general upset, with a display of force may be considered childish but it can also be frightening because of its unpredictability.

Although these messages seem to refer to recent events, the mother says: “How many times have I said you needed to see someone? The way you have been the past 7 months has been horrendous.” So here again the court notes that the mother is referring to a period from about October 2022, which the court notes was about the time that the mother broached the subject of separation. She says: “You’ve been snappy, moody, no effort made at all.” Concerning the children, she says: “How many times have they seen us shouting, you throwing things?”

This account suggests many arguments were taking place, with M referring to F reacting physically, throwing things. From this message it is clear that again these are recent events.

Concerning throwing the door at B, this is allegation 1(b), the mother’s allegation is that he went to slam the door but B was in the way and he managed to stop hitting him.

F, in his response to the schedule, states that he accepts that he pushed the door but he was in an emotional state when he did so, and that it was not aimed at B, who was behind the door, and whilst pushing the door he could see B and stopped it. He says the words “pushed” and “pushing” in his schedule. However, by the time he gave his oral evidence he was not accepting that and tried to persuade the court that he had a grip on the edge of the door and therefore was controlling it at all times. This account simply does not make sense and is not accepted.

The court also notes that M alleges that allegation 1(a) occurred on the same day as 1(b). M in the earlier response listing the water bottle as something that F has thrown. He does not accept this in his schedule or his evidence but the evidence of M is that this was a spray bottle that was used for A’s hair. The court prefers the evidence of M. It seems, on the basis that B was present, it is entirely likely that A was also present on this day, especially as her water bottle was around.

In her messages about him throwing things, M also mentions the ironing board. This is allegation 1(f). F accepts pushing it over but claims it was not directed towards her and did not hit her. His explanation was that he was upset that she was no longer wearing her wedding ring. M’s evidence is that he flipped the board towards her and it did hit her. That is evidence that the court accepts.

It is M’s evidence also that on 19 May F hit the side of A’s car seat. The messages show that there is a civilised communication between the parties as to when they will each be having the children and the mother offers to pick up F. The messages show a picture that the mother takes of A in the car. The copy that I have is blurred but, on the basis that the mother’s message is “Need your help”, it is suggested that the picture is of A having a meltdown. M’s evidence is that A was indeed screaming, that F came into the car and sat in the back seat alongside B and that a row started between them, and that in his frustration that A would not be quiet and continued screaming, he bellowed her name and hit the side of the car seat.

On 25 March 2023 F asks, within the messages, for the mother to give him three examples of how he is controlling. She responds: “How I look or how I am around the gym or even my bloody eyebrows. You’re controlling the kids, social media, you’re so controlling on my social media.” He later points out that he does not complain when she reacts to him shaving off his beard but she distinguishes that on the basis that, with regard to her eyebrows, he demanded a promise from her that she would not do them that way again.

The next day she messages him: “You controlling the kids. They can’t even eat a snack without you having a meltdown.” It is interesting to note that his response to this is: “The kids, I agree, and have now changed and eased off.” So this would suggest that he realises at times he has been controlling of the children. This seems to be an admission of allegation 3, that at some time he was controlling of the children. When he was asked about it, he said in very general terms that he was now far more laid back about their eating but he would not be more precise.

M, in her example, refers to two examples. First of all, that he did not want them to cry in public and that he could get angry if they did something like spill their drink. It is the view of the court that the father’s acceptance addresses 3(b) and the court will later address 3(a).

Up until the end of June, it seems as though all the focus is on him trying to persuade M that they can work things out and that she is exaggerating. However, on 30 June 2023 he sends quite an aggressive message complaining about the state of the house, that she has not washed up, and the court reminds itself that hand F are both working full-time. She explains, “We were in a rush”, but later he starts quizzing her as to why she has cleaned the sheets. Again, he is suspicious that she has slept with someone in the property.

This period, from April 2023 to August 2023, shows that tensions were high and that M was under enormous pressure from F. There are huge rows, one of which takes place on 12 July, and the court infers that there has been a row from F sending a message the following day: “Last night should not have happened in an already shitty times. Emotions can rise, boil over when rejection is every day.” The inference is that he, that is F, considers that he has been rejected, and had an episode whereby his emotions rose and boiled over. So everything indicates rows taking place.

M goes to her employers and relays what has been happening, about F losing his temper, becoming more physical, and it is interpreted that he is violent. F was spoken to about this and takes exception to the word “violence”, and under his influence the mother sends a letter to try to clarify that she did not mean violent. The mother says that this is an example of the father controlling her.

The court can see the messages whereby F is directing the mother to make it clear that this was not violence. This is allegation 2(b). However, although the father is directive in the letter, his evidence, which the mother did not dispute, was that as a result of her complaint to Welfare at their work she had been effectively prevented from attending the gym and in the end it is the mother who sends the letter, before he approves it.

It is apparent, however upset and enraged F was about the breakdown before the mother moves out, his angst certainly increases after she does.

During the time that the parents were in the relationship, I notice that allegation 2(a) is that the mother claims that F insisted on him checking all the messages that she sent to family and friends. It is the mother’s evidence that all the messages that she sent to his mother he would check. I accept that that is what happened.

Allegation 2(c) is that F made critical comments about M’s appearance. She claims that his comments affected her self-confidence and this issue is referred to as a “theme” in her allegations. She says: “You’ve never made me feel great about myself”, and it is the list that I have referred to already.

F disputes that he was critical of M and claims, in fact, that he was complimentary to her about her appearance. He accepts that he did not like the fashion of bladed eyebrows and had told the mother that.

People are allowed to criticise others without being accused of being controlling. However, these issues were set out from the very first in her complaints. M is very clear in her oral evidence on this issue.

She spoke on the pattern of F’s criticism, that there would not be a frontal attack on her, such as, “You look awful”, but there would be a constant repeat of comments that could only be taken as an intention to undermine her confidence. The court found the way she explained this as quite compelling. She says he would comment, whispering things in her ear when others were present, complimenting others, making comments to suggest that she needed to rethink her appearance and her clothing.

During the time that the parents are separated but still living together, she makes further allegations. One is allegation 2(d). It is that he tried to be controlling about her social media, making her feel uncomfortable about a post that she was making and placing her under pressure to remove them. The court is aware that M’s case is that F exhibited a pattern of behaviour that was controlling, but the court needs to look at the allegations concerned and as to whether this is an example of F being controlling or whether he was justified in raising concerns about what she was posting. The court is not satisfied, looking at the totality of the evidence, that the father exhibiting frustration that the information about their life was being highlighted on social media, is a good example of being controlling.

Allegation 2(e). In relation to F wanting the surfaces in the kitchen clear at all times, this allegation is in relation to appliances. When it was put to the mother that the father, who was trained as a chef, was professionally trained to keep things neat and tidy and clean, her evidence was that she had also had that training but that, with children, they have to be expected to make a mess. The court is concerned that there seems to be a conflation here of the allegations of F being controlling of the children making a mess and, here, which is an allegation of being controlling that no appliances should be left out on the work surfaces. It is the court’s view that it has not heard enough evidence specifically on this latter point to be clear.

The only evidence to corroborate this had been a critical message that F had sent to the mother about the kitchen being left in a messy state. He sent photos. It was highly critical. It is, therefore, evidence of his complaining about mess and untidiness. I am not, however, satisfied that complaining about the mess that could only be described as “a messy kitchen” is necessarily an example of him being controlling.

In August 2023, M moved into separate accommodation , and it seems that the father finds it very difficult to accept that her moving out of the home is making the break-up of the relationship more public. The court notes that in her first handwritten notes of the concerns about F, she notes that he cares too much about what people think, and here it is apparent that he has real angst that now people will realise that they are separated.

Allegation 2(j) is in relation to F’s birthday. M sends F a message at 9.23 in the evening, offering to spend the day together the next day. However, F has driven to her address. But what is the purpose of this? He says that he has not had as many messages from her as usual and is worried about the welfare of the children. The court does not accept this. He has described the mother as a very good mother so why would he have any concerns about their welfare. The court is clear that F had no reason to drive to the mother’s property to look in. What is actually going on is that the mother is entertaining her older sister, Sammy, and her partner and the children were still up, as is evidenced by Sammy’s messages.

F disputes that he did anything but did a drive-by, but it is clear that he focused enough on M’s house to realise that a man was present, of whom he is very suspicious, and also he messages her concerning the children, “Why the fuck are the kids up?”

The court accepts that on this occasion he was there because he simply could not resist trying to see what was going on. He was angry that the mother had moved out and, on this occasion and on a later occasion where he messages that he has been sitting outside for twenty minutes, F is driving to the mother’s house to effectively spy on her and see what she is up to. It is understandable for M to feel alarmed when she knows that the father has been sitting at her property. It is, however, an example of being emotionally abusive rather than controlling.

So now we are visiting allegation 2(h). The court accepts that the evidence supports the mother’s allegations that F’s behaviour became more extreme after the talk of separation, and it seems that it is also part of F’s case. In his own messages, that the court has referred to above, F concedes that the rage that he felt when he hit the door was as a result of being told that she wanted to break up. He also refers to, in a few acceptances in the schedule, that he accepted that he became more emotional as a result of the break-up. The court is satisfied that the mother has done her best to relay the truth of what went on.

Allegation 2(k) is that she went to see their employers where she reported that she was receiving the repetitive texts. Concern is raised that she may not be able to sustain the separation in face of the pressure placed by the father, and the court accepts that the mother did feel under pressure from F, through his texts and his attendance at her house.

So what happens at the end of 2023? The parties are living separately. There seems to be an uneasy truce but there is clarity that the children will spend some time with each parent separately. To that end, the maternal grandmother helps out with the babysitting. Both parents are working and so she needs to be around to help with handovers.

Christmas 2023 approaches. The messages between the parties are, in the view of the court, a reflection of the dynamic between the parties. M starts out strong saying in terms that F cannot join them for Christmas. Then she relents. He can come round on Christmas Day. But F wants to be there to see them open their presents. M offers that he could arrive early, at six o’clock, but that is not good enough for F so he pushes and pushes and eventually she relents. It is agreed that he will attend the evening before so that both parents will be present when they open the stockings. This softening of her position in regards to the father is an example of the reticence that she presents when talking of F. It is indicative of the lack of vindictiveness that she has when talking of him. In the end, F attends, as arranged, on Christmas Eve and it would appear that Christmas morning is fine, but by the afternoon there is a full-scale row and F leaves.

On M’s account, during his visit, F just wanted to take issue with her actions on separating. It had been agreed that F would have the children from five o’clock on Christmas Day for five days, and M had also made her own arrangements to go to Belfast with a friend. So at five o’clock even though he has on her account stormed out of the house in a temper, she drops the children round. She tells the court she felt it was safe as the more emotional part of the Christmas festivity has passed.

This takes us to allegation 1(g), which is that when she was opening the front door for the children to go in that F came behind her and tried to physically push her into the house. It was an odd thing for father to do but M’s evidence on it is compelling. She describes how she had to grip the doorframe to stop herself being pushed into the house and the court notes that the children had to be present and were likely to have witnessed this.

In January 2024 the parties continue with their arrangements. No one has yet filed for divorce but that is about to change. It is apparent that the mother was still harbouring feelings for F because, on 9 January, when in the evening she hears from a colleague that there is a report that F has, in fact, slept with someone else, she is obviously very upset and angry. She immediately, within minutes, contacts F, tells him what she has been told and then she files her divorce petition. She receives confirmation of it at 9.30pm that night. The court accepts M’s evidence that she contacts her mother, to whom she is close, and tells her that her relationship with F is over.

The court is now approaching the time of the allegations of X and Y. The court accepts the evidence from the maternal grandmother that she immediately relays the information to X and Y, her sisters, who are then sixteen years old, that M has decided to end the marriage.

The court has seen the video ABE interviews of X and Y, which they gave when they were sixteen. The court also viewed them giving evidence over a screen a year later at this hearing. They are very close sisters it was evident in the ABE interview that X, who in fact is the younger sister , was the more confident. In the ABE interviews, X appeared more confident and was perhaps attempting to look older than her years, with fake eyelashes and long nail extensions. Y, the quieter one , looked younger.

In her oral evidence a year later, X stated that although she was the younger sister she felt that in communication she was the more confident. This echoed the court’s assessment that Y comes across as quieter, not quite as upfront as X. So it is entirely consistent with the court’s assessment of these sisters that X takes the lead in revealing the allegations. As the court hears, X upon being told that M has separated from F, on her own without any reference to Y, takes the decision to tell her mother, the maternal grandmother, what she says that F has done. Y accepts that she was not present at this but that X later came in to see her and effectively brought her in to speak to the maternal grandmother, whereby X repeated the allegations with Y confirming them.

The next day is 10 January. The grandmother needs to babysit M’s children until the father collects them. This happens but she stays on to speak to M and, during this conversation, she tells M what X and Y have told her. It is known that at 4.22 that day M emails F, saying, “After what I found out today, I think it’s best you keep your head down. I’m speaking to my sisters tonight for more information, just so you know what I’m talking about. I filed my divorce yesterday.”

Later that day she does speak to X and Y . M and the maternal grandmother agree that the maternal grandmother effectively leaves them to it. The court accepts the evidence of M that she warns the sisters that what they are alleging is serious and the court accepts that the purpose of this warning was to warn X and Y not to mess about, that there would be consequences. Again, it is X that takes the lead with Y agreeing with her account.

The court accepts the evidence of the mother and the grandmother that after X and Y have spoken to M, M and the maternal grandmother speak about what they should do. Their evidence was that they decided initially that the implications were so bad for the father concerning his career and pension that they would not report it. This piece of evidence was not challenged. It is F’s case that the account of X and Y is simply untrue. So what had gone on?

The court has referred to the fact that M and F’s relationship started properly in November 2015 and at that time F had rented a flat that they would both go to when they had leave. It is accepted that the sisters on occasion visited the flat. They were driven there by M so they could spend time with herself and F.

So what were X and Y like at that time? What did they look like? The answer has been provided by a photo that was taken of them when they were on holiday with M and F in August 2017. The photo is a picture of what can only be described as two little girls. They are both of slight build. It is the view of the court that they possibly looked younger than the ten years of age that they were. This is a photo of them in 2017, so the court is satisfied that at the time that they were visiting the flat, that is pre-2017, they would have not looked any older but possibly younger.

What did they think of F? Well, both girls in their interview stated that initially they liked F very much because he was so funny. X says that they thought he was the funniest man they had ever met. So it was clear that initially they had very positive views about him. They did not approach their relationship with him with any negative views.

The first allegation, in the local authority’s schedule, in time is 10(b), that he made the girls watch Naked Attraction. The court is aware that such a programme is a dating show based on people looking at a group of people’s naked bodies which are gradually revealed. It is an adult show. There is adult full frontal nudity. There is no question that it would be completely inappropriate for a child to watch such a show. In their interviews and in their evidence, both X and Y state that they were sitting on the sofa in the flat, that F came in, put the show on for them and left, taking the remote control.

In the context of possible allegations it is perhaps on the mildest edge of the spectrum. If this was made up to show that there was an escalation to his behaviour in exposing the girls to his behaviour to a point where he exposes his genitals, it was a very sophisticated example to give. The court’s observation is that sophistication was not consistent with the presentation of M nor the maternal grandmother nor the sisters.

It is known that the parties moved into a different house in August 2017. It is the evidence of the girls that besides the Naked Attraction episode, that they had not any further allegations to make about F. Only X recalls later that even at the flat she had a feeling that she was uncomfortable about him.

On 21 August the girls accompany M and F on holiday abroad . It is agreed that they all stayed in the same room, with M and F in one bed and the sisters in the other, although X believed they may have been in single beds.

Allegation 10(i). X’s evidence in her ABE interview is unprompted and clear. She says that she accompanied F on her own up to their room and that, when there, F was naked, that he started putting suncream on her, that he told her to put suncream on him, that she started putting it on his legs, that he then made a comment that his penis would get burnt and that she needed to put suncream on it, that she refused and that they shortly returned to be with the others.

The evidence of Y is very similar, with the important difference that she did actually follow his instruction and put suncream on his penis. Her interview has much content. She said: “He said, ‘I don’t want a burnt dick’. He gave me the suncream. He was naked. It was for about three minutes.” When she was asked about how she applied it, she said: “At first I was just on the top. I was doing one finger, doing that”, and she makes a movement in the interview, “but then he told me to use both hands so I was basically doing what you do when you do a hand job basically.”

Another really compelling part of this interview is the interaction between the sisters as reported to the court. In her interview, X states that she told Y what had happened and then she realised from Y that similar had happened to her, but it was her response to Y actually putting suncream on the penis that was of real interest.

X in her ABE interview indicated that she simply could not understand why Y had done it, and in her oral evidence the court asked X about this comment. She said that she had remembered that her discussion with Y about what had happened took place the next day.

She recalled that they were at the water park and that she told the court that she was expecting to shock Y with her account but it seems that when she heard that similar had happened to Y, and what is more Y had done what she was told, she, X, became very, very angry and wanted to tell everyone. The court heard that Y wanted X to keep it a secret . This is very compelling evidence. It is completely understandable for Y to feel that she should not have touched the penis, wanting it to be a secret. It is also understandable that X would feel more comfortable in telling everyone as she had not done something as embarrassing as touching the penis herself.

I remind myself that F says that all this is made up. It is the court’s view that for this to be false narrative of one sister touching and one not, it would be a most sophisticated false narrative. It is, in fact, completely unbelievable that it could be made up. How does X react when she is home? Well, we know that there were further occasions when the girls did go to the house but the evidence of M is that it was apparent that they were less keen and so eventually they stopped coming by November 2017.

The maternal grandmother was aware that she had heard in terms that the sisters had gone off F and she recalls being told a story by X that F had asked them to put suncream on him, which she thought was just weird. The evidence of X was that to the step-grandmother she had made it clear that they did not like him.

It is noted by the court that Y makes a further allegation, on 10(g), about F when on the holiday abroad . She says that on one of the nights she went to bed in her own bed and then woke up in the other bed, being held by F, that when she woke up her face was sideways on his chest and she was aware that he had his hand on her hand and was guiding it towards his penis. Her case is that she was aware of this because she was awake but pretended that she was asleep and then she pretended to wake up and went to the bathroom. She recalls that when she came out of the bathroom that F reminded her to turn off the light. She says she had no recollection as to how she got into his bed.

It is an extraordinary allegation. If it is true, it shows such arrogance on the part of F considering what he could get away with: actually a carrying a child from one bed to another. But the court reminds itself that Y was a little girl at the time, smaller than X from the photo. It is a fact that F was a physical trainer, in peak physical condition. There could be no suggestion that he would not have very easily picked up Y from one bed to the other. It was put that if that had happened she would have woken up. Her evidence was, of course, that she had woken up. She had woken up and she was lying on the F.

The court notes in her description, and yet again in her interview and in her oral evidence, that there is no hint of her relishing in the delivery of the detail of this. It is a fact that she does not tell X about it but the court is aware of X’s reaction when Y has told her that she touched F’s penis and the court has also heard that Y wanted X to keep quiet about what she told her. So perhaps it is not surprising that she did not tell her of anything else that had happened and did not reveal it until much later.

We know that the parties were in their new home immediately before the holiday and we also know that the sisters visited the house, within a few months of that time. The evidence of the sisters was that they had soon realised that F was acting in an inappropriate way and so when, as usual, F would want someone to help him with something, the sisters played the game “ Rock, Paper, Scissors “ to decide who would go with him. The winner would go with M. The very fact of them both accepting that they had to go through that process is a detail which gives real context and makes it more likely that they are reporting true events .

The court also notes that it is the evidence of X that when M and F would go somewhere in separate cars, she made sure that she never went in a car with F on his own. That, of course, would leave Y, who the court infers found herself alone more frequently with F than X.

So what do the girls say was so concerning about the F’s behaviour in the new home ? The court notes that the unchallenged evidence was that when the sisters were visiting that house M would regularly leave the house to attend the gym. There is also evidence, particularly of X, that very often it would be decided one sister would do something with F whilst the other would be with M. They say he would be often around in his dressing gown with his genitals on show and X says that, in the alternative, he might be wearing very thin jogging bottoms which did not hide the outline of his genitals. This is 10(a) and 10(c).

M’s evidence is that she did on occasion remind F that his genitals were on show and that on each occasion he would cover up. Her evidence was that she became aware that it was always when the sisters were present. This is concerning evidence. At 10(c), M says that on one occasion she remembers coming upstairs and the spare room door, where the sisters slept, was pushed to, which was unusual, that she opened the door, enters the room and finds F, yet again in his dressing gown. The girls were sitting cross-legged at the top of their bed, near the headboard. F was sitting on his left buttock, his left leg was bent on the bed, his right leg dangling to the floor, and between his legs his genitals were again on show. She recalls that when she came in F said they were just talking. M remembers this because she remembers she was angry and admonished him in front of the girls, pointing out that she had reminded him again and again to cover up.

But what is F’s reaction? She describes him as immediately covering himself up, as if it had almost been a surprise to him that yet again, here they are, the genitals were on show. This account of M accords with the evidence of her sisters , that time and time again F would come to talk to them but it was apparent that his genitals were on show. His exposure is a theme in the sisters ’ allegations.

Allegation 10(h): X recalls that after M and F had moved in that she, X, landed the job of helping F put boxes in the attic. She remembers the ladder coming down from the ceiling. She describes going up the ladder, aware that F was sitting on the edge of the attic opening with his legs dangling down and his genitals on show, that she tried to avoid looking at them, turning her body away, but F told her in terms to face him. She describes closing her eyes at the key moment.

Allegation 10(f) is that Y tells of an incident where she landed the role of F’s helper. On this occasion he was making some furniture. She thinks it was around the time of the foreign holiday. He was holding a plank of wood and she describes his trousers being below his genitals, which were exposed. He asked her to put his penis back into his trousers and her evidence is that she told F to put down the wood and do it himself, but he insists and yet again, quiet Y, being told by F to tuck in his penis, does just that.

Allegation 10(d) and (e) is the joint recollection of the sisters practising handstands in their room and F coming in and trying to do a handstand. X remembers being shocked at what she saw when he did that but cannot quite be sure that he was naked, but Y, is clear he was wearing nothing underneath. Then both girls recalled F told X to take photos of him while he was doing press-ups, telling her to get lower and lower, and her evidence is that when she realised that she was effectively videoing his genitals bumping against the floor she then stopped.

The court reminds itself of the caution that the court needs to exercise in viewing ABE interviews. The court’s view, however, is there was little if any direction required in these interviews, that both girls gave considerable context to their accounts and there was much free narrative. The court’s view is that X was the more confident communicator but that Y was also very clear.

At the end of her interview X is asked what she wants to happen as a result of the allegations. She initially says, “Him not to see his children.” She is then asked whether she thinks he is a risk to them and her response is more measured. “If I’m being honest, no, but that is the price you pay for being a nonce.” The court notes there is no guise here. She is frank. She does not want him to see the children but she accepts that, in her view, she does not think he is a risk to them. It is difficult to see that that answer is consistent with someone who is trying to do their worst for F.

When Y is asked at the end of her interview, she says: “I hope that he gets done”, and when she is asked what she thinks he has done, she says: “Sexual assault to minors”. The mortification that Y felt, that she had touched him as he had wanted, was palpable within the interview and also her oral evidence, and one of the most compelling responses that she gave was towards the end of her interview. When talking about the suncream episode, she simply said the words: “I wished, I just wished I’d said no.” This is entirely consistent with a quieter sister who finds out, to her dismay, that when put in a challenging situation by F she had not acted like X, her more confident sister, and just refused to do it. The account that X gives of Y being embarrassed and X being angry is completely believable.

F’s case is that all their allegations are untrue. Therefore, they would be made up but who has made them up? I will deal with the detail of the earlier allegations below but it is part of F’s case that because M had knowledge of all of the details, that she was in a position to fabricate similar applications by her sisters . Much time has been spent in this case with the father trying to establish that the mother knew all of the allegations.

What is the relevance of the point? Firstly, because of certain of the allegations being similar, namely (i) the sisters allege that there was a naked handstand and that is something that was referred to in the first trial; (ii) that F would wear a dressing gown with nothing underneath and that is something that P mentioned; (iii)that P alleged that F asked her to hold his penis for the purpose of urination, and the similarity to more recent allegations when Y alleged F asked her to put suncream on his penis and asked her to put his penis back in his trousers.

The mother accepts the fact that the earlier allegation in relation to the naked handstand was known to her. So the court considers that if it is satisfied that the mother had a motive for making things up, she would have known the sort of things to allege. The court does observe that even with just the information about the naked handstand and the allegation that he told a girl to remove their clothes, anyone with any imagination and intent to do harm could create, without very little problem, suggest similar allegations about sexual content.

However, the court accepts that the issue of being naked under a dressing gown is a very peculiar allegation and is very similar to that made by P. So either the mother knew about it or the mother did not know about it. If the latter is the case, the extreme similarity of the facts of exposure to young girls is suggestive that the sisters , completely ignorant of the earlier allegations, can only have come up with this allegation if it was true.

The evidence of M and her sisters is that only after they had spoken to their mother and M about the allegations were they aware of the earlier allegations. The sisters have no clear memory of this but M recalls telling them that it was proved that F could not have done a naked handstand.

So what did M know? Having heard from the F’s family and the evidence from the mother and father, I am clear that after the trial F was very upset by the bad publicity for his trial, and that there were numerous conversations between M and his family about her concerns about F’s mental health. As the result of the previous allegations, F had lost most of his friends around his home town, and he was nervous when going out when there for fear of who he might bump into.

Although the F’s family turned up in force to drive home their evidence that time and time again there were detailed discussions with M about the details of those earlier allegations, their evidence simply did not hold water. All in the end accepted that, in view of F’s distress, they would not have discussed the details of the allegations with M in front of F.

Even the F’s brother , who concocted his evidence with the F’s sister, accepted that there was only one time he spoke to M without F present. He claimed that the conversation took place in July 2020, during Covid when M was feeling isolated,. He states that when he had heard her concerns about F’s mental health,, his approach was to try and analyse with reference to the detailed allegations the cause of the distress . He informed the court that as he was an analyst by profession he was interested to understand F’s mental health, wanting to know which particular allegation was triggering him. The court does not accept his evidence. The evidence simply does not make sense. The court notes that he colluded with his sister about his evidence and the view of the court is that, like his other evidence, he was just making this up.

The court is satisfied that whatever M knew of the allegations, therefore, comes from F and F alone. M accepts that there was a conversation in a public house , from this she knows there was a child, a naked handstand and also asking girls to take their clothes off. F says that over time he tells her – and this was put to her by his counsel – that (i) there were two children, this M says was a lie,- that she was never told of two children being involved that (ii) there was a dressing gown and lifting up, and this again M says was a lie, and (iii)also of a child accessing pornography, again she says this is a lie.

After that, it is known that in 2015 F was interviewed about the later allegation about P holding his penis while he urinated. The court notes that there is an email, which M accepts was sent to her by F – she cannot recall it – and that email states that there is nothing to worry about, that F is not going to include detail about it in the email but that he will speak to her.

At the time of that email, the court notes that F was not working with the mother . This was because his employers removed him from working with the mother as they did not consider the relationship between the F and the M was consistent with the required professional relationship required for their work The court has heard, and F accepts, that M had found out that he had been continuing in a relationship with E whilst he appeared to be courting M. It was at a time, therefore, when the mother was very distrusting of him.

The court accepts that M is somewhat naïve. Anyone hearing a prospective partner has been accused of a naked handstand in front of children and asking them to take off their clothes, might think twice. However, M did not. However, the court considers that for F to tell M, at a time when frankly she had trust issues about him, that he had now been accused of requiring a child to hold his penis while he urinated would have been most unlikely and even more unlikely was the likelihood that if M had been told that she would not have remembered.

The court observes that the mother, even to her own discredit, is a truthful witness. She accepts, and has said to the court that she accepts, she did not see F as a risk, even though there were repeated times when his genitals were on show and she was aware that there had been a previous trial.

After 2015 what, if anything, did F tell M? The court accepts the mother’s evidence that after the trial F had real mental health issues and the fact that many people in his home town had dropped him as the result of the earlier allegations and trial had a huge impact on him . It accepts therefore that there were no discussions where the details were repeated. The mother has shown herself to be a truthful witness and the court, therefore, accepts that mother had no knowledge of (i) the earlier allegations of F wearing a dressing gown with nothing underneath or (ii) the 2015 allegation where he asked a child to touch his penis.

I do not accept F’s case that M gave her sisters information about the earlier allegations in order for them to make new allegations. I do not accept the sisters mother also made it up. I accept the evidence that she and M really wanted to see if there was any way of avoiding bringing this into the public place or to the police because of the consequences for F. I further do not accept that M forced her sisters to make this up, even with her knowledge of the naked handstand. I have already referred to her distress in viewing the videos but, further, I am content that M is not vindictive. She has been naïve and again and again has softened towards F, as evidenced by Christmas and Mothering Sunday. There is no evidence to suggest that she would be vindictive.

The court notes that the evidence has been that Sam, her sister, is furious with her and again not speaking to her because she considers that, on the basis that the sisters are being brave and giving evidence to support the children, she should put her allegations of rape. But the mother has not. That is not the stance of a vindictive person determined to make things up and make things as bad as possible for F.

The overwhelming reason this court has for considering that the sisters did not make up these allegations was their presentation. The anger of X at what Y had been told to do, the mortification of Y. The court is absolutely clear that this is not a case where the girls were making things up just for the sake of it. It comes as no surprise to the court that these girls kept changing their minds as to whether they wanted to speak to the police. For both of them, especially Y, it was never something that she would choose to go through if it had not happened.

But I remind myself that I need to look at all the evidence. I now deal with the P and Q allegations.

It is agreed by the parties that F and K the father of P and Q, had been very good friends for years, initially meeting at school. It was as adults that they really bonded. When F returned home, he would on most occasions drop in unannounced to visit his friend . They were part of a bigger friendship group of men whose partners also became friends. K is married to L and even before they had children F would drop in to see them.

F had a girlfriend, who had relatives living near his home and the court heard that she would accompany F back to his home town but would focus on spending time with her own relatives, which meant that when F visited K’s family, F was on his own.

In 2004, P was born and soon F was known as “Uncle F”, such was his closeness with the family. The court heard that as she grew he had a very physical relationship with her, rough and tumble, throwing onto a sofa, lifting her upside down by the legs. In his written statement, he stated that by 2013 the practice of F offering to take P out had been going on for some eighteen months, which would mean about 2011/2012. In K’s oral evidence he accepted that it started roughly about the end of 2011 to the beginning of 2012. However, later in oral evidence he stated that it would be after she no longer needed so much care, which would be when she was four or five. That would put it back to 2009. I cannot see that it makes much difference because even if the visits only started in 2011, when P was seven, she was by that time very familiar with F and referred to him as Uncle F. The court is clear that P was keen to spend time with him.

The suggestion of F was that he was doing P’s parents a favour in offering to take P off their hands, but it has to be noted that P’s parents are clear that they never asked him to take her. He always offered and he only offered to take P. On occasion Q would be asked to join in but this was less frequent. The evidence of both K and L is that they estimate that in total P was taken out by F about ten times and Q only joined in about three.

It is the evidence of L that F would refer to doing errands at times, such as, for instance, sorting invitations for his mother’s wedding, but her evidence, which I accept, was that P would always inform L that in fact he never took them out but would take them back to the mother’s home, where they would spend most of the time in the attic room.

Concerns were raised about what was going on when the children were with F, when Q, on 22 April 2013, drew a picture apparently of male genitals and ejaculating sperm . Q claimed that the drawing was of a cow being milked but later in the day P told a neighbour that Q had drawn something rude and that they had seen rude pictures on F’s phone. Q was asked separately if she had seen rude pictures and she said yes. K and L spoke to P, who confirmed that she had told the neighbour that Q had drawn rude pictures seen on F’s phone.

K at that stage contacts F. He texted the following:

“When the girls are with you can you supervise them on your phone or not give it to them because Q has drawn a rude picture and if she draws it at school would have a lot of questions to answer …”.

F’s response was:

“I’m really sorry. I feel like a right cunt. I didn’t realise I had that sort of thing on my phone. No child should ever see something like that.”

The court notes that this direct messaging by K to F, even on a sensitive issue like his own child seeing pornography, indicates how K viewed F. F was his friend. He did not dream that F would have done this deliberately. He assumed it had been a mistake.

P later told K that she played a game. Both told K that F had told them to take their tops off to stop their clothes getting creased. The girls also said they had been in bed topless with F and that he was topless too, and said that when they were all in bed they would watch Shaun the Sheep. P later changed her account to say that she was not topless but a number of days later she changed back, saying that she had been topless but had not told her parents for fear of getting into trouble.

P also stated that on a number of occasions, when she had been to F’s mother’s address, he would often have a shower and that he then dressed in a pink dressing gown. She also described it as his sister’s yellow leopard print dressing gown. P said that when they played the game whilst wearing his dressing gown, he did not have any clothes on underneath. P told K and L that F was in the dressing gown, he lifted her up and his “thing” went in her face. She also said that when asked to feel his muscles, he had asked her to feel her bum and that she had told him, no, but that he had kept asking so she felt his and he felt hers.

The police are eventually called and by 2 May 2013 P undergoes her first interview. This interview is short. All P wants to talk about is school and some children who are giving her a hard time. However, on 13 May she is interviewed again. The court has viewed the ABE interview. The court has studied that interview. It is apparent that at the start of the interview P is reluctant to say anything. The interviewer prompts her by showing her the drawing that Q has made and that starts P off.

P was nine when she gave that interview. The court is now aware that she has since been diagnosed with learning difficulties. The court is aware of the guidelines concerning ABE interviews and the way that they should be conducted. The court is aware that children are suggestible, that care should be taken that the children have the opportunity for much free narrative and to avoid closed questions. When viewing the interview, it is apparent that, as with the first interview, initially she is reluctant but by the time she is shown Q’s drawing she is giving much detailed information.

It is K’s evidence that by the time of this her second ABE interview she has already relayed much of the information to him and her mother. The court needs to consider, however, whether there could be any suggestion that her parents have in some way skewed P’s account. I note also that within the interview, that after she has recounted a number of concerns, she is asked, “Do you like spending time with Uncle F?” and her response is, “Yeah.” She is asked whether there is anything that worries or upsets her, and she says, “No.” Her general presentation is not of a child who is out to make trouble for F but someone who likes spending time with him, is able to give great detail as to what is going on, even after stating what she does not like to do, such as watch pornography or have her face touched by a penis. She is quite clear she still wants to spend time with him. There can be no suggestion of malice on her part.

Within the free narrative of the interview she gives a huge amount of detail. F has said repeatedly that K has had issues about her lying, that he reported that she is a compulsive liar, so it is worth looking at the interview to see whether she is just lying all the way through, the court noting, however, that F in his oral evidence could only identify one issue that she lied about. He claims that he had not actually given her the phone, that she had picked it up herself. It could be argued that, as a child with learning difficulties, perhaps she has got the wrong end of the stick as to what was happening, but that is difficult to reconcile with the detail that she provides because, within this interview, the facts that she gives, that are agreed by F, include the following. This is not complete list.

First of all, that she calls him Uncle F but, in fact, he is not a real uncle but a friend of the father’s. That her father went to school with him. That F had a girlfriend called E. That his sister is called G. That when she is with him he always takes her to his mother’s and they are in the attic. That they play the muscle game. That they play the game where they have to try and make him laugh. That she was looking at nice pictures on his phone when she saw the videos. That the videos portrayed men and women and women playing with willies and sucking. That F has a brother called H. That there are pictures of his mother and sister in the attic. That she has seen his display of swords. That in the attic is a sofa that can turn into bed. That he would sometimes have a shower and then put a dressing gown on. That F wears a fluffy dressing gown which is his sister’s. That her face touched his willy when he lifted her up by the legs, and he was wearing a dressing gown with nothing underneath.

F accepts, in his interview, that all the above is true so what does he take issue with? He claims that at no point did he ask P to watch the video, but that she was on his phone. He says he heard a gasp and that he realised she had seen the video and took it away. However, she initially says, “He did show us rude photos.” She later says, “He shows us rude photos and videos.” She said she does not know when Q saw them because she is not allowed. This account of Q not being allowed to see them whereas she was, indicates that there was a real distinction and it is very compelling of a consistency in context to this allegation.

Later she says, “In the videos, they are really rude where they’re sucking it and stuff.” When asked how she came to see them, she says, “He gave me his phone. I was looking at these nice pictures of him and E and when I clicked on this one I really liked then a rude video came up.” And what did the video show? “Some people naked and playing with it.” She later says the men and women are in the video. She indicates to her crotch when she says that they are playing with it and later says that one woman is playing with the willy. She is asked if F knew she was watching and she nods, and is asked if he says anything, and she says the following. She says he says, “Do you want to watch it?” She says, “I didn’t want to be, I said okay.” She says she has only seen the one video, that they do lick the willy, “that he does want me to watch it all the time”, and she is asked, “How many times have you seen the video?” “Well, every time I go down there, nearly every day.”

F, in his evidence, accepts that she saw the video but claims that he took it away the first time and it was not repeated. The court needs to consider all of the evidence in this case and consider his truthfulness. The evidence against him with regard to X and Y is strong but, even looking at this evidence, just looking at these earlier allegations, the difficulty that I have with the father’s explanation is that P has given so much information that he accepts is completely true.

Further , it has been a theme that is echoed in Q’s responses and in her interview that Q was treated differently. It is difficult to see how P, who was so accurate about so much of her account, is now being untruthful.

The issue of this “J” game was volunteered by P when she was talking about the video. When she was talking about it, she said, “I have to feel his muscles, there, there, there and there”. Later she says, “We have to feel each other’s muscle and that Q plays it as well, and that to play it we have to stand up and he just feels my muscles.” She is later asked if she touches his muscles and she says that she does and points to shoulders, hips and her bottom. She is asked, “How do you feel about touching his muscles?” She says, “I don’t want to. I just keep saying no and then I say yeah in the end because he’s asked me so much.” His account, that he gives in his interview, is that she will squeeze one of his muscles, say how hard it is and he will offer others for her to touch but only above chest level. In his interview he indicates by his actions that he might lift them up by his arms while they are holding onto his muscles. He denies that she ever touched what he refers to as his bum. He initially denies touching her at all and then says maybe once that he did tell her to tense her muscles and touched her bicep. He accepts in his interview that, if he was looking in on the situation of asking a nine year old to touch him, he would agree that that sounds inappropriate. He also says that they could have been touching his muscles when he was naked under the dressing gown.

She says, “Every time he does gymnastics he does wear a dressing gown and it did go in my face.” With regard to gymnastics that F can only do a handstand but she can do a handstand, bridge, cartwheel. P is asked about the dressing gown and says it is a yellow furry one with leopard print on it. Within her interview she gets distracted by the topic of gymnastics and the fact that she wants to do this in class. She then says about the dressing gown that he only wears it when he comes out of the shower which happens every day they go down there and that when he wears his dressing gown, with nothing underneath, he picked her up and her face touched his penis. She says, “I’m lying on the floor. He wants to pick me up by the legs and he will just go and it goes in my face”, that he wears nothing under his dressing gown. She says, “I just don’t want to do it.”

F’s account in interview is that P would do gymnastics and when he is asked whether he joined in, he says: “Yeah, I’ve done, trying and failing to try and do the bridge or to do like the handstand or whatever or a cartwheel.” So here he is accepting that he has a go at doing handstands and yet the court had heard from his mother that her understanding is that a handstand would be impossible in the attic. He agrees that he did pick her up. Concerning his genitals going in her face, he agrees that this did happen in his interview but that it was P asking to be lifted and the whole thing was an accident.

The court notes that on seven occasions within that interview he accepts the suggestion that P’s face touched his penis, yet at the Crown Court case it appears that he did not remember feeling it touch her face. Yet his sister, G who was so supportive of her brother, accepted that prior to the Crown Court trial she understood from F that it was his case that his penis had touched P’s face. He says that there was only one occasion when he did not have anything underneath his dressing gown. He accepted it was not appropriate to dress like that but he did say he would play games with the children while dressed like that. He said, “I was lifting her up quite vigorously in my dressing gown. My dressing gown did open but on realising my dressing gown had come open I put her down.” She did not seem to react, as with the video issue, and he did not tell her parents.

She says, “Every time we play a game he wants to take our tops off. We have to feel his muscles and stuff. He’s a king and me and Q have to make him laugh.” P says that he is the king. He sits on a throne, which is the big wheelie chair, and that he is very miserable and they have to make him laugh, and she does pretend washing and Q has to try and make him laugh. That “R” is the only game that Q gets invited to, apart from watching television.

He is asked, “So when you are naked underneath and obviously this dressing gown over the top, what would you do in the attic when you were dressed like that?” and his answer is: “I don’t know. Probably just the same as if I was dressed, to be honest.” “Would you play games with the kids dressed like this?” “Yeah, yeah, I’d be covered up as much I could, like, yeah.”

It is put to F that the girls have told K that they would lay down on the sofa with him and they would not be wearing tops. He denied they were topless but did accept that on occasion they would lie on the sofa. He accepted that sometimes the sofa bed was laid out as a bed, that they would lie together but that the girls would be constantly fidgeting.

The local authority did not rely on the evidence of Q to prove any part of these findings. The court has read the interview that she gave and notes that there is nothing particularly inconsistent in Q’s accounts.

At the conclusion of his interview, it was put to F as follows:

“So basically, F, you have your best friend’s 9 and 5 year olds at your mum’s address. You have them in the attic but on more than one occasion you’ve showered, you’ve undressed, so you’ve got no clothing on and a dressing gown, and you’ve played games with them dressed like that. There’s an occasion where, whilst playing with P and holding her upside down, her face has hit your penis. There’s an occasion when P has seen a pornographic video on your mobile phone. Both girls have touched your muscles, shoulder and back areas, and you deny P touching your bum and you have touched her.”

He says:

“Explaining it back, it sounds horrendous but it wasn’t malicious. It wasn’t meant, nothing intended in it.”

The finding of this court, having heard this evidence and considering it against all the other evidence , is that, contrary to what he says, there was an intent and the intent was grooming.

So, therefore, the court has now considered all the evidence in the context of all the other evidence. In considering the allegations of domestic abuse, the view of the court is that, due in part to the difference of age between M and F, in part due to the difference in seniority at work , due in part to the different personalities, that the mother on occasion would be persuaded by F to follow his choice of doing things but that during the marriage itself it is clear that there were times when the father was more controlling and that it is those instances that the court is satisfied that either the father was controlling or emotionally abusive.

I therefore find – and this is looking at the mother’s allegations – 1(a) proved, 1(b) proved, 1(c) proved, 1(d) proved, 1(e) proved, 1(f) proved, 1(g) proved.

Re 2, I find that the father was controlling of the mother; 2(a) he always insisted that he see any message that she sent to his own mother. I am not satisfied that the mother wrote the letter referred to in 2(b) due to her wishes or the father’s, so there is no finding. I do find that he would frequently be emotionally abusive to the mother within the relationship when, at 2(c), he would regularly criticise her appearance in order to undermine her confidence. I do not make the finding 2(d) or 2(e). I do not make the finding 2(f). I make the finding 2(g). I make the finding 2(h). With regard to 2(l) I make the finding that the father’s controlling behaviour led the mother to remain in a relationship against her real wishes. That is, therefore, different from the current allegation. I do not see that as found in its totality. Re (j) is proved. Re (k), I do not make the finding as I have not seen enough evidence.

With regard to allegation 3, I find 3(b) proved, not 3(a).

Although I have considered all the evidence against each other, I do not consider that my views and scrutiny concerning the findings of domestic abuse have been determinative in my assessment of the sexual abuse findings which I now address.

When considering the two sets of sexual abuse findings, the first observation to be made is the obvious similarities. Here was a man in a position of trust. Here were girls around the age of ten, prepubescent. They enjoyed his company. There is a theme of exposure of genitals to be seen accidentally on purpose when wearing nothing but a dressing gown. There is mention of naked handstands. It is because of the similarities that F has tried to persuade the court that the second setoff allegations are just a copy. However, for the reasons I have set out above in my analysis, I am absolutely sure that the second set of allegations were not a fake copy but resulted from actual abuse. This finding cannot come as a surprise to anyone who has read and seen the evidence. It is overwhelming.

Similarly, despite F’s attempts to besmirch the reputation of P as a compulsive liar or his wishing to create suspicions that K had some financial motive behind the allegations, the problem that F has in relation to those first set of allegations is that, to a great extent, he accepts everything that P says he did. He just disputes the motive. F has said more than once that he has no sexual interest in little girls. The finding of this court is that F does have a sexual interest in little girls.

Dealing with the allegations of P, I find as proved numbers 9(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f) and (g). With regard to 9(h), I find that on at least one occasion he held P up by the feet so that her face was next to and, on occasion, touched his penis and that he never reported the incident to her parents. I make the finding 9(i).

With regard to the X and Y allegations, I am absolutely satisfied that the similar fact in these allegations was not caused by just copying. I am satisfied that X and Y had no prior knowledge of P’s allegations when they made their allegations and I am satisfied that the similarity underlines the fact that F has developed a habit of using exposure and normalising full frontal male nudity in his attempt to groom young girls, and that his ultimate goal, as evidenced in these incidents, has been to be touched by them on his genitals. As Y said about when she applied suncream, “I was basically doing what you do when you do a hand job”, the court noting that she was only ten years old.

Concerning X and Y, I find paragraph 10 and make the findings (a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (h) and (i).

With regard to the local authority’s schedule further, I also find paragraphs 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 proved and, with regard to allegation 6, shall be added that not guilty verdicts were directed to be entered on the court’s direction.

I also make finding 11. It is not known why A has displayed sexual behaviour but the court is satisfied that she does.

That deals, I think, with the totality of the schedule of the directions sought. I am aware that there is agreement that there will be a transcript. I am aware that their mother is appealing the police decision of NFA concerning her daughters X and Y with regard to their allegations and I give permission specifically for this judgment to be disclosed to the investigating officer dealing with that case.

I wish to add that the girls who made the allegations should be informed that they have been believed. I wish them to be told that it is the view of this judge that they should feel no guilt whatsoever for any role that they took in the behaviour of F . He has to take all responsibility. People who groom children target them and it is the finding of this court that F targeted girls who were young and, therefore, vulnerable and would trust him. The court has found that F has a sexual interest in young girls.

So that is the end of this. There have been agreed directions sent in. There is going to be time for reflection. With regard to time for reflection, I do have one further comment, however. I accept absolutely that there needs to be time for reflection for the father, but I would also suggest that his family also, as a whole, need to reflect on their position going forward if they are going to be any help with the subject children in the future.

That is the end of this judgment.