Brighton and Hove City Council v AB & Ors

This judgment concerns care proceedings brought by Brighton & Hove City Council in respect of six children ranging in age from a baby to a teenager.

The children are currently living with their mother, AB, except for R, who is placed in a residential unit. The mother is in her late 30s, and the father, CD, is in his mid-forties. Both parents are represented in these proceedings.

The purpose of this hearing is to determine allegations of sexual and physical abuse made by N (age 24) and O (age 21) against the father. These allegations relate to events that occurred while N and O were residing in the family home under a special guardianship order in favour of AB.

For the purposes of this judgment, I will refer to the parents as “the mother” and “the father” respectively. This is not intended to be disrespectful but is done to preserve anonymity in the event that this judgment is published. I will refer to N and O by their initials, N and O respectively.

R is a child who is beyond parental control. These allegations are accepted by both parents and are not required to be proved for the purposes of this judgment. R exhibits significant sexually inappropriate and violent behaviour, which has led the local authority to invite the court to make him subject to an interim care order on the basis of a care plan to place him in a residential unit. This judgment does not address the allegations relating to R, given broad consensus that threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 is met.

There have been two attempts to conduct a hearing to determine whether the local authority has proved the allegations against the parents. The first hearing was adjourned because a statement from N was filed overnight immediately prior to the start of the hearing. This caused significant difficulties for the parents and their legal teams, who had insufficient time to consider and prepare their case.

At this hearing, I heard evidence from the following witnesses:

There is a substantial bundle of documents containing all relevant material, including witness statements from each of the above witnesses.

N and O were aged 11 and 8 respectively when they became subject to a special guardianship order in favour of their older sister, the mother. Their own mother had died a few years earlier. Prior to the order, they had been living with their father, Q.

Concerns regarding the wider family dynamics arose as early as May 2009, prompted by reports of Q’s violent behaviour and possession of a knife. An initial assessment was undertaken involving the mother and the father. The assessment was positive, and by November 2009, the case was closed and N and O returned to live with Q.

Between July and November 2010, multiple referrals were made concerning Q’s continued violence and drug use. As a result, N and O were moved to live with the mother and the father under a written agreement.

The local authority invited the mother to apply for a special guardianship order, which was made by the court on 26 January 2012. The local authority recommended that any contact with the girls’ father, Q, should be supervised and limited to no more than two hours in duration. It was said during the hearing that the mother had to make the application for a special guardianship order against her own father. I note that Q did not attend the hearing at which the order was made.

In May 2015, N complained of emotional abuse and threats of being sent into care by the mother and the father. She also reported verbal abuse from the father, including being called degrading names and having her belongings thrown away. These allegations led to a referral to social services by her school.

In February 2016, N made further allegations of physical abuse by the father, including being punched, dragged by the hair, and verbally assaulted. She expressed a wish to enter care. A strategy meeting was held, during which N alleged that she had been punched in the head, had her hair pulled, and had been dragged upstairs. O did not support N’s account and described her as dishonest. N identified relatives she would prefer to live with and moved to live with her paternal aunt, D.

In August 2017, N alleged sexual abuse by the father, including inappropriate touching and sexual assault. At the time, she was rough sleeping and considered at risk. She stated that the sexual abuse had begun in Year 8. She described being touched inappropriately and threatened. In November 2017, the mother and O informed the police that they wished to have no further contact with N.

From 2018 to 2019, R began exhibiting dysregulated behaviour, aggression, sexualised language, and there were physical incidents involving him. The cause of this behaviour was not clear to family members or professionals. Multiple incidents of physical aggression and sexualised behaviour were reported at school. S also showed signs of distress, including bruising, wetting, emotional withdrawal, and frequent conflict with R.

In 2020, R stated that he had been instructed not to speak about N and that he had witnessed domestic incidents. His behaviour escalated, with threats, sexualised language, and reports of unsafe home conditions. The school made multiple referrals. Around this time, O left the family home and moved in with her boyfriend. Her school reported emotional distress and a breakdown in her wellbeing.

In 2021, P dialled 999 and asked for help. Police attending the scene considered that her responses appeared scripted and that she looked to the father before answering questions.

In 2022, O made allegations that she had suffered sexual abuse by the father, beginning when she was aged 11 or 12. She described the abuse as occurring during “cuddle time” and involving digital and genital penetration. O also reported witnessing the father abuse N and stated that the mother had told her what to say to the police. R’s behaviour continued to deteriorate, with violent and sexualised conduct directed at his mother and siblings. A written agreement was put in place to restrict the father’s contact with the children, and he left the family home. For reasons which are not clear the local authority did not institute proceedings.

In 2023, R’s play therapy revealed sexualised play and possible exposure to inappropriate content from the age of eight. S disclosed being bitten and injured during fights. Her school noted that she looked to the mother before responding to questions and raised concerns about possible coaching. P struggled with mental health and school attendance and was involved in incidents of aggression and inappropriate behaviour.

In 2024, concerns persisted regarding R’s dysregulation, sexualised behaviour, and aggression, including incidents reported in school and during transport. R expressed distress over his father’s absence. S reported excitement about seeing her father, but concerns remained about bruising and her emotional wellbeing. Police investigations into the father were discontinued due to lack of cooperation. Social work assessments and core group meetings continued throughout the year.

The parents remain a couple and were married in 2022. The father agreed to leave the family home at the request of the local authority. A working agreement was put in place to manage risk, including restrictions on his overnight stays and contact with the children.

During this period, the parents’ youngest child, V, was born in April 2025.

The application in these proceedings was issued on 14 November 2024. An initial Case Management Hearing took place on 22 November 2024, at which the court made Interim Supervision Orders and Child Arrangements Orders in respect of all children. These orders provided for the children to remain in the care of their mother, with arrangements for contact with the father as advised by the local authority. The father was not to return to the home.

V was made subject to an interim supervision order following his birth in April 2025.

On 31 January 2025, the court made an Interim Care Order in respect of R. The care plan provided for him to live in residential care, given his extreme behaviour.

Further case management hearings were held on 10 January, 31 January, and 28 March 2025. It was determined that the allegations of sexual abuse by N and O required to be determined by the court in a fact-finding hearing. Both N and O were reluctant to attend, and it was necessary for witness summonses to be issued to ensure their attendance. It was not clear until the day of the hearing that they would attend.

The Final Hearing was listed to commence on 23 June 2025, with a time estimate of six days. As already noted, it was necessary to adjourn until October 2025.

Cognitive assessments were obtained in respect of both parents:

The cognitive assessment of the mother was undertaken jointly by Dr Gary Taylor, Consultant Psychologist, and Ms Sue Sharp, Chartered Psychologist. The assessment was conducted in January 2025.

The mother’s Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) was assessed at 79, placing her in the borderline range of intellectual functioning. Her verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning abilities were both in the low average range Her working memory and processing speed also fell within the low average range. Her general memory abilities were similarly low average, with stronger performance in auditory memory than visual memory.

The mother’s reading ability was significantly impaired, with an estimated reading age of 8 years and 8 months, below the threshold for functional adult literacy. She is able to read many simple everyday words but struggles to comprehend most written material.

Despite these limitations, the assessors concluded that the mother does have litigation capacity. Professionals working with her were advised to be mindful of her cognitive profile and adapt their communication accordingly.

The report made several recommendations to support the mother’s participation in proceedings:

The cognitive assessment of the father was conducted in June 2025 by Dr Gary Taylor, Consultant Psychologist, and Ms Lucy Howe, Chartered Psychologist.

The father’s Full Scale IQ (FSIQ) was assessed at 75, placing him in the borderline range, with overall cognitive abilities exceeding only approximately 5% of his peers. His verbal comprehension and perceptual reasoning were in the low average range. His working memory was significantly impaired and his general memory abilities were also borderline His processing speed was slightly stronger. He demonstrated functional literacy, with a reading age above 12 years.

The assessors concluded that the father does have litigation capacity, provided that professionals adapt their approach to accommodate his cognitive limitations. He does not meet the criteria for a learning disability but is considered a vulnerable adult due to his intellectual profile.

The report sets out detailed recommendations to support the father’s participation:

Ms Bayley for the mother and Ms Troy for the father were careful to ensure that the recommendations were followed and that the hearing was conducted in a way so as to ensure the parents’ participation.

I am grateful to the parties for agreeing a note of the relevant law, from which I take the following principles.

The burden of proof lies with the local authority (LA): Re Y (Children) (No 2) [2016]. The burden never shifts. The inability of a parent to explain an event cannot be relied upon to find the event proved.

The standard is the balance of probabilities, regardless of the seriousness of the allegation: Re O (Minors) [2013] EWHC B44 (Fam).

Parents are not required to offer alternative explanations.

Courts must avoid speculation and base findings solely on evidence: Re A (Fact Finding: Disputed Findings) [2011] EWCA Civ 12.

Inherent probabilities may inform the court’s assessment but do not alter the standard of proof.

Findings must be binary: either proven or not proven.

Findings must be based on evidence, not suspicion: Re A (A child Fact Finding Hearing; speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12. “It is an elementary proposition that findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation.” (per Munby LJ at para 26).

Courts must assess evidence holistically, not in isolation: Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558.

Minor facts may cumulatively support a finding of future harm.

Credibility and reliability of witnesses, especially parents, are crucial.

Demeanour should be treated cautiously; consistency and plausibility are more reliable indicators.

Oral evidence is of profound importance, but King LJ Re A (A Child) [2020] EWCA Civ 1230, at paragraph 40 indicated: “The court must, however, be mindful of the fallibility of memory and the pressures of giving evidence. The relative significance of oral and contemporaneous evidence will vary from case to case. What is important, as was highlighted in Kogan, is that the court assesses all the evidence in a manner suited to the case before it and does not inappropriately elevate one kind of evidence over another.”

Threshold under section 31 of the Children Act 1989 is objective; intent or blame is irrelevant: Re D (Care Order: Evidence) [2010] EWCA Civ 1000, Re B (A Child) [2013] UKSC 33.

Proceedings are quasi-inquisitorial; the judge determines threshold facts independently of the parties’ positions.

Judges may make findings not sought by parties but must ensure fairness and evidential support.

In Re C (Female Genital Mutilation and Forced Marriage: Fact Finding) [2019] EWHC 3449, it was held that vulnerability affects the procedural framework but not the standard of proof.

Courts must rigorously assess evidence from vulnerable witnesses without bias or lowered standards.

Domestic abuse is defined broadly under the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, including physical, emotional, economic, and coercive behaviours.

Practice Direction 12J outlines procedures for fact-finding in domestic abuse cases.

Courts must focus on behaviour and impact, not criminal definitions.

Relevant case: Re H-N (Children) [2021].

In Re X and another (Children) (Fact Finding: Fabricated Induced Illness) [2018] EWHC 4020 (Fam), Gwynneth Knowles J stated at paragraph 209: “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 at all times that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, and distress. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything.” (R v Lucas [1981] QB 720).

The family court should also take care to ensure that it does not rely upon the conclusion that an individual has lied on a material issue as direct proof of guilt but should rather adopt the approach of the criminal court, namely that a lie is capable of amounting to corroboration if it is (a) deliberate, (b) relates to a material issue, and (c) is motivated by a realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth: H-C (Children) [2016] EWCA Civ 136 at paragraphs 97–100.

Courts must consider alternative explanations for discrepancies.

In L–W Children [2019] EWCA Civ 159 [2019] 2 FLR 278, King LJ held that a failure to protect was not an automatic “bolt on” where findings are made against a partner.

“62: Failure to protect comes in innumerable guises. It often relates to a mother who has covered up for a partner who has physically or sexually abused her child or, one who has failed to get medical help for her child in order to protect a partner, sometimes with tragic results. It is also a finding made in cases where continuing to live with a person (often in a toxic atmosphere, frequently marked with domestic violence) is having a serious and obvious deleterious effect on the children in the household. The harm, emotional rather than physical, can be equally significant and damaging to a child.

63: Such findings where made in respect of a carer, often the mother, are of the utmost importance when it comes to assessments and future welfare considerations. A finding of failing to protect can lead a Court to conclude that the children's best interests will not be served by remaining with, or returning to, the care of that parent, even though that parent may have been wholly exonerated from having caused any physical injuries.

64: Any Court conducting a Finding of Fact Hearing should be alert to the danger of such a serious finding becoming 'a bolt on' to the central issue of perpetration or of falling into the trap of assuming too easily that, if a person was living in the same household as the perpetrator, such a finding is almost inevitable. As Aikens LJ observed in Re J, ‘nearly all parents will be imperfect in some way or another’. Many households operate under considerable stress and men go to prison for serious crimes, including crimes of violence, and are allowed to return home by their long-suffering partners upon their release. That does not mean that for that reason alone, that parent has failed to protect her children in allowing her errant partner home, unless, by reason of one of the facts connected with his offending, or some other relevant behaviour on his part, those children are put at risk of suffering significant harm.”

The composite schedule together with replies is attached at the end of this judgment.

It is important, I think, to note what an awful start in life the mother, and N and O experienced. There was considerable instability, which had culminated in the death of their mother, and then to some time spent in the care of their father who was assessed by the local authority as being unable to meet their needs. Both N and O particularly noted the sacrifice made by the mother in taking them both in to care for them, when it became clear that Q could not look after them. I was left in no doubt that both N and O loved their sister very much, and the love that was expressed by them for her was genuine.

Looking after teenagers is not straightforward, and it was not straightforward at all for this family. Unsurprisingly, N in particular was spoken of by the mother and the father as being a child who became rebellious and kicked against authority. It does appear that the mother and the father tried to manage her behaviour and spoke of confiscating her phone from time to time. It does not appear that their means of discipline were particularly successful, and it seems clear that the relationships were strained at times. It was not clear whether either the mother or the father particularly took the lead in discipline. It was also not clear from the evidence whether the discipline that was attempted to be imposed was appropriate or too harsh. Certainly, both N and O spoke of the atmosphere in the home becoming very difficult and toxic. Both complained of being expected to undertake childcare responsibilities and around the home. O said that she decided to leave the home when she was asked to look after the children when she needed to be revising for her exams.

N accepted that she told lies as a child, and the family narrative is that she was a liar. That narrative also seemed (disappointingly) to have been adopted by the school. N spoke of times when she told lies in order to justify being late home from school. She referred to herself as feeling like an outsider, as being the “weird child”, as she put it.

She seemed to have been blamed by the family for an incident which led to difficulties with neighbours which ultimately led to a falling out with those neighbours, and which caused a period of housing instability for the family. Both the mother and the father said that they had gone out with the other children, and had told N, who was at school, to wait for them outside if they were late. It would appear that she did not have a key. In the event, when they got home, there was no sign of N. They did not say how late they were. After a worrying time looking for N, she was located upstairs in the neighbours’ flat. The father went up to get N, and it seems got into an argument with the neighbour which led to difficulties with them, which eventually caused the family to have to move to emergency accommodation. N seems to have been blamed for this, although it is clear from the evidence that the difficulties that followed were as a result of the father’s behaviour towards the neighbours and not N.

Both mother and father spoke of N becoming more of a problem after attending secondary school. It is clear from school records that there were difficulties over the next few years. N began to make allegations that the father was behaving badly to her, by assaulting her, pulling her hair, throwing cold water over her, and being abusive towards her – calling her names such as “slapper” and “tart”.

In her statement She described being subjected to verbal abuse, including being called a “slut,” “cunt,” and “useless.” She stated that the father would throw away her makeup and clothing, including a school skirt, which he allegedly cracked eggs over and discarded. She reported being made to wait outside the house in her school uniform as punishment for being late and being forced to care for the younger children.

N also described physical abuse, including being punched, dragged, and verbally assaulted in December 2015. She reported that the father pulled her hair, pushed her into a boiler cupboard, and threw cold water over her while she was in bed. She stated that the mother witnessed some of these incidents and attempted to intervene but later collaborated in concealing the bruising.

There was an incident at school in 2015, which N and both parents speak about in their written evidence, in which the parents stated that N had made an allegation of having been raped by a boy which subsequently she said was untrue. The school records say that this had emerged at school, and the school told the parents that N had admitted lying about the allegation. The parents then spoke to N about, on their case, and again she admitted lying. What they then did about it was not clear.

N’s account was different. She said in her evidence that rumours had started to go round at school about this incident, that the school had then spoken to her about it, and after prolonged questioning she had said that she had made the allegation which was untrue. She said that the parents questioned her in a similar way when she got home, and after being questioned at length, she said that she gave in and accepted that she had lied. It is impossible to form any conclusions about this, and I do not know which account is true. But it was clear that the school and the parents approached this on the basis that N was untruthful, the parents having been told that N had told lies about it.

As a postscript, I noted that when the father spoke to the police about this in 2017, he did not acknowledge that the school had been involved at all.

N left the home in February 2016, making allegations of abuse as above by the father. Safeguarding referrals were made to the police. N went to live with her aunt D for a short time, although the parents suspected that she was perhaps living with her father, who was not supposed to have unsupervised contact with her.

She returned home in April 2016, to live with the parents. She was unable to remain living where she was and said that her father was not able to look after her. She stated that the father was mocking towards her, asked her why she had lied about the allegations that she had made. She said that she was sickened by his attitude and that she felt that he was behaving as though he had got away with it.

She left the family home permanently in March 2017. She described continued emotional abuse, belittlement, and being forced to care for her nieces and nephews. She reported being treated as an outcast and stated that she was not believed regarding the abuse she had disclosed.

Following her departure, N experienced homelessness, including periods of rough sleeping and temporary accommodation. She stayed with her boyfriend and later with her father, and at one point lived in a tent.

Text messages contained in the bundle make very clear that during this period N was trying to contact the mother who was not responding at all to her. There is an increasingly desperate run of messages from N to the mother leading up to the allegations made in August 2017 that she had been sexually abused by the father. In those messages she clearly tried to get the mother’s attention by referring what seem to be increasingly severe situations. The final message, sent about 10 days before N made her allegations might be read as a threat. However, it elicited no response, and the mother made clear in her evidence that she simply thought that N was trying to cause trouble.

In August 2017, N made a formal allegation of sexual abuse to the police and the YMCA, where she was living at the time.

N stated that the father began by touching, and that this behaviour escalated to touching. She described the father entering her bed at night, climbing into the lower bunk where she slept, and initiating sexual contact.

N states that the sexual abuse occurred on at least three occasions and lasted for approximately three weeks. She told her sister O, who advised her not to tell the mother as it would upset her. She also told her father’s girlfriend, who warned her not to tell her father, suggesting he would react violently. N did not disclose the full extent of the abuse at that time.

She further alleges that the father sent her a message while she was on the bus to school, warning her not to tell anyone as he could get into serious trouble. She states that the father had access to her phone and would delete messages, including the one he had sent.

She stated that she had not previously disclosed the full extent of the sexual abuse due to fear of not being believed and concern for her sister, the mother. She described herself as being labelled a compulsive liar and outcast by her family, which contributed to her reluctance to come forward. She did not agree to take part in an ABE interview and did not support a prosecution.

The police interviewed the father. Having seen him give evidence in the hearing, his response to the police was surprisingly animated, being both aggressive at times and defensive. He denied that the allegations were true. N had told the police in a question-and-answer session that the abuse had taken place with him getting into bed with her and she referred to O being on the top bunk. This reference has occupied some time in the hearing, as to whether the household had bunk beds at that time, and I will come back to it later in this judgment. However, when the father was asked about the sleeping arrangements in 2017, he said “Well we might have had a bunk bed, I don't know I can't - I'm not 100 percent sure but not in 2012, not when she was 12. I don't think we had bunkbeds then. I know we've had two bunk beds, we had the wooden one we've got now and we had a metal one I think, it was beforehand, but I can't say it being we had bunkbeds then”. I set that out not to criticise but to note how difficult it is to remember something apparently unimportant just a few years later, and of course it is now over 12 years since the incidents complained of were said to have occurred.

In June 2022, N was contacted by her sister O, who said that she too had been abused by the father. Up until then, N stated that her family members - her father and her brother, had not believed her, but now did, although her relationship with her brother had been permanently harmed.

N gave oral evidence at the fact-finding hearing, during which she reaffirmed her allegations. She said that the verbal abuse began at property 1, and the sexual abuse occurred at property 2. She described the sleeping arrangements, stating that she and O had bunk beds and that the father climbed into the lower bunk where she slept.

She reiterated the incident involving her onesie being unzipped and waking up naked. She acknowledged some confusion over dates and addresses but maintained that the abuse occurred when she was in Year 8. She described the emotional impact of the abuse, including feeling outcast, suicidal ideation, and guilt over the breakdown of her relationship with her sister and family.

N explained her reluctance to report the abuse earlier, citing fear of not being believed and concern for her sister the mother. She confirmed that she did not retract her allegations, despite sending a message apologising to the father and the mother in January 2025, which she attributed to emotional distress and guilt—not a denial of the abuse.

Across the years between her original reports to the YMCA and the police her accounts of what happened have remained remarkably consistent. N’s evidence made for very difficult listening. She exhibited very significant levels of distress and emotion during her evidence, both in relation to what she described, but also in relation to her love for the mother, whom she clearly wished to reconcile with, but had been rejected.

N’s evidence made for very difficult listening. She exhibited very significant levels of distress and emotion during her evidence, both in relation to what she described, but also in relation to her love for the mother, whom she clearly wished to reconcile with, but had been rejected. Her account demonstrated that the effect on her of the abuse which she said she had suffered had caused her already disrupted life to become worse. She had experienced street homelessness, an abusive relationship with a man whom she married and who is serving a prison sentence for stabbing her. She is clearly a vulnerable young woman. She did not have to pursue this, as she had drawn back in the past but said that she was concerned for her nieces, who were reaching the same age as she was.

The father’s response to her evidence was that this was an act, put on for the court. While I note how difficult it is for a court to determine demeanour, and that the response to the evidence of a witness is subjective, nevertheless it is my view that N believed utterly the evidence that she gave. I will consider later in the judgment whether I am satisfied that the local authority has proved its allegations based upon that evidence.

O’s evidence was as harrowing as N’s though less dramatic. The referrals made by her school in respect of her make clear that she is a vulnerable young woman trying to complete her education while having to cope with her background and past. Again, as with N, she had a disrupted childhood, leading to her coming to live with her sister and family. She is 3 years younger than N.

She was not seen as a difficult child in the way that N had been. Neither of the parents said that there had been difficulties with her when she was young, either in terms of her behaviour or in telling the truth. Both parents accepted that there was no reason for her to make untrue allegations.

She was clearly distressed by giving evidence but was able to keep control of herself for much of her time in the witness box. She became distressed at the end of her evidence when addressing herself directly to her sister, the mother.

There are referrals from the school which regard her as a vulnerable but hard working student, who had never had bereavement assistance, following the death of her mother (I suspect that is true for N as well)

She left home in February 2020 to live with her then boyfriend S and his mother K. This was not planned to any extent: she said in evidence that she had decided to move out after an argument over looking after her nephews and nieces when she needed to do school work. She went to school wearing layers of clothes and went home with S who was her boyfriend at the time. She asked to stay, which was a surprise for S and his mother who agreed that she could stay over the weekend. Subsequently that was extended by agreement, K, S’s mother, had contacted the mother to explain where O was and there had been some contact between them about L over a period of time. She returned home for a period of about 6 weeks in January 2021, when she had broken up with S, but returned as she felt it was not working for her. She felt she had nowhere else to go but to return home. She returned to live with K at the end of this period.

K had acted protectively in order to report the allegations made by O, once they were made to her. She had also acted protectively for O by providing a roof over her head when needed and was still present in O’s life as support and as a friend. She deserves great credit for all she has done for O, which she did not, of course, need to do.

O first told S about the abuse which she said she had suffered. This came out slowly over a period of time, and she was unable to speak to him about it but instead wrote it down on a piece of paper, saying “CD molested me”. This was confirmed by S. It was some time before she was able to say anything to K which she did in the summer of 2022, who then reacted by making the appropriate safeguarding referrals.

In her written statement, O alleges that between 2014 and 2017, when she was aged 11 to 14, she was subjected to repeated sexual abuse by the father. She describes the abuse as involving: inappropriate and indecent touching, digital penetration and rape.

On 22 August 2024, O met with the police for an Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) interview. Due to technical issues, the interview was conducted in a Q&A format. O confirmed the contents of the typed and handwritten records of that interview as accurate.

O also stated that she witnessed the father sexually abusing N on one occasion. She said that she was brushing her teeth at the time and saw it from along the corridor, from the bathroom. It was put to her that this was not possible – but I have no plan or photographs of the layout of the property and have no way of considering whether this is likely or not. She said that N had spoken to her about her abuse in or around 2013 and said that she advised N not to tell the mother, fearing it would upset her.

When N reported her own abuse to the police in August 2017, O stated that she was instructed by the mother on how to respond to police questions. She found the meeting with the police upsetting and repeated the information she had been told to say. She said that she did not reveal her own abuse at that time due to fear of disrupting the family dynamic.

In her police interview, O gave a detailed account of the abuse she experienced. She described the abuse as occurring during what the father referred to as “cuddle time”, often while she was asleep on the sofa or in bed. She stated that she would wake up in pain and remain still, not knowing what to do. She described: Penetration with the father’s genitals and fingers, with the abuse occurring when she was aged 11 to 13, with inappropriate behaviour beginning earlier, abuse occurring when the mother was out shopping or asleep, and when the children were very young.

O stated that the father would also engage in inappropriate behaviour when helping her out of the bath, which he referred to as “tickling.” She described the abuse as happening more than ten times, usually while she was asleep. She recalled waking up to pain and the father continuing the abuse.

She also described witnessing the father abusing N while while N was asleep on the sofa and seeing him peep through the bathroom door while N was inside. She stated that the father told her not to tell the mother, as it would upset her.

She said that the reason for coming forward in 2022 was because she feared the same could happen to the younger children, particularly P, who was approaching the age at which O had been abused.

Both N and O spoke of the effect that the abuse had on them in their later lives, affecting all aspects of their lives and their approach to relationships and sex.

The father denied all allegations of sexual abuse made against him by N and O. He described the allegations as false, malicious, and deeply distressing. He stated that he has never sexually abused any child and finds the accusations abhorrent. He expressed frustration at being excluded from family life and said that he believes that the local authority has treated him as though the allegations are proven.

He attributes the allegations to a combination of factors: the girls' troubled backgrounds and prior trauma, their dislike of household rules and boundaries, which he enforced more strictly than the mother possible influence from their father, Q, whom the father described as a compulsive liar and a negative influence and a desire for attention or rebellion.

He also suggested that N and O may have colluded in making the allegations and speculated that they may resent his relationship with the mother.

He denied the allegations of sexual abuse by both girls, and said that he never took part in any of the caring routines for them. He said, for example, that he played no part in their bedtime routines, and would not have helped with their bath times. He did not agree or recognise O’s description of there having been “cuddle time”.

In relation to the other allegations made by N, he denied throwing away her makeup or school uniform, pouring water over her in bed (though he admits dripping water on her forehead to wake her, a practice he says he learned at residential school), waving a knife at her or encouraging self-harm, physically assaulting her, including punching, dragging, or pulling her hair.

He acknowledged, however: occasionally raising his voice and calling N names such as "bitch," but denied that this was habitual or abusive, that N may have self-harmed once, scratching her arm with a bobby pin, which he believed was for attention.

He thought that N’s father may have influenced her into making allegations, and said that she had been meeting him without their knowledge. Asked about his relationship with Q he said that there did not appear to be difficulties between them and that Q and his girlfriend had come over at Christmas and that they had all had a good time and had got on. His overriding narrative about N was that she was a liar and lied about everything. He spoke about the school rape incident in 2015, which has already been set out.

The father disputed that it would have been possible to abuse the girls without other family members knowing, referring to the layout of the house and the presence of other family members. He said it was a busy household. He said that N and O always shared a room and that the mother was frequently awake at that time, at night, feeding R.

The father also denied the allegations made by O. He noted that O previously defended him and had described N as a liar in 2017. He thought it suspicious that O’s allegations emerged some time after N’s allegations. He suggested that O and N had remained in contact and may have colluded.

He disputed O’s account of witnessing abuse of N and denied any inappropriate behaviour towards O.

More widely, the father commented on several incidents raised by the local authority:

One of the features of the father’s evidence was that he and the mother had noted that N refers to abuse taking place while she was on the bottom bunk. The parents sought to prove that the bunk beds were not acquired until later, relying on a photograph exhibited to the mother’s statement.

I have already mentioned that in 2017 the father’s account of where the children were sleeping was less precise than it now appears to be. He told the police then that the girls were in bunk beds, though he referred to them also sleeping top to tail in a single bed.

He said that N and O always shared a room, presumably once his own children arrived, as he said to the police that the girls had their own rooms at one time.

As Ms Gilliatt acknowledges in the local authority submissions, the local authority did not move the father much if at all in relation to his evidence. He has consistently denied the allegations made against him. His manner was in contrast to that in his police interview, in that he was reasonably in control, and was able to remain calm. There was quite a lot of “I don’t knowing” and “I don’t remember”, in his replies.

The mother denied any knowledge of sexual abuse perpetrated by the father and stated that she had not witnessed or suspected any such behaviour. She maintained that had she known or suspected abuse, she would have removed the father from the home immediately. She was distressed at the allegations and their impact on the family.

She stated that she would accept the findings of the court and, if the allegations were proven, would prioritise the safety of her children and separate from the father immediately.

She denied all of the other allegations made by N and O. So, she denied that she had witnessed physical abuse, that she had forced either of N or O to look after her children, locking N out of the house and making her wait outside as punishment, confiscating her school skirt and making her “earn it back”, coaching O what to say to the police.

She agreed that N had been asked to help with minor tasks from time to time, such as putting the children to bed. She also accepted that she had confiscated N’s phone as a form of punishment from time to time.

She too, spoke about N telling lies. She said that N had been challenging and would often stay out late from school and not let her know where she was. She spoke about the “rape” allegation in 2015, when she said that N had lied. She denied the suggestion that she and the father had put N under pressure to admit that she had lied.

The mother described N’s behaviour as increasingly challenging from 2015 onwards, including lying, staying out overnight, and sending inappropriate images online.

After N moved out she recalled receiving abusive messages from her in August 2017, including threats that she interpreted as meaning that she would lose her children. She stated that these messages had led her to believe that N was preparing to make further allegations, and so neither she nor the father were surprised that allegations had been made.

In respect of O she denied that she had been aware of any sexual abuse of O. She denied that she had used O as child care, or that she had coached O on what to say to the police.

She agreed that O had become withdrawn and had struggled with school attendance prior to moving out in February 2020. She said that O had made the allegations in June 2022 after a period of cryptic messages indicating that she had something serious to share. She said that she no longer communicated with O and believed that she no longer wished to have contact. She thought that O might have been influenced by her father, whom she described as manipulative and untrustworthy, although she had no direct evidence of this.

Generally, she stated that she had met the father in 2004 and that he had supported her in caring for her sisters. She described him as a disciplinarian but denied that he had ever been abusive. She stated that he had not undertaken personal care for N or O and that his involvement in their bedrooms had been limited to turning off lights or devices.

She acknowledged that the father had been excluded from the home following the allegations and that his absence had placed additional strain on her and the children. She stated that she had continued to follow social services advice and had not allowed the father to return to the home.

She was able to provide detailed information about the sleeping arrangements in various properties:

The mother confirmed that O had retained her own bedroom after N had moved out, and that P, R and S had shared the other room.

She recalled attempting to move P into O’s room to use the bunk bed, but P had not settled and had returned to the shared room.

She thought it unlikely that N or O would have been alone in their rooms. She said that the layout of the home made it unlikely that there had been any undetected abuse. She agreed that the home was very busy and stated that she was normally in the home and if shopping was needed, she would go with the children and the father. She agreed that the father had not taken any responsibility for personal care of the girls who had been old enough to look after themselves.

The mother answered the questions put to her as best she could in my view. At times she appeared confused by the questions, and was quite clear that when the allegations were made, she had not believed them. When asked about the evidence in the hearing she said that it was a lot to take in, giving the impression that she was considering what had been said.

The Local Authority submitted that, having heard live evidence, the court now had a clear and compelling basis to find the allegations of sexual abuse against the father and the failure to protect by the mother proved.

Key points included:

The father denied all allegations of sexual and physical abuse. His submissions focused on undermining the credibility of N and O and highlighting inconsistencies in their accounts.

Key points included:

The Guardian submitted that the evidence of N and O was credible, emotionally compelling, and consistent with trauma.

Key points included:

Counsel for the mother confirmed that the mother’s position remained that she would accept any findings made by the court. It was submitted that her ability to safeguard the children would need to be assessed in light of those findings.

Counsel did not make submissions in relation to the father’s case but invited the court to consider the mother’s cognitive assessment. Reference was made to the psychologist’s report,

It was submitted that, in relation to the threshold allegation that the mother had failed to protect the children from the risk of sexual abuse and had colluded, the court should be cautious. The local authority did not allege that the mother had actual knowledge of the abuse, and it was argued that any failure to protect arose from a lack of understanding, which was more appropriately considered as a welfare issue.

Regarding the allegation that N and O had been disowned, counsel accepted that N had been estranged from the family for a period but pointed to evidence of intermittent contact between N and the mother, including video calls and messages. It was submitted that O’s situation was different, and that the mother had not actively rejected O, nor had she prevented contact.

Counsel invited the court to be cautious in accepting the full note of the mother’s oral evidence. It was acknowledged that the mother had responded softly to questions about whether she believed the girls, and that she had said “I don’t know.” The Children’s Guardian’s note was read out, which recorded the mother saying that she was beginning to believe the allegations after hearing the girls’ evidence.

It was also submitted that the mother had been protective of her sisters, and that both N and O had expressed concern for her wellbeing and had not wanted to upset her by disclosing the abuse.

In considering the evidence it is necessary to bear in mind that the burden of proof rests with the local authority. It must prove its case. It is not for the parents to disprove anything. The court must have regard to the whole of the evidence.

The court must remind itself of the vulnerabilities of the parents as evidenced in the cognitive assessments of them. the court must be cautious about drawing conclusions without taking the cognitive difficulties into account. The matters which are alleged in this hearing date back to around 2012, when N was 12 years old, a child. Similarly with O, 3 years younger, in terms of the allegations made by her. It would be surprising if any of the witnesses had a clear recall of arrangements at the time, particularly in the context of this family where there was evidence of significant disruption to their living arrangements.

What must also be born in mind is that neither N nor O has been cooperative in the process of police investigation and the local authority enquiries. Both have been reluctant to engage fully. N objected to information relating to her coming into the proceedings. It was not clear that either would attend court to give evidence. A witness summons had to be applied for to ensure their attendance. Perhaps most significantly, there was no ABE interview conducted, and the only police evidence is from Q and A sessions with the girls. There is no audio or video record of interview. The court must therefore approach the evidence with great caution.

I will not repeat N’s allegations here. They are addressed above and in the schedule.

Her oral evidence was emotionally charged and harrowing. It included detail which she repeated in her oral evidence – after a gap of 8 years. One might think that after such a delay, fabricated detail might simply have fallen away.

She acknowledged her history of lying but distinguished those lies from her disclosures of abuse. She never retracted her allegations and expressed guilt and fear about the impact on her sister the mother.

The Local Authority submitted that N’s emotional presentation, consistency across years, and lack of motive to lie supported her credibility. The Guardian echoed this, noting the psychological and relational impact of the abuse on N.

It is a feature of this case that neither N nor O stood to gain anything from making the allegations of sexual abuse against the father. It was clear from their evidence that they each love the mother and acknowledge what she has done for them. They knew well that what was at stake was their relationship with her. Both stated that they were motivated by concern for their nieces and whether they in turn might experience abuse. In fact, it was clear that each of them stood to lose because of making these allegations.

It was suggested that Q might be behind the allegations. I have not heard evidence from him and no application was made for him to be notified of this allegation. There is no evidence to support it, and indeed the evidence given by the father did not suggest that there was any axe to grind between them, and I have in mind his evidence about the Christmas in, I think, 2021. Certainly, Q is in the background, but any conclusion drawn about his involvement must be speculation.

Similarly, it was suggested that there might have been collusion between N and O, to make the allegations up between them. There is no evidence to support that contention. When N first made her allegations, O did not support her and called her a liar. There is no evidence that N knew that O was going to make allegations until the allegations were made. When N did not pursue her allegations in 2017, if there was collusion that would be the obvious time for O to make her allegations to bolster what N had said. But it was 2022 before O made her allegations.

There was a significant amount of time spent in considering whether N’s original allegation that she was in bunk beds should weigh in the balance. The father submits that it should, apparently as it did with the police. The evidence appears to be that at the material times the girls were sleeping top to toe in a single bed. The bunk beds were said to have been acquired later, on the basis of a Facebook post from the mother exhibited to her statement. This post is said to show a small part of a bunk bed and is dated June 2015. There is another photograph of a desk taken in December 2013 which is said to be in the same room, in the same location. The parents therefore suggest that N’s allegation that she was abused on the bottom bunk cannot be right and that the court must factor this as a significant factor in its assessment of the evidence. There is other evidence relied upon by the father supporting this approach.

The difficulty is that even in 2017, this was 4 or 5 years after the allegation was said to have arisen. As I noted, the father had difficulty in his police interview in being clear about when the bunk beds had been acquired. This was a busy household as the parents have observed. There is no clarity about which room the abuse was said to have occurred in, and apart from the allegation itself much is vague. That is not surprising given the time period in question and how long ago it was. In my judgement this is an important submission and forms part of the determination, but it is by no means determinative. Discrepancies in the accounts relating to the sleeping arrangements over a decade ago must be viewed in that light and are not surprising.

The father submits that N should be considered to have lied about the rape incident in 2015. Certainly, that was the clear narrative from the school to the parents, and then of the parents to N. But N was clear in her evidence that she had not made a false accusation, and that she had accepted telling a lie which itself was untrue, and that was in the face of pressure from the parents after the school had informed them. Again, I heard no first-hand evidence about this, and it is 10 years since this issue arose. It is part of the evidence in this case and falls to be considered alongside the other evidence.

O's allegations are profoundly important to the canvas of this case, adding, if true, corroboration to N’s original allegations from 2017. Her allegations are more extensive than those of N, and extend to rape. She said that some of the abuse occurred when she was having a bath or rather getting out of the bath. Both the mother and the father denied that the father had played any part in bath time for either N or O and certainly given O’s age at the time there is force in the argument that she would not have needed assistance from the father, or anyone. There is a distinction between what O said about this aspect of her allegation – when she was clearly awake and would have been aware of what was happening, and other aspects of her allegations when she was half asleep and her recollection is less clear.

Another issue taken with O’s evidence is that she stated that some of the abuse occurred when she was on the sofa in the sitting room. The point is made on behalf of the father that this was a busy house with many children, including young children. It is suggested that it is unlikely that abuse could have occurred without the mother knowing about it. Similarly, it is suggested that the father always accompanied the mother on shopping trips in order to help with the children. I note that S was born in 2015, which is perhaps slightly later than the period that O is talking about. That would mean P and R would be the only children, and R was 3 in 2015. This might be a busy household now, but clearly was not as busy then, when L said the abuse occurred. It seems unlikely that the father would have accompanied the mother every time she left the house. I do not think that the argument about the business of the house assists the court significantly.

I also note that O’s allegations include that she saw the father abusing N on the sofa, but this is not an allegation that N makes. Similarly, O stated that she saw the father abusing N by looking along the landing, but she has not said this before. The court must exercise great caution in relation to this evidence.

I remind myself that credible witnesses can be untruthful, and witnesses who appear to be untruthful can tell the truth.

Both N and O were highly distressed at giving evidence. Previously each of them has been reluctant to cooperate with the police and/or the local authority. N found herself not believed by and ostracised by her whole family, including her father and her brother. She experienced an extremely difficult time after leaving the family home. She said that her husband stopped her from contacting her family. N, in particular, clearly wished to reconcile with the mother.

N accepted that she had told lies in the past, although in the main about childish things, and boundaries. There is the rape incident in 2015, though she is clear now that she had not made an untrue allegation. She had nothing to gain by making the allegations in 2017, and everything to lose, which came to pass. Just because she told lies in the past does not mean that she has lied about everything.

It is clear from the evidence that N was ostracised by the mother after making the allegations. That is clear from the messages passing between them at the time in 2017. The mother accepted that she was not speaking to N at the time. There are indications from the other children that N had been cast out – and this was confirmed by the evidence given by O. P referred to N being “fired”. There are also the notes prepared by the guardian from which it is clear that the other children were not to speak about O or N.

O is not described as a liar by either of the parents. She is a student, but suffers from depression and has been near suicidal at times. As mentioned, she was broadly in control during her evidence but was very distressed at times. Although distressed she maintained her evidence and like N, her account has been broadly consistent over the years.

Neither N nor O have retracted any of their allegations since making them, whether there were periods of contact with the mother, or not.

Both N and O spoke of the impact on their own relationships in ways that appeared to be genuine. N spoke of the effect on her sex life, O spoke of pain with her boyfriend. If both were acting this is a deep and persuasive level of detail.

The father has never made any admission in relation to the allegations. He has always denied them utterly. As mentioned, his demeanour with the police in 2017 was not the same as his demeanour in court, where he denied losing his temper, or shouting. He said that he felt no animosity towards N or O, which was contradicted when in 2017 he told the police that N was a “spiteful cunt”. Having seen the police interview I would be surprised if he was a man who never raised his voice or shouted at home. Similarly, I do not accept the evidence that he and the mother had never discussed the allegations with each other, which is simply implausible. I am persuaded, given his comment to the police about N, that it is likely that he was as verbally abusive to her as she stated.

I do not think that I can take into account the evidence relating to P ringing the police or S saying there was a man in her room. As I commented in the hearing, during the mother’s evidence, the explanation about P accidentally dialling 999 while watching television when a button came up on her phone screen from an app makes no sense at all, but there may be a number of possible explanations. R’s sexualised behaviour is extreme, and there must be a cause which goes beyond watching videos on YouTube, but there is no evidence before the court that helps with that. Any conclusion must amount to speculation. I therefore put these matters to one side; they may be relevant at the welfare stage of the proceedings.

On balance though, and taking all of the above into account, I am persuaded that the local authority has proved on the balance of probabilities that both N and O have been sexually abused by the father as they have alleged. Their accounts have been broadly consistent over the years, bearing in mind the years that have passed. There have been impacts on the lives and mental health of both N and O, that are plain from their histories. The impact has been life changing for them both. What has happened to them, and the effect upon each of them is entirely consistent with having been abused in the way that they each say.

I have approached their evidence with great caution, bearing in mind the lack of an ABE interview and the length of time since the abuse occurred. I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities, however, that their accounts are true. There is no evidence of collusion, as I have indicated, and the allegations made by O and the manner in which her allegations came out, have persuaded me that the accounts are likely to be true.

I heard no evidence as to the allegations of physical abuse of N by the father, and I make no findings about that.

The evidence of O was that the atmosphere in the household was toxic and manipulative. She spoke of the environment as being where it was difficult for her to speak out. She confirmed that N had been ostracised after making allegations. On the evidence that I heard, I am satisfied that N in particular was cast out by the family after making her allegations.

The role of the mother is much more difficult to determine. Her evidence made clear that she did not believe that the father had abused either N or O. I had a clear sense from her evidence that she had never engaged with the allegations or stopped to consider them and whether they were likely to be true. I take into account her cognitive vulnerabilities, but she never appeared to have considered the allegations from the point of view of her sisters.

She said that if she had been aware of the abuse she would have made the father leave. But she was aware of the allegations from 2017 onwards and had not believed N. Even when O, whom she said was a truthful child, made allegations in 2022, she does not appear to have considered them, beyond believing what the father said. Even after hearing N and O give evidence, and the manner in which they gave evidence, she was still uncertain.

There is only one piece of evidence that suggests that she knew of the abuse, and as Mr Hussein pointed out, that is when, at the end of her evidence, O was asked if there was anything she wanted to say to the mother, and she said this, almost as a throw away: ““I remember that night you told me you saw CD looking into our room and you thought it was weird. I know you know that. I wish you hadn’t abandoned your two sisters. I wish you’d been there for us, helped us through this. Stood up for yourself and protected your kids. I understand it’s hard for you as well. It’s your responsibility to put your kids first. I’m sorry it isn’t the family dynamic you wanted, but you need to protect those children.”

I have considered this in the context of the allegations made against the father, and the mother’s attitude generally. I am not persuaded by it alone that she has been complicit in the father’s abuse of N and O, but rather that she has closed her mind to the possibility that the girls were telling the truth. She reinforced that by marrying the father even after all of the allegations had been made, and that certainly shows where her loyalties lay. I recognise that this was and is enormously difficult for her. Taking account of her vulnerabilities, to be told that her partner since 2004 had abused her sisters must have been difficult to comprehend. Only she knows whether there had been signs which she overlooked or turned away from. She will now need to think carefully about what her sisters have said, and the implications for her younger children.

Given the above, I am not persuaded that she has failed to protect the children as such, but I am concerned at whether she would be able to do so. Any risk assessment of these parents would certainly need to involve the mother, as well as the father. Her response to these findings will be of critical importance.

It follows from the above that I am satisfied that threshold under s31 Children Act 1989 is crossed in relation to all of the children in addition to R. There is a clear risk of significant harm following my findings against the father, namely physical and emotional harm, and of emotional harm attributable to the mother as a result of her failing to consider the allegations made by her sisters and any risk potentially posed by the father as a result.

That is my judgment