A Local Authority v Mother & Ors

I am concerned with a pre-teen female who I shall refer to as B. This hearing has been listed as a fact-finding hearing to determine allegations pursued by the local authority. Protective measures were taken on 11 June 2024 (when B was moved to the care of her father) and proceedings were issued on 7 August 2024. The mother is the first respondent, the father the second respondent and B the third respondent. B’s guardian is Ms T (she has taken over from Ms J).

For the purpose of this hearing, the local authority is represented by Mr Nathan Jones, the mother by Ms Harris, the father by Mr Rhodri Jones and B by Ms Scammell. I am grateful to them all for their assistance.

B had been living with her mother, her partner (C) and her siblings for some five years. On 8 March 2024 C was arrested on suspicion of sexual offences against B. The National Crime Agency (NCA) obtained a video of C sexually penetrating B said to have been recorded in the living room of the family home. The NCA observed that B did not appear in any distress and knew what was expected of her. The NCA suspected there had been ongoing sexual abuse.

The family was living in the South West at the time. The local authority in that area was informed that W was being investigated for three sexual offences in respect of B and her half-sister, D, in March 2024.

The NCA confirmed that mother did not initially accept the abuse perpetrated by C and in April 2024 they had to take the unusual step of showing the mother heavily redacted images from the video of the sexual act between C and B. The mother also declined an offer of therapeutic input by the Greenhouse Project for B.

B attended a Sexual Assault Referral Centre with her mother in May 2024. The Paediatric Holistic Medical Assessment Report dated May 2024 was completed by a Consultant Paediatrician. B did not have a genital examination at the appointment as she did not consent to this. There were no medical findings of note. The Consultant reaffirmed that the presence or absence of physical findings must always be interpreted in the broad context of a detailed medical and social family assessment and the child’s behaviour and demeanour.

C appeared before the Crown Court in May 2024 where he faced a 10 count indictment:

At that hearing C pleaded guilty to one offence of voyeurism (videoing D in the shower at their home without her knowledge). He pleaded not guilty to the remaining nine counts. All of the above offences concerned B.

B attended a Sexual Assault Referral Centre again in August 2024. A Consultant Paediatrician conducted the examination. The medical report concludes ‘(B) has a normal genital examination today. There are no scars seen. This does not refute the fact that she has been previously penetratively abused as it is possible for penetration to occur without leaving a scar’. It was advised that any assessment for ADHD be considered once B was settled at home and school.

C was tried at the Crown Court in late 2024 and was found guilty on all charges. He was sentenced in late 2024 to 25 years imprisonment, consisting of 20 years in custody and an extended licence period of five years. He will be on the sex offenders register for life, banned from working with children and subject to a Sexual Harm Prevention Order for life. He has been classed as high risk to children, both male and female and known adults in the community. Prior to sentencing the report states:

The sentencing remarks refer to the repugnant nature of the offending and that it appeared C took a certain pride in what he was doing. He was described as an exceptionally dangerous man.

The mother has said that due to panic attacks and anxiety she struggled to leave the house (they were living in the South West at the time of W’s arrest). It is also thought that D and B’s half-brother, G, (aged 16 at the time) were present in the home for a considerable time as G has not attended school for five years.

Hair strand tests results of the mother show that she actively used cannabis between early September 2023 and September 2024. Following a search of her home, she was arrested for possession of cannabis.

By January 2024, the mother wanted to move away from the area. She moved to North Somerset in April 2024.

The mother continued to care for B until she was arrested on in June 2024. This came about after a third-party child, H, said that B had told her that the mother and C sexually abused her. H was interviewed in June 2024. She describes B saying:

C was first interviewed by the NCA in early March 2024. Following the interviews undertaken with B in April and May 2025, C was further arrested in July 2025 for (i) rape of a female under the age of 13 years (ii) causing or inciting a child under 13 years to engage in sexual activity and (iii) assault of a child under 13 by penetration. He was interviewed again and denied the allegations made against him by B.

B went to live with her father in June 2024. He left his employment to ensure he could care for her. His mother supports the father in caring for B.

B was interviewed by the NCA in early July 2024. No allegations were made by her. B was interviewed again in April 2025 and May 2025. B described C inserting his penis into her ‘butt’ and putting his finger into her vagina. B recalls C filming her and that the mother was present in the same bed when the sexual abuse was taking place and was being filmed on a mobile telephone.

The mother was first interviewed by the NCA in June 2024. She provided a no comment interview but did provide a prepared statement denying any involvement in the sexual abuse of B.

She was interviewed again in August 2025 following new evidence in the form of ABE interviews with B. The mother again provided a no comment interview. She prepared a statement again denying the allegations and explained why she had referred to C as being what she terms a ‘Pedo’.

The case has a long procedural history, with multiple hearings being listed to consider and determine applications made by the NCA for PII. The case is now in week 65.

The local authority has filed an amended threshold document dated 16 September 2025 in which it sets out the findings sought. The central issue is that of the sexual abuse suffered by B at the hands of C, and the extent of mother’s knowledge of that and her failure to protect B. Further, the local authority pleads that the mother failed to prioritise B’s needs by exposing her to domestically abusive relationships, emotional harm from the mother’s mental health issues being exacerbated by regular cannabis misuse and attempting to deceive professionals by her continued contact with C after his arrest and subsequent imprisonment.

The mother has filed a response to the amended threshold document. She accepts that threshold is met in that she failed to protect B and continued to prioritise her relationship with C as she refused to accept or believe the allegations. She does not accept that she failed to protect B from sexual abuse and emotional harm as she ought to have known C was sexually abusing B. There are some inconsistencies within this document when compared to her earlier response to threshold.

The following legal principles which I provided to the advocates in advance of giving this judgment have been agreed.

The burden of proof lies with the local authority. The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred (Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35 at paragraph 15). There is no room for a finding by the court that something might have happened. The court may decide that it did or that it did not happen (Re B at paragraph 2). The standard of proof does not shift according to the seriousness of the allegation, nor the inherent probability or improbability of an event occurring (see Baroness Hale in Re B (Children)(Fc) [2008] UKHL 35).

The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities (Re B [2008] UKHL 35).

Findings of fact must be based on evidence including inferences which can be properly be drawn from the evidence (Re A (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12).  

Findings of fact must not be based on hypothesis. The court must avoid speculation, particularly in situations where there is a gap in the evidence (Re A (Fact finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12). The parents have to prove nothing and the court must be careful to ensure that it does not reverse the burden of proof (Lancashire v R [2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam)).Having heard all the evidence it is open to the court to conclude that the evidence leaves it unsure whether it is more probable than not that the event occurred and accordingly, that party who has the burden of proving that event has occurred has failed to discharge the burden (The Popi M, Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds, Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Fenton Insurance Co Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 948).

In Re A (Application for Care and Placement Orders: Local Authority Failings); sub nom Darlington Borough Council v M, F, GM and GF [2016] 1 FLR 1, FD, Re J (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 222 and Re R (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 167, the following principles were reiterated:

Hearsay evidence is admissible in family proceedings of this nature-see The Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993. Family Proceedings fall within the definition of ‘civil proceedings’ for the purposes of the Civil Evidence Act 1995. By virtue of section 4 of the 1995 Act, there is a checklist of factors that the court should consider when ‘estimating the weight to be given to hearsay evidence’. Case law has emphasised that where hearsay evidence is admitted and relied on it must be scrutinised by the court with considerable care.

AS v TH (False Allegations of Abuse) [2016] EWHC 532 Fam Macdonald J gave guidance as to how to approach allegations of sexual abuse. The same case provides a comprehensive overview of the relevant guidance for professionals talking to children whom they suspect have suffered abuse. The ABE guidance should be adhered to and any breaches will affect the weight (if any) that can attach to the resulting evidence. At paragraph 36:

The court is not bound by the cases put forward by the parties but may adopt an alternative solution of its own Re S (A Child) [2015] UKSC 20. Caution is required and the court must ensure that any additional or different findings made are securely founded in the evidence: and that the fairness of the fact-finding process is not compromised (Re G and B (Fact-finding Hearing) [2009] EWCA Civ 10).

The hearing before this court is not a re-trial of the counts on the indictment. The criminal law and rules of procedure do not apply. The task of this court is ‘to determine what has gone on in the past so that those findings may inform the ultimate welfare evaluation as to the child’s future with the court’s eyes open to such risks as the factual determination may have established’ (Re R (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 198 at paragraph 82). More recently the position has been approved and expanded upon in J, P and Q (care proceedings) [2024] EWCA Civ 22. This court is not concerned with establishing what criminal offences, if any, have been committed. Criminal law concepts ‘have neither relevance nor function within a process of fact-finding in the family court’ and ‘the approach adopted in Re R applies equally to rules of evidence and procedure such as the directions given to juries about delay and a defendant’s good character.’

An express denial is no less an account than is a positive account of abuse [Leeds City Council v YX & ZX (Assessment of Sexual Abuse) [2008] 2 FLR 869 [143], Holman J.

The evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. They must have the fullest opportunity to take part in the hearing and the court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence and the impression it forms of them (see Re W and another (Non-accidental injury) [2003] FCR 346).

As observed by Mostyn J in Lancashire County Council v R [2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam) (citing Onassis and Calogeropoulos v Vergottis [1968] 2 Lloyd's Rep 403, per Lord Pearce and A County Council v M and F [2011] EWHC 1804 (Fam) [2012] 2 FLR 939 the assessment of credibility generally involves wider problems than mere demeanor. Contemporaneous documents are of the utmost importance.

It is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720). In Re A-B-C (Children) [2021] EWCA 451 Macur LJ provided updated guidance on the assessment of credibility.

I have had the benefit of reading the court bundles. I have also been provided with a detailed case opening note from Mr Jones.

The mother has filed four statements. In her second statement she says she was first aware of the sexual abuse of B when the police attended her home and arrested C. She says B had not disclosed anything to her and she had not witnessed anything that caused her concern. She states that if she had been aware that B was being abused by C, she would have immediately reported this to the police. The mother states that she first became aware of the sexual conduct around D a few months after C’s arrest. She says she has not discussed the sexual abuse with B and B never discussed the abuse with her, before or after C’s arrest. She says she ended her relationship with C around a month after he was arrested. In this respect she felt very confused when C was arrested and felt sure that if the allegations were true, as a mother, she would have known that something was going on. As for the letters from C, she says she did not ask for them and she did not respond. She denies having asked his mother to relay any messages to him. She denies having hid the letters from professionals.

The father has filed several statements. In his fourth statement he sets out his recollection of a BBQ in early June 2024 when H mentioned B after a sex scene unexpectedly appeared on the television. He says that having asked Ms Y (the host of the BBQ) to find out more from H, H did not initially want to talk about it. A couple of days later Ms Y informed the father that B had shared with H that (i) B and her mum have been having sex with the same man and liked it and (ii) B had penetrated H with a dildo on three occasions in the past 18 months.

Whilst the plan was for me to hear evidence from the mother, the social worker and the father, no party wished to call the social worker or the father.

The mother was given a section 98 warning prior to giving her evidence. She was tearful before starting her evidence, however, she quickly settled down. At times she was stretching out her left hand. Following a break, a request for an adjournment was made by Ms Harris. A telephone call to 111 was made and an ambulance called which took the mother to hospital. I agreed to adjourn the case for the rest of the day. The mother’s evidence resumed and was completed on the second day of the hearing. She was only cross-examined by Mr Jones for the local authority. I have no doubt that she found the experience stressful.

The mother was not a particularly forthcoming witness. She often said that she could not recall matters or said ‘I don’t know’ or ‘I cannot answer that’ or that she had done things because ‘I’m stupid’. Her lack of knowledge or inability to recall matters remained her position at times even when confronted with clear evidence to show that what she had said was not true (just one example being her texts to C about him having hit her). I am afraid that I had significant concerns about much of her evidence.

B is now (redacted) years of age. At the time of C’s arrest she was (redacted). At the time of the offences, she lived with her mother, C and her half siblings (D and G).

B has made great progress since being in the care of her father. At the time of the guardian’s first analysis, B was described as being two years behind her peers.

However, B has presented with highly sexualised behaviour. B has been live streaming videos of herself and H performing sexual acts on the Pornhub website for male adults. H reported this had been going on for around a year. The question as to whether B and H engaged in sexual acts which were streamed online (allegation 2) is not something the mother fully accepted. She accepts that H has said that B told her this but that is all. When asked about this in evidence in chief the mother accepted that on the basis that B had said such in her interview to the police, she was prepared to accept this was the case.

In discussion with the social worker, B has previously said that she did not know it was wrong for an adult to have sex with a child. There is no doubt that she has been sexually abused by C (allegation 1); he is serving a lengthy prison sentence in this respect.

B has also been present in the home and seen the difficulties between the mother and G. These difficulties lead to G living with his grandparents for periods of time. There was certainly an occasion when a neighbour called the police due to an incident between the mother and G. The police report does not say that B was present. However, the mother now accepts that B will have suffered emotional harm as a consequence (allegation 6) which I am satisfied was the case.

B has also moved with the mother to four different areas over a short period. She has attended five different primary schools and was moved away from where the father resided. The mother denies B has been adversely affected. I reject her evidence. The mother has failed to prioritise B’s educational needs and her attendance at school (allegation 8).

As already stated, the mother has two older children. They are not the subject of these proceedings. They do not share B’s father. Further, the mother appears to have been uncertain about B’s father and it can be seen from her text messages that at one point she thought Mr R might be B’s father.

The mother was seeing Mr R in the early part of 2013. They met on a website called Plenty of Fish. The mother said her mother had concerns about him as he was a registered sex offender. This was the subject of a section 47 enquiry. Quite remarkably, it is apparent from the mother’s own messages to her friend L, that following his release from prison she continued to see Mr R when the children (G and D) were not with her. Further, it was clear that she did not agree to sign an agreement to this effect when the local authority asked her to. She is therefore wrong when she says in these proceedings that she ended this relationship as soon as she knew about his history. She eventually had to accept that by continuing to see him she failed to prioritise her children’s safety.

The mother’s position in respect of Mr R was made worse by her decision to resume contact with him after C’s arrest. C was arrested in March 2024. In June 2024, the mother was back in contact with Mr R. She accepted this was the case which was plain from her text messages. She told me that she saw him on a night out and then met up with him again. However, she could not recall if anything happened. This was despite the message to L where she stated ‘I slept with him didn’t I …’. It was only when she was referred to her own message did she accept this was the case. She had no answer as to why she had done this given that C had been arrested just weeks before. She thought B was at her father’s house. The mother was also taken to texts with L, when L asked her why they had previously split up to which she responded that it was because he went to prison. In the same messages she referred to her father not liking Mr R and that he had been ‘done’ at the age of 17 for sleeping with a 13 year old girl but that he was now a different person.

The mother was asked what she meant in mid 2024 when she used the term ‘pedo’. She said thought a ‘pedo’ was someone who slept with girls under the age of 16. She now thinks it is someone who sleeps with girls under the age of 18. In her oral evidence she said that she did not recall sending a message to L in which she referred to Mr R being ‘unlucky’ in getting caught by the police. She accepted that having got back together with Mr R it looked ‘Bad. Awful’. This was particularly so in light of C’s arrest and what he was accused of in respect of B. This was also the case when she referred to not telling her father that she was seeing Mr R. Reluctantly she accepted that she had fundamentally failed to protect B when there had been talk of meeting up with him with B (allegation 4). There can be no doubt of her failure to protect.

In her oral evidence, the mother accepted that she has also had sexual conversations with other males who she had met online. She could not say how many people she had such conversations with. X was someone she had known for years. She got back in touch with him in May 2024. She talked to him about W and W being a ‘nonce’. It was put to her by Mr Jones that she had sent him a picture of her with B. She said she was unable to recall. X sent a message in reply to the image saying ‘And you wouldn’t mind me wanking because of you then? Awww you’re daughter is so sweet she’s right thoe xxx’. The mother replied stating ‘thank you I wouldn’t mind at all if u wanted to wank over me hahaha x’. I am satisfied that the mother had sent a picture of herself with B. One might think that sending a picture of B in the first place was misguided. However, when she received the text, her decision to respond in the way she did, even if her comments were in respect of herself, was particularly concerning. I say this even if the picture had not included B.

At about the same time the mother had sent a text referring to people deserving a second chance. She said this was generally her view and it was not aimed at C. This is a further example of the mother’s failure to protect (allegation 4).

The mother said she met C in 2019. She initially met him in ‘town’ and they subsequently met again. She said the relationship was good and there was no domestic abuse. In her response to threshold dated 7 May 2025 she had referred to there being domestic abuse in respect of allegation 7. In the same document the mother accepts she had been involved in abusive relationships in the past. Contrary to her first response to threshold, the mother then said in her amended response dated 18 September 2025 that there was no domestic abuse in her relationship with C. In her oral evidence she said the second document was right. This was despite the mother texting C on 2 March 2020 saying she was ‘emotionally done’ and in the same conversation ‘you had to hit me for u to change’. In her oral evidence she said that he had pushed her but that was it. This was despite C himself accepting in the text exchange that he had hit the mother. She then said that in the early days of their relationship C smashed her phone and she had hit him but he didn’t hit her. It made no sense. Her message to his mother about what he had put her through she said related to not knowing where he was going when they were together. I am afraid the mother’s evidence was implausible. There has plainly been domestic abuse in her relationship with C (allegation 7). B is likely to have been exposed to such which would have been emotionally harmful to her.

Not long after the mother and C started their relationship the mother sent C a message saying ‘and you’re a fucking pedo looking up teenage girls your ex was right disgusting’. She said this was because he was looking up 18/19 year old girls on the internet. This was despite her view at this time being that such a term only related to girls of 16 or under. She thought that C was sleeping with girls of this age. She denied that she knew he had a sexual interest in girls. She said it was purely a coincidence that she had raised the issue in 2020 and he was arrested for offences in respect of C in 2024. Her concerns in 2020 ought to have been a real concern for her (allegation 4).

When they first moved to the South West, the mother said she had lied on her application to secure housing when she said she co-slept with B as she wanted to get out of the area where she was living. I found this hard to understand as she now seemed to be seeking a smaller property than the one she had. She said B did not share a bed with her and C. Occasionally, B would fall asleep with her if she was watching a film. She had no explanation for the message on 7 February 2024 that C sent about waking up B to get her in their bed. When asked whether C would usually bring B to their bed she said ‘not that I know of’ but once or twice she woke up and B was in bed with them. The video footage taken by C which was played in court also shows B to be in bed with the mother and C. I am more than satisfied that B slept with the mother and C on a regular basis.

The mother denied being stuck in the home due to anxiety and said she spent about 50% of her time outside the home (at a friend’s house). This was not consistent with the message to her friend L when she said ‘literally I spent most my days in bed’ without getting dressed. She reluctantly accepted this and said she had to push herself to get out. I am satisfied that the mother spent long periods of time in her home.

As for smoking cannabis, the mother accepted she used to do this (the police seized cannabis when they searched her home). The message from C to the mother on 18 August 2023 is telling ‘I ain’t saying that I am don’t even want to go swimming but feel bad coz most kids get to do stuff in the holidays and what have we done taken her to the park once I just feel sorry for her cuz she’s expected to sit and play or watch iPad must be boring day in day out. Is all im saying and no it’s not your fault at all before u think that what I mean coz it ain’t babe xxxxx’. This plainly had an impact on her ability to care for B (allegation 9).

In 2024, before C’s arrest, the mother talked to C in text messages about pornographic websites. She certainly knew he was looking at those and that he was ‘hiding shit again’ but in her oral evidence she said she was unable to recall what he was hiding from her.

There is a potentially sinister message where C sent a text to the mother referring to ‘child is secure ma’am’ and then ‘package is secure ma’am’. The mother denied that this was a discussion about sex with B and that it might have been C picking up B from her father’s house but she did not know. The reference to C needing to go to a sex clinic she said was nothing to do with her son but a neighbour. She said she thought C was cheating on her. The reference to C being a ‘sex pest’ was them just messing around.

B herself has told the police that when she was being sexually abused by C, her mother was asleep next to them in the bed. The mother says she was smoking weed at the time and did not hear or see anything even though H said B has said otherwise.

When C was arrested the mother said she could not believe it and this was also the case when the position had been fully explained to her by the NCA. In her oral evidence she maintained that she felt she had been kept in the dark despite the police having shown her stills of the footage between C and B on 10 April 2024. She had to accept that (i) it was obvious it was C in the stills (ii) it was obvious it was B in the stills and (iii) there could be no doubt what C was doing to B. Remarkably she could not say how she felt about C having seen the stills but subsequently she said she felt ‘crap’ and ‘felt bad’ for B. It was an understated response. However, I do accept that this mother appears to have been vulnerable in her relationship with C and had low self-esteem. Sadly, she also appears to have incredibly poor judgment in respect of at least two of her partners.

When asked how she felt about D having been filmed in the bathroom she said she felt responsible for bringing C into the home but said D ‘was not sexually abused’. She said much the same to D in texts to her when D was crying in the knowledge of what C had done to her. Her text to D stated ‘I know it’s a shock but u r nearly 19 its not like you u r underage’. The mother was still defending C at this time and putting her relationship with him over and above that of her children.

When she said to her friend, L, ‘why does it always happen to me’ she said this was because of Mr R and history was repeating itself. Sadly, she seemed to have no insight into the risks some of her partners posed; having been in a relationship with a sexual offender in 2013 who she must have continued to be in some sort of relationship with when B was conceived.

Sadly, the mother’s failure to prioritise her children over C continued after his arrest. When C was at the police station, she said C telephoned her and said he wanted to see her. However, she said she could not recall what they discussed. I find this hard to accept given that it must have been a significant conversation. Remarkably the mother did not say that she had asked him whether he had abused B, which one might assume would have been high on her list of questions. She accepted that she did not end the relationship at that time and said that unless and until he was convicted, she would not believe the allegations. Indeed, she even queried with professionals what the position would be if she remained in contact with C and did not tell anyone.

Contrary to the mother’s written evidence that she ended the relationship with C one month after his arrest, this was not so. However, even if she was right, it is almost impossible to understand why it took her a month to end it. I appreciate that in re-examination the mother said C made her feel worthless and ‘like nobody’ but in the context of what she now knew about B it is a difficult response to accept.

It is abundantly clear that the mother did not end the relationship after a month. There are endless messages of her saying things which demonstrate the strength of feelings she had for him such as on 16 May 2024 (over two months after his arrest) asking his mother to send her love and kisses. The mother was unable to give a response as to why she sent this message but settled on ‘because I’m stupid’. Somewhat oddly the mother was reassuring C through his mother that she had not moved on when we now know that she had had sex with Mr R and was exchanging messages of a sexual nature with X. On 1 June 2024 the texts shows that the mother wanted a video call with C. She must have known how this would be perceived objectively as she was trying to arrange this when B was at school. All of this was in the knowledge that the mother was not to have contact with C. Her text exchanges demonstrate that her written evidence to the court on 10 October 2024 was simply not true. It is also clear that the mother was fully aware that C would write to her using a different name.

C wrote to the mother on several occasions. It was not the case that the mother simply glanced at some of those letters. She looked forward to them and relayed the contents to C’s mother at times. One example is the reference to Facebook. On another occasion she found his letter so moving she was ‘crying’ her ‘eyes out’. The mother clearly read those letters and decided to keep them even if she did not write back. There can be no doubt that she was dishonest about her contact with C to professionals and this court (allegation 10). In my view the only reason she did not write back was for fear of being found out.

Further, the mother has to accept that she sent messages to various individuals such as C’s mother and her friend about missing C. It was only on 3 June 2024 that she was severed all ties with him. However, she plainly still had feelings for him as she said on 6 June 2024 when messaging L and C’s mother on 8 June 2024 that she still loved him. Her actions showed a clear failure to protect which she accepts (allegation 3).

It is against this background that I must consider whether the mother knew about C sexually abusing B. H says that B told her things. The mother denies B saying anything to her or behaving in a way that B saw such as intimating Barbie dolls having sex and the use of vibrators on herself and H. The mother says she had no idea what was going on between B and H or that they were accessing the Pornhub.

The mother had no real explanation as to why she had not wanted B to embark upon the safety work with the local authority. She denied that it was because she feared B would speak about the abuse and the mother’s knowledge (we now know that B has said her mother was present but asleep in bed). The mother said she did not know what was happening but it is possible that B was being abused whilst she was asleep. I have already referred to the two short videos taken on Christmas day 2023 of C filming himself. It pans to the mother and B who both appear to be asleep. It is a sinister video with a sexual connotation. However, the mother could not see this and this remained her position with all the knowledge she now has about W.

The mother accepts she knew the code for C’s telephone but said he was not right when he said he left his phone lying about the house. She said he always had it with him. The only time she would look at it was when he showed her things. At no time did she see any indecent images or things that would cause her concern.

In her written statement, the mother says she would have known if B was being abused. However, when she did know, she refused to believe it, continued to be in contact with C and declined professional support for B. She did not appear to be shocked or horrified as to the charges against C. Her reaction was extremely worrying.

I am not asked to find that the mother knew that B was being sexually abused by C. Whilst I could make the finding myself, I do not feel it appropriate to do so as I do not consider the evidence to be at a level to enable such a finding to be made. However, I have no hesitation in finding that the mother ought to have known about the abuse which through Ms Harris she now accepts. She had her own concerns about C which were communicated to her by his former partner; she felt he was hiding things; the house was small and she barely went out. Why she thought it was sensible for B to share their bed against what she knew about C is a real concern. She knew C had a sexual interest in young girls.

In conclusion, it is apparent from the admissions and other findings that at the relevant date, namely 11 June 2024, that B had suffered and was likely to suffer significant harm, and the harm or likelihood of harm was attributable to the care given to them or likely to be given to her, not being what it would be reasonable to expect the parents to give (section 31(2)(a) and (b)(i) Children Act 1989).

These findings will now form part of the further work that is required to enable me to make decisions in respect of B’s welfare in due course.

Finally, I thank the father for his composed manner throughout what must have been two harrowing days of evidence. I have no doubt it must have been extremely difficult for him.

That is my judgment.