A & B (Children) (Fact Finding Hearing), Re

I am concerned with a fact-finding hearing within public law proceedings.

The applicant local authority seeks the following findings against the respondent father (with summary response from respondent).

To enable me to determine this dispute I have considered the documents contained within the hearing bundle. I have heard live evidence from the respondent (supported by an interpreter) and I have listened to the submissions made by representatives for each party. I keep all of this information in mind in reaching my conclusions.

This can be kept short given the issues requiring resolution.

The respondent is a single father of two children aged 10 and 8. The children’s mother is deceased. Whilst the local authority has some wider concerns it is agreed this is a single-issue case and the determination of the allegations will shape whether the case proceeds or is withdrawn.

Between 21 and 27 December 2025 the respondent accessed an online dating application known as ‘Mingle2’. On 21 December 2025 he started a conversation with an individual with a profile name of “Amy”. Shortly afterwards the communications moved onto WhatsApp and continued on that messaging platform until 27 December 2025.

In fact, “Amy” was a decoy identity used by an online volunteer group who stated purpose is to protect children from online grooming and sexual abuse. The individual messaging the respondent was not called “Amy” but was an adult posing as the character “Amy.”

Following on from the communications between the respondent and “Amy” the volunteer group confronted the respondent with the content of his messaging. Shortly thereafter police attended and the respondent was arrested.

The respondent was subsequently interviewed by the police and has been charged that:

“on the 27th day of December 2025 at [ ] in the Borough of [ ] being a person aged 18 or over, for the purpose of obtaining sexual gratification, intentionally attempted to communicate with a decoy, a person under 16 who you did not reasonably believe to be 16 or over, the communication being sexual namely sending a photograph of your penis to them and asking them to send indecent images to you and stating you want to have sex with them.”

This action is charged contrary to s1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981.

The respondent awaits trial for this offence at the Crown Court. I understand his trial is not listed to be heard until 2028.

The applicant makes the allegations set out above and the applicant must prove the allegations. There is no burden whatsoever on the respondent to disprove the allegations. The applicant will prove the allegations if it demonstrates on the evidence that the act is more likely than not to have happened. This is the balance of probabilities. If this is established then the allegation will be treated as a fact. If not it will be disregarded.

All the evidence placed before me is important. Central to any assessment must be a close scrutiny of the evidence given by the respondent. I am entitled to have regard to the manner in which the respondent gave his evidence but I should keep in mind the potential for demeanour to be misleading. I am entitled to have regard to inherent probabilities but they should give way to any conflict with the actual evidence received.

I am entitled to have regard to lies told by a witness but I should be very careful not to rely upon such lies as being probative as to the truth of the allegations before first submitting the lies to a robust analysis following the principles set out in the case of R v Lucas (as considered within the appropriate family law case law). I must continue to keep in mind that individuals lie for a multitude of reasons and that many lies told are not told to hide from the Court the truth of the allegations under consideration.

In considering these matters I avoid applying criminal principles. I appreciate I am being asked to look into the mind of the respondent with respect to his intentions or understanding. But I am not restricted simply to the account he gives in such regard. I am entitled to infer his understanding and intentions from his actions and to have regard to the natural and obvious consequences of his words and actions.

As can be seen from the schedule of allegations much of the detail in this case is not in dispute. The respondent agrees going online and engaging in sexual conversation with a third party: “Amy.” The fundamental dispute is as to whether in doing so he knew or believed that “Amy” was under 16 and thus under the age of sexual consent. The applicant submits the evidence puts this beyond doubt. The respondent disagrees and provides an account of his own understanding and beliefs at the time of the communications. The children’s guardian takes a neutral position but highlights a range of factors that cause the guardian concern.

Understandably the focus has been on those parts of the communications which suggest or might suggest “Amy” was under 16. In this case I have an undisputed account of the messages that passed in the form of screenshots taken of all messages. It is not suggested there are additional messaging of relevance not before the Court.

I heard evidence from the respondent only. The examination and cross examination focused on taking the respondent to segments of the communication and raising with him the content insofar as it tended to speak as to “Amy’s” age.

In the annex to this judgment, I provide an overview of the messaging and I will reference the same in the analysis that follows. I keep in mind the detail of the messaging in reaching my conclusions and reference the key parts within the analysis that follows.

The respondent gave evidence supported by an interpreter although at times he addressed me directly in English. It is clear English is not his first language. It is agreed all communications between the respondent and “Amy” using the messaging platforms (and indeed on the limited occasions of telephone conversation) were in English and without reference to any translation tool.

The respondent gave evidence for about 2 hours. This period was longer as a result of the use of the interpreter. There was a reasonable amount of repetition. As a result, the live evidence I received was comparatively limited.

The respondent was questioned as to “Amy’s” post that ‘I’m 14’ and it was put to him that this was an explicit indication of her age. The respondent denied this fixed him with notice of age and countered that he had understood the moniker to be a title or handle used by her within her profile on the site, i.e. as where a person has an email address which is not unique and is followed by a sequence number. There was back and forward as to the credibility of this account but the respondent stood his ground and added that he did not believe an individual aged under-18 could access the site.

He was asked as to why he so quickly suggested moving the conversation onto WhatsApp. It was suggested he did this to avoid scrutiny of the conversation on the dating site. He denied this and explained the suggestion was due to perceived delays in the messaging on the site which would not be the case on WhatsApp.

He was asked about the speed at which he developed the conversation and agreed it became sexually explicit on the first day. At first he claimed the naked photo of himself was sent by mistake. Later he suggested it was done in a form of provocation believing the other party was a ‘scammer.’ But this was then corrected on the basis it was sent by mistake to “Amy” and had been intended for another individual whom the respondent was messaging at the same time.

Throughout his evidence the respondent referenced a belief or fear that the other party might be a scammer. He explained that this had been his previous experience. What he meant by a ‘scammer’ was flexible as he referred to a person who might wish to blackmail him or report him to the police. But the sense was that this was someone who was not genuinely who they purported to be: “Amy”. The respondent associated this belief particularly with the photo sent at 2340 hrs on 21 December 2025. It seemed this photo raises concerns on the part of the respondent and he included his perception of the age of the individual from the picture as part of his concern.

The respondent was probed further as to the issue around age and particularly by reference to observations that he ‘would wait for her until she was 18’. He was asked as to why he had simply not enquired as to her age and responded that he had asked about her next birthday. He told me he would not ask a woman her age because this would annoy a woman. By the end of his evidence the respondent appeared to accept the evidence suggested “Amy” might be under-18 but he considered she was over-17.

He was asked as to a passage of messaging in which he had expressed himself to be worried about the conversation and in which he asked her not to tell her friends. He responded that this was because he thought she might be a scammer. He had taken a screenshot of the page to protect himself. He told me his confusion was in the context of having seen two profiles for “Amy” on the dating site in which she was aged 18 and 23.

He was asked about his comments about her being home alone and being scared. It was suggested this fitted with a conversation being had with a younger person. He again referenced his fear she was a scammer and the sense of his evidence was that he was trying to extract supportive information to help him reach a safe conclusion in such regard.

He was asked about the reference to school year 10 in the conversation and he confirmed he knew the respective years for his own children (years 3 and 5). It was put to him that simple mathematics would indicate this made “Amy” between 14-15 years of age. He said he did not think about this at the time and then told me about his own education and how he has been in year 10 when aged 18 in his home country.

He was probed on this point and it was noted the matriculation certificate he has provided did not say he was in year 10. He accepted children in his country were in year 1 at a young age but that children could be held back if they failed certain years meaning their age and year would not necessarily correspond.

He confirmed the picture at 2340 hours on 21 December had raised his concerns.

When re-examined he told me he thought the person he was corresponding with was probably 35 years of age. This was the incorrect age he had given for himself. He did not provide a clear basis as to why he reached this conclusion. He also told me he had difficulties expressing himself in English and it was possible the messages had not been understood.

It is important I reflect on the respondent’s language issues when assessing these issues. I accept English is not his first language. It is also clear all messaging was in English without support. This raises the potential for confusion and misunderstandings. But having made this point I do have regard to the messaging I have read which flows freely and is comprehensible with only a limited number of confused sections. It is not clear the errors found are very different from those typically found in such communications which are by their nature instant and often not fully considered.

I bear in mind there is no evidence to suggest this dating site in this case is one which is known to be frequented by those seeking to groom children. It is a conventional website. As such the presence of the respondent on the site is not probative of the allegations in question.

I bear in mind there is no evidence to indicate “Amy” was under-18 until the issue is said to have arisen in the conversation. There is no suggestion her site profile raised this point and as such there is no evidence that at the point of first contact the respondent had any reason to know or believe she would comment that she was ‘14’. As such there is no probative evidence that the respondent sought out a minor.

I bear in mind the respondent has no criminal history and that there is no supportive evidence of similar previous behaviour on his part.

I have reflected on the photographic evidence in the case relating to “Amy” and considered whether this is probative. For my part, the images are suggested of an under-18 individual, but I consider I have to be wary as to the weight I should attach to my assessment. This is because I know from the evidence that the individual in the photo is in fact over-18 but has been styled to look younger. This styling is subtle. The photograph does not show a child in school uniform or with any marker that would obviously age her. Furthermore, and importantly whilst I would date the person under-18 (as did the respondent at 2340 hours) this is different from dating her under-16.

I have approached this assessment through the key conversation elements highlighted above rather than extraneous factors or assessment of photographs.

I found the respondent’s evidence as to the ‘I’m 14’ point implausible. On any natural reading the party was supplying a description of herself by reference to her age. This had followed a short self-description by the respondent of himself. The response ‘I’m 14 from Leeds’ was clear and explicit. Indeed, it was then questioned by the respondent and immediately confirmed. The notion that this was a ‘handle’ used by the party makes little sense. It is clear her profile gave her name as being “Amy” and in the very next message the respondent asked if this is her real name. It is most unlikely an individual would be naming themselves as ‘14’.

In any event what is not said by the respondent is as probative as what is said by the respondent. At no point does he ask “Amy” her age, or whether she is over-18, or an adult or any other formulation of such a question. This leaves one with the clear understanding that he did not need to do so because he has been provided with an age.

Later this understanding is directly supported by the reference to ‘Year 10’. The respondent had all the information available to him to understand this aged “Amy” as being 14-15 and thus was corroborative of the earlier reference ‘I’m 14’. The respondent has children in year 3 and 5 and clearly understands the way in which the year system works. As such “Amy” is 5 years above his child who is aged 10.

I found the suggestion that this was simply missed in the conversation most unlikely. It is noteworthy this information was provided in direct response to a question from the respondent seeking to find out the school year “Amy” was in after she had reported being off school for Christmas. I struggle to understand how having asked the question the respondent failed to have regard to the answer. Of course, the response in this case was written down and could not be misheard.

I did not find the evidence of the respondent as to his own schooling helpful. First, I have no evidence of him being in year 10 aged 18. The certificate provides no detail in this regard. Second, his own evidence put him in year 10 as a function of being held back. This in no way answered the question of who would naturally be in year 10. I was not helped by this evidence.

I found the evidence around a ‘scammer’ confused and unreliable. The evidence was contradictory of how one might be expected to act in such a situation. I fully understand and accept the potential for such behaviour but it would be peculiar were the respondent to send a picture of his penis to a scammer who might then use that very information to exploit him. The simple response would have been to end the conversation not to promote it in a manner that might (indeed has) come to be used against the respondent. I do not rule out at times the respondent was checking to make sure “Amy” was ‘genuine’ but his actions including sending her a naked image suggest at that point in time he was persuaded it was safe to do so.

I was not impressed by the account of the image being sent accidentally. The account moved about but in any event it was followed by a request for “Amy” to send an equivalent picture and by a suggestion he might send a further picture. There was no apology or other comment that might have been expected if it were a genuine mistake.

There were other points which I have regard to. I have commented on the view I take of the pictures. I do have regard to the language of ‘being scared’ left alone at home. This is language more likely to be used with a younger person. Second, the language about the respondent being scared fits with a feeling on his part that he might be acting inappropriately. Finally, I have regard to the section where the respondent asked “Amy”: ‘Just thinking how dating site allow you to do it.’ Both “Amy” and I interpret that as referring to using the site when not being over 18. Indeed, the response of the respondent that ‘but it cheating’ suggests he had the same understanding. The point about this is that at that time in the conversation the respondent claims not to have placed any weight on either the ‘14’ or the ‘year 10’. That being the case it is unclear what was the information that at that point allowed the respondent to question her age.

It may be said the respondent had the 2340 hours picture as an indication of age. If this is correct then the concern is he followed this up with demands for “Amy” to send him naked imagery in a coercive fashion.

Finally, I have reflected on the role of the decoy and the nature of this being a ‘sting’ operation. But I cannot see how the motivations of those engaging in the sting have direct impact on the actions of the respondent. This was a public website; the respondent was not singled out by the sting. The information provided was provided early and the respondent had sufficient opportunity to extract himself from the situation without causing himself any damage. It may be the language used in the communications was outside the strategy described in the witness statement of the decoy but none of this excuses the respondent’s communications or his failure to end the conversation.

As has been noted there is no dispute the respondent communicated with “Amy” in a sexual manner including by sending her a naked image of himself. This was not sent by mistake but as part of sexualised conversation on the part of the respondent.

The key question is as to the respondent’s state of knowledge or his beliefs as to the age of the individual he was communicating with. On the evidence placed before me it is more likely than not the respondent was fixed with an understanding that the person with whom he was communicating was self-describing as a 14-year-old child. Notwithstanding this knowledge and with no meaningful evidence to the contrary he continued a sexually explicit conversation as detailed and made efforts to extract from the party sexually explicit imagery of themselves and sought to meet with her for what were sexually motivated purposes.

The respondent argues these findings do not equate to establishing the legal threshold has been crossed. During submissions, this point was developed. In my judgment the question of threshold should properly await further evidence. This does not mean threshold could not be crossed in this case but it seems sensible to have any risk assessment before reaching a settled conclusion in such regard.

These are my conclusions. I will now send this judgment out for consideration. This judgment can be shared with both lay and professionals clients. It seems necessary now for the following steps to be taken:

On reflection I do not think there is obvious merit in a formal handing down today when there will be a need for a further follow up hearing to consider the points above. With this in mind I intend to vacate the hearing this afternoon and list a 1-hour directions hearing before me at 10am on 12 May 2026. I propose the following timetable:

Annex: Summary of Messaging