MISS RECORDER HENLEY

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case No. NE17C00557

IN THE FAMILY COURT
SITTING AT NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE
In the matter of the Children Act 1989

20 March 2018

Before:

MISS RECORDER HENLEY

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the matter of

A (born in the month of January 2006)
G (born in the month of June 2012)
MM (born in the month of December 2013)
R (born in the month of April 2015)

BETWEEN:
LA
Applicant 
-and-

(1)	M
(2)	F1
(3)	F2
(4)	MGF
(5)	MGM
(6)	THE CHILDREN
(Minors acting through their Children’s Guardian, Vanessa Bell)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Representation

Applicant – Mr Todd (Counsel)
Respondent Mother –  Miss Sweeting (Counsel)
Respondent Father of A– Excused attendance
Respondent Father of G, MM and R – Miss Fagan (Counsel)
Respondent Children – Mr Ainsley (Counsel)
MGF – Miss Middleton (Counsel)
MGM – in person

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT

Introduction

1.	The Court is concerned with four children:
A (born in the month of January 2006) now aged 12 years old
G (born in the month of June 2012) now aged 5 years old
MM (born in the month of December 2013) now aged 4 years old
R (born in the month of April 2015) now aged 2 years old 

2.	This matter is listed for a Fact Finding Hearing with a time estimate of 10 days commencing on 26th February 2018.

3.	The Mother of all four children is M (born in1987), who is represented by Miss Sweeting of counsel.

4.	The father of A is F2; his attendance has been excused for the purposes of this hearing.

5.	The father of the youngest three children is F1, who is represented by Miss Fagan of counsel.

6.	The Maternal Grandparents are MGF (born in 1969) and MGM (born in 1969). MGF has been legally represented throughout these proceedings and has been represented by counsel at each hearing.   Due to his financial position, he has retained counsel for the purposes of this fact-finding hearing to question significant witnesses and to make submissions on his behalf, but for the remainder of the hearing he has not had representation; those other days involved witnesses, which largely did not directly affect his case.  In the absence of his counsel, and with her agreement, he was given an opportunity to question witnesses directly.  MGM represents herself.

7.	The children are represented by Mr Ainsley of counsel.  Vanessa Bell is the Children’s Guardian. 

8.	These proceedings were issued on 4th August 2017, the 26 week timetable for this case expired on 4th February 2018.  This timetable was extended to 34 weeks due to lack of available Court time to accommodate a lengthy hearing.

9.	The local authority seeks findings against M, F, MGF and MGM at this hearing.  These findings are broadly categorized into recent allegations of domestic abuse in the relationship between M and F and physical abuse perpetrated against A; and historical allegations of sexual abuse against MGF.  As such, this hearing has been broadly arranged into two parts, the first week to focus on more recent allegations and the second week to focus on historical allegations made by DF and SM (the now adult daughters of MGM).

10.	DF and SM indicated that they would give oral evidence at this hearing, provided that that they be entitled to use special measures.  Specifically, they sought the use of a video link, which would enable them to be based in a different building to MGM and MGF and they opposed MGF or MGM asking them questions directly.  The parties did not object to these special measures and I determined that these special measures were appropriate at an earlier case management hearing.  I directed that MGM prepare written questions in advance of the fact finding hearing so that I could determine the appropriateness of those questions if necessary, and to enable the advocates to identify if any of those questions were suitable for them to ask.  In the event that there were questions which none of the advocates felt able to ask, I indicated that I would ask them.  Miss Middleton, counsel for MGF indicated that she felt able to ask all of MGM’s questions.  MGM agreed with this course.  I am grateful to Miss Middleton for performing this role.

Background

11.	At the time that MGM and MGF commenced their relationship, in or around 1985, MGM already had two children; SM (born in 1982) and DF (born in 1983) to her first marriage to LM.  They were accordingly aged around 3 and 2 years old respectively when MGM and MGF commenced their relationship.  MGF and MGM cohabited and then married on 19th September 1987.  They had a number of children of their own: FF, MF, VF and M.

12.	MGM and MGF have had involvement with the local authority dating back to the early 1990s, initially due to them being assessed to care for BL, the son of MGF’s sister, EL.  Care proceedings involving BL concluded in 1993, with him being placed with MGF and MGM under a Care Order.  They were approved as foster carers for him in August 1996.  When BL was 18 years old he returned to the care of his mother.  MGPs have had no contact with him since.  This followed an alleged attempted rape by him of their daughter MF when she was aged 16 years old.  This incident was said to have occurred in the family home and was never reported to the Police or social services at the time by the family. 

13.	In 2001 the local authority received referrals that M, then aged 13 years old, was repeatedly running away from the family home and had made allegations of physical abuse against MGF.  In October 2001 M was made the subject of Police Powers of Protection when she expressed a fear of returning to the family home due to MGF.  She remained out of the family home for one night before being returned.  MGF was interviewed by the Police in respect of these allegations, but no prosecution followed.

14.	On 20th July 2002, SM and DF made allegations that they had been sexually abused by MGF to WB, their maternal aunt and to CT, their maternal grandmother.  On 21st July 2002 they made these allegations to the Police.  Prior to these allegations being made, MGM had asked DF to leave the family home and SM had left shortly after her.  SM was aged 20 years at the time and DF was aged almost 19 years old.  They initially stayed with WB and then obtained a flat together.  MGM has had no contact with either of them since that time.  MGF was arrested and interviewed in respect of these allegations on 25th July 2002 and 28th August 2002.  He denied them.  During the criminal investigation that followed, MGF resided outside the family home, in accordance with his bail conditions, and all the children in the household remained living with MGM under Child Protection Plans.  On 30th October 2002 BL was made the subject of a Residence Order in favour of MGM.  MGF was charged with multiple sexual offences in respect of SM and DF’s allegations, including sexual assault, buggery and attempted rape.  On 18th March 2003, MGF was acquitted of all matters after a Crown Court trial and returned to live in the family home.

15.	On 21st January 2006 A was born.  M’s relationship to her father, F2 was short lived, ending during the pregnancy, and thereafter contact between F2 and A was problematic.  The reasons for this are in dispute.  M blames F2 for a lack of commitment.  F2 blames M for preventing contact from taking place.

16.	In 2010 M commenced her relationship with F1.  G, MM and R were born to that relationship.

17.	On 6th June 2016 A disclosed that she had been physically abused by F1 on 31st May 2016.  She was the subject of an ABE interview by the Police on 20th June 2016.  Thereafter, she made a series of disclosures that she was being physically abused by F1 and by M and that their relationship was a domestically abusive one.

18.	The local authority’s response to A’s disclosures was to convene an Initial Child Protection Conference on 24th June 2016 and thereafter, from 23rd January 2017, to work with the family under Child in Need Plans.

19.	On 19th June 2017 M alleges that she was violently assaulted by F1 in the family home and whilst all of the children were in the property.  On 20th June 2017 M told the social worker for the first time that her relationship with F1 had been a physically and emotionally abusive one, that he was controlling, was misusing alcohol and pain relief medication and that she no longer wished to be in a relationship with him.

20.	On 24th June 2017 all four children were made the subjects of Child Protection Plans.

21.	On 19th July 2017 the social worker, CG attended the family home.  She states that M and MGF behaved in an aggressive and hostile way towards her in front of all of the children and that they were emotionally abusive towards A in her presence.  She states that M made clear her intention to resume her relationship with F during that visit.

22.	On 21st July 2017 a further home visit took place in which M informed CG and the children’s health visitor, Kerrie Thompson, that she had not been working openly and honestly with the LA.  M refused to agree to the voluntary accommodation of the children and instead, A was sent to live with MGPs.

23.	On 4th August 2017 the LA commenced these proceedings and on 8th August 2017 A was removed to foster care under the auspices of an Interim Care Order.  The other three children were made the subjects of Interim Supervision Orders on the basis that they were to remain in the care of M.  They remain in her care to date.

The present hearing

24.	This matter is listed for a Fact Finding hearing.  The LA invites the Court to make a series of findings against M, F, MGF and MGM.  Some of the matters alleged are now accepted but many of the findings sought are in dispute and therefore it is necessary for the Court to make factual determinations.

The Law in respect of Factual Determinations 
25.	The law to be applied when considering the issues before the court is well settled.  When considering the findings sought by the local authority the court applies the following well established principles:
26.	The burden of proving the facts pleaded rests with the local authority.  In cases of alleged inflicted injury, it is for the local authority to establish on the balance of probabilities that the injuries in question were inflicted.  There is no requirement on the parents to show that the injuries have an innocent explanation.  

27.	The standard to which the local authority must satisfy the court is the simple balance of probabilities.  The inherent probability or improbability of an event remains a matter to be taken into account when weighing the probabilities and deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred (Re B [2008] UKHL 35 at [15]).   Within this context, 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 (Re B [2008] UKHL 35 at [2]).  
28.	Findings of fact must be based on evidence not on speculation.  The decision on whether the facts in issue have been proved to the requisite standard must be based on all of the available evidence and should have regard to the wide context of social, emotional, ethical and moral factors (A County Council v A Mother, A Father and X, Y and Z [2005] EWHC 31 (Fam)).  
29.	In determining whether the local authority has discharged the burden upon it the court looks at what has been described as ‘the broad canvass’ of the evidence before it.  The role of the court is to consider the evidence in its totality and to make findings on the balance of probabilities accordingly.  Within this context, the court must consider each piece of evidence in the context of all of the other evidence (Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838 at [33]).  
30.	The evidence of the parents and carers is of utmost importance and it is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability.  The court is likely to place considerable reliability and weight on the evidence and impression it forms of them.  
31.	I also however, must bear in mind the observations of Macur LJ in Re M (Children) [2013] EF2A Civ 1147 “It is obviously a counsel of perfection but seems to me advisable that any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so”.
32.	The court must always bear in mind that a witnesses may tell lies in the course of an 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.  The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied above everything (R v Lucas [1982] QB 720).  I make clear that in reaching my conclusions in these matters, I have given myself this direction in respect of the evidence of M, F, MGM and MGF. 
33.	It is also important when considering its decision as to the findings sought that the Court take into account of the presence or absence of any risk factors and any protective factors which are apparent on the evidence.  In Re BR [2015] EWFC 41 Peter Jackson J (as he then was) sets out a useful summary of those factors drawn from information from the NSPCC, the Common Assessment Framework and the Patient UK Guidance for Health Professionals.

34.	The Court of Appeal very recently considered the respective roles and functions of the criminal and family courts in the case of Re R (Children) [2018] EF2A Civ 198; McFarlane LJ gave the leading judgment. Paragraph 81 onwards gives guidance to all first instance judges as to the role of the family court in a finding of fact hearing as follows:
“The approach of a family court when trying, or re-trying, factual issues which could also be framed as criminal charges: general observations
	81.	Moving beyond the circumstances of the present appeal, and building upon what is said at paragraphs 61 to 67 above, the following general observations as to the approach of a family court when trying, or re-trying, factual issues which could also be framed as a criminal charge are intended to be of assistance to all levels within the Family Court, where the need to undertake such a fact-finding exercise is by no means unusual.
	82.	By way of summary, the following points are, in my judgment, clear:
a)	The focus and purpose of a fact-finding investigation in the context of a case concerning the future welfare of children in the Family Court are wholly different to those applicable to the prosecution by the State of an individual before a criminal court [paragraph 62 above];
b)	The primary purpose of the family process 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 [paragraph 62];
c)	Criminal law concepts, such as the elements needed to establish guilt of a particular crime or a defence, have neither relevance nor function within a process of fact-finding in the Family Court [paragraph 65];
d)	As a matter of principle, it is fundamentally wrong for the Family Court to be drawn into an analysis of factual evidence in proceedings relating to the welfare of children based upon criminal law principles and concepts [paragraph 67].
83.	Where there has been, or may be, a criminal prosecution in relation to the actions of a parent or other person connected with a child whose future welfare is the subject of public or private law proceedings before the Family Court, the question of whether the factual matters that may support such a prosecution should also be litigated within the family proceedings falls to be determined by the Family Court on a case-by-case basis. 
84.	The Family Court should only embark upon a fact-finding process where it is necessary to do so. The recently updated Practice Direction FPR 2010, PD12J ‘Child Arrangements and Contact Orders: Domestic Abuse and Harm’, relating to private law proceedings includes the following guidance which is of more general application to all proceedings relating to the welfare of children where ‘domestic abuse’ or other potentially criminal activity is alleged:
‘Directions for a fact-finding hearing 
16. The court should determine as soon as possible whether it is necessary to conduct a fact-finding hearing in relation to any disputed allegation of domestic abuse – 
(a) in order to provide a factual basis for any welfare report or for assessment of the factors set out in paragraphs 36 and 37 below; 
(b) in order to provide a basis for an accurate assessment of risk; 
(c) before it can consider any final welfare-based order(s) in relation to child arrangements; or 
(d) before it considers the need for a domestic abuse-related Activity (such as a Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programme (DVPP)). 
17. In determining whether it is necessary to conduct a fact-finding hearing, the court should consider – 
(a) the views of the parties and of Cafcass or CAFCASS Cymru; 
(b) whether there are admissions by a party, which provide a sufficient factual basis on which to proceed; 
(c) if a party is in receipt of legal aid, whether the evidence required to be provided to obtain legal aid provides a sufficient factual basis on which to proceed; 
(d) whether there is other evidence available to the court that provides a sufficient factual basis on which to proceed; 
(e) whether the factors set out in paragraphs 36 and 37 below can be determined without a fact-finding hearing; 
(f) the nature of the evidence required to resolve disputed allegations; 
(g) whether the nature and extent of the allegations, if proved, would be relevant to the issue before the court; and 
(h) whether a separate fact-finding hearing would be necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances of the case.’
85.	In addition the factors listed at paragraphs 36 and 37 of PD12J are also likely to be relevant in deciding whether to conduct a fact-finding process in relation to ‘domestic abuse’ or any other potentially criminal activity in any proceedings relating to the welfare of a child:
‘36. In the light of any findings of fact or admissions or where domestic abuse is otherwise established, the court should apply the individual matters in the welfare checklist with reference to the domestic abuse which has occurred and any expert risk assessment obtained. In particular, the court should in every case consider any harm which the child and the parent with whom the child is living has suffered as a consequence of that domestic abuse, and any harm which the child and the parent with whom the child is living is at risk of suffering, if a child arrangements order is made. The court should make an order for contact only if it is satisfied that the physical and emotional safety of the child and the parent with whom the child is living can, as far as possible, be secured before during and after contact, and that the parent with whom the child is living will not be subjected to further domestic abuse by the other parent. 
37. In every case where a finding or admission of domestic abuse is made, or where domestic abuse is otherwise established, the court should consider the conduct of both parents towards each other and towards the child and the impact of the same. In particular, the court should consider – 
(a) the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and on the arrangements for where the child is living; 
(b) the effect of the domestic abuse on the child and its effect on the child's relationship with the parents; 
(c) whether the parent is motivated by a desire to promote the best interests of the child or is using the process to continue a form of domestic abuse against the other parent; 
(d) the likely behaviour during contact of the parent against whom findings are made and its effect on the child; and 
(e) the capacity of the parents to appreciate the effect of past domestic abuse and the potential for future domestic abuse.’ 
86.	On the basis of the guidance in PD12J, and on the basis of general principles, a family court should only embark upon a fact-finding investigation where it is both necessary and proportionate to do so, having regard to the overarching purpose of public law proceedings of (a) establishing whether the CA 1989, s 31 threshold criteria are satisfied and (b) determining the future plan for the child’s care by affording paramount consideration to his or her welfare.
…91.	At the end of the day, the often very difficult role of a judge once it has been determined that a finding of fact hearing is necessary can be reduced to the short statement that the family judge’s task in such cases is simply to find the facts. Once any facts are found, they will then form the basis of a more wide-ranging assessment of any consequent risks to the child whose future welfare needs will then fall to be determined.”

Evidence

35.	During this hearing, I have heard from the legal representatives for each party and from MGM in person.  I have read the bundle of documents filed for this hearing, including police disclosure of documentation from MGF’s criminal trial.  I have watched the video recording of A’s Achieving Best Evidence interview and read the transcript of it.  I heard oral evidence from the following witnesses: CG, the children’s social worker; M; DC Lumsden; F; SM; DF; MGF and MGM.  I have also had the benefit of written submissions from each of the parties, for which I am grateful.

36.	I found CG to be genuine, well intentioned and honest in her evidence.  I was however troubled by some aspects of her evidence and invited specific submissions in respect of those issues from the local authority and on behalf of the Children’s Guardian.  I am grateful to Mr Todd and Mr Ainsley for specifically addressing those issues in their written submissions.  

37.	It became increasingly apparent during her oral evidence that CG’s approach to the case throughout her involvement has been a subjective one, with child protection decisions and procedures being made and followed, depending upon what it was she believed to be happening with the family at the time.  I accept that social workers must exercise an element of judgment in performing their role, but in this instance it appeared to me that far too much emphasis had been placed upon whether she personally believed M and A at the outset of the case and as it unfolded.  I accept entirely that this was a case in which the factual landscape has shifted significantly since her involvement began and that she could not have been reasonably expected to anticipate the extent to which she was being given a false picture by the family, however, this case brings into sharp focus the need for an objective and balanced approach, in which a social worker must always be alive to the possibility that the information they are being given by a family is not accurate.  I have no doubt that CG did her best to work with M and that her aim was to keep the family together, which is a commendable aspiration and must be the starting point for any work with a family, however, having considered all of the evidence in this matter, what is now clear is that CG was deceived by M in respect of what was happening in the family home both at the outset of her involvement and since.

38.	M managed to manipulate CG into accepting her expressed view that A was lying when she made allegations about the way she was being treated at home.  I am satisfied that this tainted the way that CG initially approached the case.  A’s disclosures were not given credence and were not accurately recorded by CG, notwithstanding that she had already given an ABE interview to the police in June 2016.  Verbatim notes were not made, contemporaneous recordings were not kept and the notes that are available are heavily influenced by subjective opinion.  CG made assumptions about what A was saying based upon her flawed understanding of what was going on in the household at the time.  I am satisfied that that influenced not only her approach to the case, but her approach to A too.  

39.	This was, I am satisfied, a child who was living in a household which featured significant domestic abuse and who was not being protected from that abuse by M.  Her life at home must have been very difficult for her.  The one person that she should have been able to rely upon, in circumstances in which her family was failing her, was her social worker.  Unfortunately, her social worker did not believe her when she attempted to reveal details of what life was like for her and had said as much in an email to her school.  Again, school should have been a sanctuary for A, somewhere that she should have felt safe and able to explain what was happening at home to her teachers, if she wished to do so.  I am concerned that A may well have been deterred from doing that in an atmosphere in which, not only were M and F calling her a liar, but her social worker was also telling others that she was not telling the truth.  The observation is made on behalf of the local authority that A was never made aware of the email to her school, I would hope and expect that that is the case, however, I am deeply troubled by the comments that CG was making to A at the time and the impact that they may have had upon her, not only in the short term but also in the longer term, particularly with regards to whether A felt that she could freely disclose what was happening at home.  

40.	Having read the notes, which were produced of some of the statutory visits that were conducted by CG, I am troubled by the way that A was spoken to during these visits and the way that some of these visits were conducted.  To give an example; on 28th February 2017 the social worker conducted a visit to the family home and spoke to A when both M and F were in the property.  This immediately followed an allegation that A had made against M of physical abuse.  M was permitted to be present in the room with A and CG at the time.  During this visit both M and CG confronted A about whether she had told M that CG had told her she was going into foster care.  CG’s note of the visit reads as follows, “I asked A if I had really said this and she shook her head.  I asked A why she had said this and she remained very quiet.  M said that A had told her that she didn’t want live with her anymore and didn’t want M to be her mam.  I asked A if this was true, A remained quiet.  I spoke with A about what my job was, and that my job involved helping boys and girls whose mams and dads are very mean or cruel to them and want to cause them harm, I asked A if this was her mam, she said no.”  This is just one example of A being put under significant pressure in the presence of M to either explain or retract what she had previously said.  Bearing in mind that just 5 months later, A was removed to foster care, I consider that what A has been told in this conversation is a very confusing and potentially harmful message from her social worker. 

41.	During another part of her evidence, CG explained that the entry in the chronology for 28th February 2017 which reads “A did admit to making up the allegation about her mother, under significant pressure” is in part her “supposing” that A retracted the allegation rather than this being due to anything that A said, and that the reference to “significant pressure” refers to the presence of M and F during the visit who were clearly intimating that they did not believe A at the time.  I am satisfied that A suffered significant emotional harm as a consequence of M openly telling the social worker in her presence that she was a liar, something that M now admits to doing on 19th July 2017, but also that these episodes were compounded by the way that visits were conducted by CG and CG’s own attitude towards A at the time.  I indicated during the course of CG’s evidence that I was troubled that I was being invited to make findings against M that she did not believe A when CG herself was also openly disbelieving her.  

42.	CG has continued to be A’s social worker throughout this case and remains her social worker to date.  The Guardian has indicated that in her view, this position is not tenable because a child’s relationship with their social worker must be underpinned by trust.  The local authority acknowledges and accepts that there are lessons to be learned from this case and has suggested that the case is now to be co-worked by a more senior social worker, with immediate effect.  Clearly the allocation of a social worker is a matter for the local authority but I have significant reservations about CG continuing in her role as A’s social worker.  I accept that it is appropriate that she should remain involved in the case and that she should remain allocated for the other children, alongside a more senior worker, but I consider that A would benefit from having a social worker who comes into the case afresh and who can hopefully restore confidence in her.  A is a little girl who may well have more to say and she needs to have confidence that she will be listened to openly and not judged or dissuaded from speaking out if she wishes to, about any matters that may be troubling her.  The Guardian has expressed the view that for the welfare stage of proceedings, there will need to be a sibling attachment assessment.  Having considered the evidence of CG I am concerned about her carrying out this piece of work.  Far greater objectivity is required than has been evidenced to date.  I am satisfied that it is necessary for a different professional to carry out this work.

43.	I am satisfied that CG’s credibility as a witness of truth is not affected by any of these observations.  I entirely accept her account of M’s behaviour 19th and 21st July 2017, which M also accepted as largely accurate during her oral evidence.  However, having listened to CG’s account and how clearly affected she has been by those events – fearing for her own safety, feeling threatened and intimidated by M, unable to conduct visits alone thereafter – I am fortified that my decision to appoint an Independent Social Worker to carry out an assessment of M is necessary in this case.  Having been deceived by M and then having been as “shocked” as she said she was by those visits, I do struggle to see how CG’s approach to the case now can be said to be entirely untainted by those events.  It is testament to her tenacity that she managed to continue in her role as the children’s social worker thereafter but I am concerned that it may well have affected her ability to objectively assess M, particularly given my view that her work was already highly subjective in nature. 

44.	This case has grown in complexity from CG’s initial involvement in which she was striving to keep the children at home under Child in Need Plans.  She was allocated to the case in October 2016, just a year after she qualified as a social worker.  I am unclear how much support she received in working this case but was troubled to hear that, rather than be supported by another, perhaps more senior social worker during her visit on 21st July 2017, she was accompanied by the children’s health visitor, and that in circumstances in which M was refusing to allow CG to speak to A, that work was instead delegated to an even less experienced worker – student social worker KA.  

45.	Mr Todd on behalf of the local authority has answered these anticipated criticisms in his written submissions in the following way, “Firstly, and in general terms, the LA accept and acknowledge there have been matters identified that highlight deficiencies and more particularly how the team to which the Social Worker Claire Gebhard was attached at the time, was managed and how specifically the social worker was supported. The LA would wish to reiterate the issues were not the individual fault of the SW but a systemic failure and lack of support and training. The LA would also wish to reassure the court that as a result, there has been a case review and BW a practice supervisor (formerly ‘assistant team manager’) has been allocated to co-work the case from hereon forward. This will allow the current social worker’s close knowledge and connection with the case to be utilized along side BW’s support, going forward.”

46.	Having the benefit of continuity in a social worker is undoubtedly a benefit to children but that benefit must be weighed against whether the complexity of the case demands more experience.  I endorse the local authority’s decision at this stage to appoint a more senior practitioner to co work the case, to enable CG to be supported and mentored in her work, whilst allowing her knowledge of the case to be retained.  I hope that CG is not too disheartened by these observations.  She is clearly a hard working and dedicated professional, who in my view needs further and better training and a greater amount of managerial support.  She remains a relatively newly qualified social worker who requires mentoring to allow her to reach her full potential.  I hope that both she and the local authority learn lessons from this case and, in particular, the need to be far more circumspect before rejecting allegations made by a child as untruthful.  Ultimately the truth of an allegation can only be determined by the Court, I am concerned that at various points during the local authority’s involvement with the family that point appears to have been lost.  Evidence, particularly from A, should have been meticulously gathered and carefully noted.  Original notes should not have been destroyed.  The guidance available to all social workers in Achieving Best Evidence should have been followed in this case, I see little evidence that it has been, beyond A’s initial ABE interview with the Police.  There appears to have been some confusion on the part of CG arising from the decision not to bring a prosecution in respect of A’s allegations against the Father, which were the subject of a full ABE interview.  A decision not to prosecute a matter in the criminal courts in no way indicates that a child is lying about the allegation that they have made nor that they should be regarded as untruthful for child protection purposes.  Nor should further and other allegations made by that child be taken any less seriously.  ABE procedures and guidance should be followed.  

47.	Again this is a point now acknowledged by the local authority.  In its closing submissions it states the following, “Going forward also, the LA are reviewing their procedure regarding the first SW visits following allegations, including a note taker and in house training reviewing ABE practices, is planned. A meeting with the local safeguarding coordinator is to be convened to develop a clearer and better policy and training with accurate note taking and separation of analysis and fact recording, being emphasized in particular. This approach has been coordinated with the engagement and support of the service manager Chris O’Reilly. In short the LA is taking on board the issues that have been identified during this hearing and are training these matters seriously.”  I am very pleased that the local authority is acting to rectify these deficiencies.

48.	Whilst CG could not have predicted that M and MGF would have behaved in the way that they did on 19th July 2017 and whilst I am satisfied she is not in any way to blame for the way that they behaved that day, I do question the wisdom of seeking to speak to A in the family home about allegations that she had made about M, whilst M was also present in the home.  The family home is not a large one.  It is an upstairs flat in which all rooms are on one level.  CG was not aware that a baby monitor was switched on in the room during her conversation with A allowing M to listen in to their discussion, but there was always the risk that M could have listened in to the conversation at the door.  M may never have sought to do so, but the risk was ever present for A.  To attempt to elicit disclosures from a child in this sort of setting seems to be to be very ill thought out and not at all conducive with permitting a child to feel safe and relaxed enough to volunteer information which, I am satisfied, could have placed her at risk of harm by sharing it.  I am satisfied that A has been inhibited in her ability to disclose information about her home life as a consequence of the format of the visits that the social worker undertook and as a result of the social worker’s rejection of her accounts at an early stage of her involvement.

49.	In his written submissions on behalf of the Guardian, Mr Ainsley makes the following observations about this and the visit on 21st July 2017, “The manner in which the LA managed visits to A in July 2017 was again regrettable. The Guardian questions the level of support and guidance that the SW was receiving from her immediate line management. In light of a previous ABE interview it would have been usual practice for a defined plan to have been developed as between SW and Team Manager. It appears that the visit in July was more instinctive than planned. It’s not clear why it was carried out at home at the time that it was without apparent thought to alternative venues (assuming school was still in session) and the timing of it. To undertake such detailed questioning in a small house in the presence of M and all other children was naïve in the extreme. To compound this by doing so in a room with an active baby monitor together with the ensuing highly emotional and abusive exchange between SW and M and RF clearly underlines the inappropriateness of the surroundings.”  I entirely agree.

50.	M gave evidence over the course of three days, interrupted by a weekend.  This was unfortunately due to extreme weather conditions, which resulted in the Courts having to close early on three days during the first week of the hearing.  Far from adversely affecting the quality of M’s evidence, a by-product of the length of time that she was in the witness box for, was that her evidence evolved and that, given greater time to reflect, she became increasingly open and forthcoming in the admissions that she made.  Several of those admissions she made for the first time in the witness box, having not previously disclosed them to any professional in this case before.  I gained the impression that had she continued to give short bursts of evidence in this way over the course of more days and even weeks, she would have ended up revealing far more.  I am satisfied that her admissions are reliable ones and that, when she gave evidence on matters contrary to her own self interest, what she said at those times was truthful.  I have given myself a R v Lucas direction in respect of her evidence as I am however satisfied that what she felt able to disclose in evidence; in terms of the way that the children were treated in the household, the extent and severity of the domestic abuse present in her relationship with F, the extent of F’s alcohol use and the abuse that she experienced in the care of her parents, MGF and MGM, represents only part of what she knows and that she is still not being fully open and honest with the Court about all she has witnessed and experienced.  I am also satisfied that she was not telling the truth about the full extent of the way that she has mistreated A.  I accept that M may well have found the process of giving evidence extremely difficult, especially as her evidence was given in the presence of MGF and MGM.  She was distressed at the conclusion of her evidence when she ultimately accepted that MGF had perpetrated physical abuse against her.  I make clear, that I have not assessed M solely upon her performance in the witness box.

51.	I found F1 to be an inherently unreliable witness.  His evidence was often deliberately unhelpful.  He would, at times, give a range of contradictory answers to questions, for example “it could have been me, it could have been her, it could have been both of us”; he often prayed in aid of “memory problems” which I am satisfied was a convenient way of him avoiding having to answer questions and of having to think too deeply about his actions and the impact that they have had upon M and the children.  His evidence was motivated by self interest and was laced with self pity.  He often blamed others during his evidence – for example he said that A was making things up, that M was lying, that his lack of contact with the children was the local authority’s fault and that he had been the victim of domestic violence in both his significant relationships.  He demonstrated very little insight into or acceptance of his own wrong doings, even in respect of the assault he perpetrated against M on 19th June 2017.  Whilst accepting that he was responsible for that incident on the basis that he “hit a woman”, when being taken through the detail of M’s account of that night he “failed to remember” much of what he had done.  I have given myself a R v Lucas direction in respect of his evidence.  I make clear that I have not assessed F solely upon his performance in the witness box.

52.	DC Lumsden gave evidence about matters dating back to 2002/2003.  She plainly struggled to recall very much about the investigation into allegations about MGF and was unable to add much of any significance to the documents contained in the bundle.

53.	SM gave evidence via video link from a confidential location.  She confirmed that her police witness statements prepared for the criminal trial were accurate.  She accepted that, given the passage of time, there were details of certain events that she could not recall.  She also said that much of the sexual abuse that she alleged had been “rolled up into one” and that she had attempted to “block it out” over the years by distracting herself by caring for her two children.  She remained clear and consistent throughout all of her oral evidence that MGF had sexually abused her, that this abuse followed the same pattern; that she would be alone with him in a bedroom, he would close the door, undress her and sexually touch her all over her body before digitally penetrating her vagina.  She was clear that despite numerous attempts, he had never managed to rape her with his penis.  I do not consider that she exaggerated or embellished her account.  Her account of sexual abuse was, in all material respects, consistent with her police witness statements.  Her evidence was credible and cogent.  I accept that she had not felt able to disclose the abuse that she suffered during her childhood, partly due to a fear of MGF, a fear that had been in place prior to the abuse starting as a result of his physical abuse of her and partly due to feelings of shame.  She described her reluctance to pursue a complaint after making her initial disclosure as follows, “I didn’t want anyone to look down on me – it was disgusting, horrible, when I read it back.  I didn’t want anyone to look at me differently.”  I am in no doubt that she is the victim of sexual abuse as she described it, and that the perpetrator of that abuse is MGF.

54.	DF also gave evidence via video link from a confidential location.  Her evidence of the abuse she alleges she suffered at the hands of MGF was consistent in all material respects with her police witness statements.  She was able to give very detailed accounts of examples of sexual abuse that she states she suffered.  She too indicated that she had attempted to “block out” the abuse and that she could not remember some details such as her precise age, dates and times when it took place.  The substance of her evidence was however, compelling, detailed and entirely credible.  One particularly powerful feature of her evidence, was her description of the way the sexual abuse continues to affect her to date.  This was evidence given in response to the following question from Mr Ainsley, “If we could live in your head, what would we know?”.  Her answer was that she suffers flashbacks, has PTSD, cannot sleep, and despite being 33 years old “cannot have children” due to the fear she has that they too would be sexually abused, such is her inability to trust men.  In response to questions about why she did not report the abuse earlier, she said “I didn’t want to go to the police.  At the time, I didn’t want to lose my mother.  I’ve had no contact with her since after the allegations were made”.   I consider that she demonstrated significant insight into the likely reaction of MGM, had she made allegations against MGF earlier.  By the time she made her complaint, MGM had already told her to leave the home, even so, she said she feared permanently losing her mother and therefore was reluctant to make a complaint.  She described herself “worshipping the ground [MGM] walked on as a child” and how she had “definitely no intention of telling anyone” what had MGF had done until she was confronted by CT.  She said that even after she made her first disclosure she “was begging SM not to go to the Police.  I desperately did not want to go to the Police.”  Her account of this was corroborated by SM who said that she was far more prepared to report matters than DF was.  I am in no doubt that she is a victim of sexual abuse as she describes and that the perpetrator of that abuse is MGF.

55.	MGF’s evidence developed and changed during the course of cross examination.  Ultimately when he was reminded that M had said he had physically abused her as a child, he accepted that he had done so, but he commenced his evidence by denying all of the matters alleged against him.  MGF’s case throughout these proceedings has been put on the basis that SM and DF are lying about the allegations that they make against him and that their allegations were brought about and influenced by the maternal family and in particular, CT and WB.  Neither CT nor WB were required to give evidence and therefore their written evidence, which is found within the Police disclosure, was not challenged.  However, this was the explanation that MGF advanced at the outset of his oral evidence.  At the very end of his evidence, he was asked his view in respect of the evidence that SM and DF had given and, in particular, the very detailed accounts that DF gave and the information she conveyed about the impact that she says the abuse continues to have on her.  For the first time, in response, MGF stated in oral evidence that he thought that they had both been sexually abused, and he suspected by their natural father.  He said that he had formed that view as long ago as 2003 at the conclusion of the criminal trial, when he discovered for the first time that MGM was alleging that she had been sexually abused by their father, during her relationship with him.  When I asked him why he had never advanced this as part of his case before he said he “hadn’t been asked”.  This followed him having been questioned in the witness box about these matters for a number of hours.  MGF has the benefit of experienced and competent senior counsel, who has attended case management hearings on his behalf throughout these proceedings.  The case put on his behalf has always been that SM and DF were liars.  MGF listened to lengthy cross examination put on his behalf to SM and DF challenging them on the basis that they were lying.  At no stage did he stop that process or seek to amend the case as it was being put.  During the course of their evidence I observed him gesticulating to MGM and towards M by shaking his head, laughing and generally attempting to mock the evidence given by SM and DF.  At times, he also attempted to catch my attention to shake his head and generally indicate his disbelief at their evidence.  The clear impression I formed of his conduct was that it was an attempt to manipulate MGM, M and myself into believing him and discrediting them.  I asked him about this at the end of his evidence and gave him an opportunity to explain why he was doing this, he gave no real explanation other to say that this was just at those parts of their evidence when they mentioned being hit by chains for example.  That does not accord with my observation of his conduct in the courtroom.  His conduct did not interrupt the proceedings in any way as the camera angle had been specifically adjusted to prevent SM or DF from having to see any of the lay parties when they gave their evidence, at their request.  I challenged him about his conduct during his evidence to give him an opportunity to answer my impression that he was attempting to convey a reaction of utter disbelief to me and to the other members of his family who were present in the Courtroom at the time, in circumstances in which I suspected that the advocates were unaware of what was taking place behind them.  At the conclusion of his evidence I asked him to clarify whether I should be viewing DF and SM as liars or as victims of sexual abuse.  He said I should view them as victims of sexual abuse.  I have given myself a R v Lucas direction in respect of his evidence.  I make clear that I have not assessed him solely on his performance in the witness box, nor as a result of his conduct in the courtroom.

56.	Following the conclusion of SM and DF giving evidence on Tuesday 6th March 2018, MGM attended her GP surgery and then attended Court on the morning of Wednesday 7th March 2018 with a certificate dated 6th March 2018 that she was unable to attend work for a 4 week period due to depression and anxiety.  She made an application, through Miss Middleton, that she was unable to give evidence because of these medical conditions.  Her evidence was due to be given that day.  This was the first time that she had ever suggested that she would be unable to give evidence.  Her position was supported by MGF.  Each parent adopted a neutral stance in respect of her application.  The LA and Mr Ainsley on behalf of the children opposed the application and made clear that they required her to give evidence on the basis that her evidence was important in a number of factual respects.  They also questioned the timing of her application and invited me to consider that it was no coincidence that this turn of events came about immediately after SM and DF had given evidence.  I accepted Mr Ainsley’s submission that, given that MGM appears in person, she should be given a further opportunity to produce any additional medical evidence she could to support her application overnight but otherwise she would be required to give evidence the following day.  

57.	I had already indicated that I took the view that MGF should give evidence first and that she should be able to listen to his evidence before giving hers, in circumstances in which the LA seek a finding against her that she does not believe that MGF sexually abused her daughters.  MGM did not ask to be excused from the Courtroom for MGF’s evidence and remained in the Courtroom throughout the course of that day’s evidence.  I gave a brief ruling that unless she was able to produce further evidence that supported her claim that she was unfit to give evidence, she would be required to give evidence the following day and that she should consider what efforts could be made to ensure that she was able to give her best evidence, which could include the provision of breaks and screens if that would make her feel more comfortable.  I made clear that given the very serious nature of the findings sought, and the importance of her evidence in a number of factual respects, I would expect her to give evidence in the absence of medical evidence that she could not.  Central to my thinking was my previously expressed view that I had been prepared, if necessary, to issue a witness summons in respect of SM and DF to give evidence, had they not been prepared to co operate, notwithstanding that I was made aware that they had particular vulnerabilities and had expressed a reluctance to give evidence on the basis of their own mental wellbeing, and despite the fact that I acknowledge that it must have been extremely difficult for them to give their evidence to the Court, especially in the knowledge that their mother was listening.

58.	On Thursday 8th March 2018, I was informed by Miss Middleton that MGF and MGM had attended Court that morning and that MGM had produced a further document from her GP.  Miss Middleton informed me that she had advised MGF and MGM that the contents of that note may not suffice to excuse her from giving evidence.  Their response at that point had been to leave the Court building indicating that they no longer sought to play any further part in these proceedings and were withdrawing their application to care for the children.  The LA made an application for a witness summons for MGM to be produced to give evidence.  This application was supported on behalf of the children.  The parents were each neutral in respect of the application.  I was informed that MGF had been contacted by telephone to inform him that an application for a witness summons was being made and that he had stated that he and MGM were leaving their address in order to evade service of the witness summons, that MGM had threatened suicide if she was made to give evidence and that they no longer sought to play any part in these proceedings.  I gave a full ex temporary judgment in respect of my decision to issue a witness summons to require MGM to give evidence the following day on the basis that I was satisfied that she could give material and relevant evidence to the Court about SM and DF’s allegations against MGF and about the alleged domestic abuse between M and F and that it was in the interests of justice for her to give evidence.  Her medical history and the medical evidence that she provided to the Court did not establish that she was unfit to give evidence and in my view it was unfair for her at this late stage to refuse to give evidence, her having sat through several days of evidence given by her family, each member of whom had no doubt struggled to give evidence about these issues, but managed to do so nevertheless.  

59.	I do not underestimate how stressful the process of giving evidence is and how distressing it must have been for her to listen to the evidence that she has heard during the course of this hearing but she had been aware throughout the proceedings that she would be required to give evidence and was perfectly able to sit through the hearing and listen to the evidence as it unfolded each day.  I made clear that irrespective of MGF’s and MGM’s stated position in respect of the welfare stage of the case, I would be determining the findings sought against MGF, having heard the evidence that I had.  These findings are not only important from the perspective of this case, in circumstances in which MGF and MGM have always been a considerable source of support for M and in which her capacity to protect the children from MGF in the event of findings being made is a central issue in the case, but there are wider concerns about MGF’s contact with any children in the family should findings be made against him.

60.	On the evening of 8th March 2018, the following email was forwarded to me from the LA’s legal department:

On 8 Mar 2018, at 18:08, MGF wrote:
Hi miss cook
I have talked MGM into coming to court tomorrow but she would not be will to answer questions off a man or have a man present when she was asked or answer as she feels more intimidated by men and she know that some of the questions are going to be about what has happened to her in her 1st marriage I have spoken to [CG] informed her that we will be in the Newcastle area to inform me if this is going to be done 
Sent from my iPad

61.	On 9th March 2018 MGM attended Court in answer to the witness summons.  She gave evidence on oath.  I explained to her that I had received the email that MGF had sent but that I was not prepared to exclude men from the courtroom while she gave evidence.  The only men present in the room were F and MGF, who were parties and who I explained had a right to be present during her evidence, otherwise I considered it would be an infringement of their Article 6 ECHR Right to a Fair Trial; counsel for the local authority and counsel on behalf of the children who had had conduct of the matter throughout the hearing and were instructed to cross examine MGM on behalf of those parties.  I explained that again, I took the view that preventing them from doing so would be an infringement of the Article 6 ECHR Right to a Fair Trial of the children and that it would not be in the interests of justice for those parties to be prevented from being represented by counsel who were properly instructed and fully prepared to question her that day; and a male Court Bailiff who was present at my request in case MGM refused to give evidence or left the Court room without completing her evidence.  I explained to her that if she left Court without giving evidence or if she refused to answer questions that I considered to be relevant then I would deal with the matter as a contempt of court for which she could be imprisoned for up to a month or until she completed her evidence.  Thereafter MGM was co operative and answered questions asked of her freely.  I am satisfied that the email that was sent on 8th March 2018 by MGF was an attempt to manipulate the court process to prevent MGM from facing cross examination.  It was abundantly clear by then that the bulk of any cross examination would be conducted by the only two male advocates in the case – Mr Todd and Mr Ainsley.  MGM was very well able to answer questions when she attended Court, notwithstanding the presence of men in the courtroom.  She did not require any extra breaks or screens to do so.

62.	MGF and MGM accepted that MGM was not aware of the details of the sexual abuse that had been alleged against MGF until she heard SM and DF give evidence during this hearing.  She had chosen not to read their witness statements, despite being supplied with a full Court bundle, and did not sit through the Crown Court trial on the advice of MGF’s defence team who may have sought to call her as a witness.  I am satisfied that her attempts to evade giving evidence in this case represent a pattern of behaviour of her seeking to avoid facing difficult situations.  MGM said in her evidence that after they had given evidence, MGF had been upset that night, which had prompted her to ask him if he had “done it”.  He had denied it but I consider it relevant that this is the way her mind was working before she decided that she wished to avoid giving evidence.  When asked whether she thought they had been sexually abused and if MGF had done it, her repeated and stock response was “I don’t care”.  I am satisfied that such is her utter and complete loyalty towards, and reliance upon, MGF, to the exclusion of all others, including her children, that this is the way she has chosen to cope with the dawning reality that he has done so.  I asked her whether she would seek to cut herself off from her whole family if I did not make findings – she said not.  The whole tenor of her evidence up until that point had been that that was the plan she had formulated, that she would leave her home, her children and grandchildren and have no contact with any of them ever again.  It appeared to me that until I put to her that I may not make findings against him, she had not considered that potential outcome.  I am satisfied that her plan had been formulated in direct response to her hearing SM and DF give evidence and her realisation that they were telling the truth.  It was a plan, which she had not shared with M, who sadly had to hear for the first time in the Courtroom, MGM’s intention to have no further contact with her or the children. 

63.	The content of MGM’s evidence was often extreme and, at times, shocking, particularly with reference to her attitude towards her daughters SM and DF, her intentions in the future and her position in respect of MGF, but I found her to be at times, a brutally honest witness who acknowledged that she had failed to protect her children and grandchildren and who acknowledged that irrespective of the Court’s findings she would stay with MGF and would choose him over the rest of her family.  I do consider that she minimised the extent of physical abuse that had taken place in the household when her own children were living in the household and that her stance was always one in which she sought to defend and protect MGF.  For that reason I have given myself a R v Lucas direction in respect of her evidence.  I do not consider that she was aware of sexual abuse taking place at the time that it did, but the impression that I formed of her, and one, which she ultimately accepted, was that she prioritised herself and her relationship with MGF above all else and that she actively avoided difficult issues, confrontation and any possible recrimination.  Her response at times of difficulty would be to just take herself off and shut herself away.  She never challenged her first husband about him allowing SM and DF to have contact with a friend of his that she did not like for that reason and never sought to restrict or prevent him from having contact with her daughters despite the sexual abuse she alleges he perpetrated against her.  I am satisfied that her approach in respect of her children was generally one in which she would ‘turn a blind eye’.  She adopted a least interventionist approach to make life as easy as possible for herself.  I found her to be a vulnerable, isolated and damaged individual.  I accept her evidence that MGF is her world and that she feels she has nothing without him.  She is quite prepared to cut off all contact with all of her children and grandchildren in the event that the Court makes findings against MGF.  She has demonstrated a capacity to do so in respect of BL, SM, DF, each of her parents and her sister.  I do not consider hers to be idle threats in this regard.  I make clear that I have not based my assessment of MGM solely upon her presentation in the witness box.

64.	MGP’s relationship began following the breakdown of MGM’s marriage to the father of SM and DF.  A relationship, which MGM describes as an abusive one, both sexually and physically.  Prior to that relationship she said that she had been raped by another individual when she was aged 18 years old.  She said she had told her mother, CT about that rape who had told her not to report it and just to “have a bath”.  Whilst I can’t determine the truth of these matters, what became apparent to me during this part of her evidence was quite how vulnerable MGM was at the time that her relationship with MGF had started.  She was a young, single mother of two toddlers.  MGF’s involvement in the lives of the family began as a babysitter to SM and DF, when he was 16 years old.  Within a short space of time he had formed a relationship with MGM, they had begun to cohabit and thereafter got married.  Over time, she permanently severed her relationship with all of her family; this included both her parents and her sister.  Her reasons for doing this were very difficult to follow and appeared to have been due to her father sharing his complaints with her about the rest of the family, which she did not want to hear; her sister stealing money from her and no real explanation given in respect of her mother.  When these reasons were put to DF in her evidence, she said they were “pathetic”.  I consider that MGM’s response to sever all contact appears particularly disproportionate in the circumstances she described.  MGF and MGM blamed those family members for this division and said that they had never liked MGF.  MGF said he was “never good enough” for MGM in their eyes.  This severance of family ties left MGM with no family support save for MGF and his family.  MGF and MGM went on to have a large family together, caring in addition, for his nephew BL.  

65.	Moving forward to the present time, the family is now completely fractured.  MGM’s mother and sister remain in close contact with SM and DF but MGM has no contact with any of them.  M, MF, FF and VF have no contact with any of them either.  They are firmly aligned with MGF and MGM.  This is a family which is completely divided, and it appears, permanently so.  I am satisfied that this situation has allowed MGF the ability to discredit SM and DF and that it has entirely suited his purposes in that regard.  In this case, I have heard from only five of these family members but what has become apparent from hearing their evidence and reading the assessments of M and MGPS is quite how divided this family is.  I am satisfied that the true root cause of this division is MGF.  MGM is a highly vulnerable individual, open to manipulation.  Throughout her relationship she has made a series of decisions to permanently separate herself from any family member who does not like or does not approve of MGF or who makes allegations against him.  I consider that this is borne out of her complete dependence upon him.  Her position became strikingly clear in this regard when she indicated in her evidence that if findings were made against him, she would cut herself off from every other member of her family, including all her children and grandchildren, to be with him.  This, I am satisfied, follows a pattern that she has demonstrated over the course of the last three decades.  I am satisfied that he has manipulated her to such an extent that she is able and willing to do this and considers that she has no other choice.

66.	When I consider what has happened in the Frost family, the dysfunctional and fractured nature of the relationships within it and the utter rejection of SM and DF by MGM and the rest of their siblings, I am reminded of the wise words of Mr Justice Jackson (as he then was) in the case of Wigan BC v M and 8 others (Sexual Abuse: Fact-Finding) [2015] EWFC 6, 

“The perpetrators of sexual abuse are inadequate individuals who control weaker people, often children, for their own gratification.  Their behaviour is always an abuse of power and usually a breach of trust.  They destroy families and blight childhoods.  They create dread in their victims by convincing them that the consequences of speaking out will be worse than the consequences of silence.  They create guilt in their victims by persuading them that they have somehow willingly participated in their own abuse.  They burden their victims with secrets.  They poison normal relationships, trade on feelings of affection, drive a wedge between their victims and others, and make family and friends take sides.  They count on the failure or inability of responsible adults, both relatives and professionals, to protect and support the victims.  Faced with exposure, they commonly turn on their victims, try to assassinate their characters, and get others to do the same.  Most often, their selfishness is so deep-rooted that they ignore other people's feelings and are only capable of feeling pity for themselves.”

67.	I am satisfied that this is precisely what has happened in this family.  MGF poisoned family relationships, isolated MGM and drove a wedge between her and two of her children.  He managed to divide the sibling group, driving a wedge between SM and DF on the one hand and their mother and siblings on the other and forcing the family to take sides.  He assassinated the characters of DF and SM, encouraging M to help him by accusing them of bullying her as a reason why she so frequently ran away from home as a child.  He counted on MGM’s inability to protect and support her children to enable him to perpetrate the abuse he did.

68.	Mr Justice Jackson’s words in respect of the impact upon victims of sexual abuse are also particularly apposite in this case, when I consider SM and DF’s reluctance to report the abuse they suffered and the impact that it continues to have upon their lives: 

“2. The effects of sexual abuse on the victim can be lifelong, but because of the way perpetrators operate, most abuse goes undetected.  It takes courage to ask for help.  Victims are beset by feelings of shame, guilt and fear.  They should be able to have confidence that their accounts will be adequately investigated and that they will be appropriately supported.  Instead, experience shows that the abuse is often compounded by sceptical or inadequate reactions within the family and beyond.  It is not always possible to establish where the truth lies, but where it is possible to investigate, there must be a good reason not to do so.  The position of a complainant whose allegation is described as 'unsubstantiated' is extraordinarily difficult, but sometimes 'unsubstantiated' is no more than a euphemism for 'uninvestigated'.” 

69.	I turn now to consider the specific findings sought.

Threshold Criteria

70.	The local authority seek the following findings in satisfaction of the threshold criteria for the purposes of the Court making orders pursuant to s.31 Children Act 1989:

71.	The children A, G, MM and R, were at all material times suffering, or were likely to suffer, significant harm and the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to the care given to the children, or likely to be given to them if the order was not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to them as a consequence of the following:

(1)	Exposure to domestic abuse.
a.	On the 20.06.17 M informed the social worker that four years previously, F1 had assaulted her and split her lip open. This allegation is true. 
72.	CG included the information that she gained from M about this in her parenting assessment of M dated 24th January 2018.  She confirmed what M told her about this on 20th June 2017 in her oral evidence.  M accepted in her oral evidence that she had informed the social worker about this for the first time on 20th June 2017, following her being assaulted by F1 on 19th June 2017.  I am satisfied that she did so.  As to whether the allegation is true or not, I have had the advantage of hearing the evidence of M and F1 in respect of this issue.
73.	M expanded upon her account of this incident in her oral evidence, explaining that it happened during the course of an argument when F1 had consumed alcohol and that, during the course of him slamming a door, he had hit her across the face with the back of his hand.  She was clear that this had not been an accident but that she had not reported it to anyone until she told the social worker about it on 20th June 2017.  She had continued her relationship with F1 after this incident.  At the very end of her evidence, she accepted that she should have ended her relationship with him at this point and that by continuing her relationship with him thereafter she had failed to protect the children from him.
74.	F1 denied that this incident occurred and instead said that it was in fact M who had assaulted him and “popped his lip” on this occasion.  In retaliation, he said that he threw a stone at the kitchen window cracking the glass on the same night.  He said that the Police were involved and did not criticize him, stating that really they should be arresting her.  His account of throwing a stone against the window was a new one, and followed M stating, for the first time in her oral evidence and on the final day that she gave evidence, that F1 had once thrown a brick through the kitchen window when she was in the kitchen and the children were upstairs in bed.  She was clear that this was a separate occasion to the occasion in which F had split her lip.  F1 was present for this part of her evidence and it immediately preceded him entering the witness box.
75.	I prefer M’s account and accept her evidence as truthful in respect of this incident.  I am satisfied that F1 assaulted her on this occasion.  I accept M’s admission that from that point in the relationship onwards, M was aware that F1 was capable of perpetrating domestic violence and that by continuing her relationship with him she was failing to protect the children from the risks that domestic abuse present.  M’s admissions in respect of this incident are contrary to her self interest, unlike F1’s account, which was entirely self serving.  I consider that M is telling the truth about this. 
76.	M was adamant in her oral evidence that apart from the events of 19th June 2017, this was the only incident in which F1 perpetrated physical violence against her.  I do not accept this.  As Mr Ainsley put to her and now submits on behalf of the children, I find it highly unlikely that he perpetrated physical violence towards her on just two occasions four years apart.  I am satisfied that throughout their relationship he was regularly misusing alcohol and exhibiting other abusive and controlling behaviour towards her, including emotional abuse.  M, by her own account was physically abusive towards him and would goad him by calling him names such as a “paedophile”.  I consider it highly likely in this context that there were other episodes of physical violence perpetrated by him against her.  M also admitted for the first time at the end of her oral evidence that F1 would on occasion return home after an argument with her having punched a wall.  
77.	In M’s police statement dated 19th June 2017 she states, “On one occasion F1 assaulted me back in 2013 where I received bruising as a result.  I provided a statement to the Police in relation to this incident and F1 was arrested as a result.”  
78.	The police disclosure includes an incident dated 10th August 2013, which states, “F1’s father has recently died and following an evening sitting outside with drink, M Frost hit F1 around the head for being cheeky to [her].  F1 then turned and did the same thing catching her to the cheek which she got a fright at and rang the Police.  M refused to make any complaint and she stated that she believed she hadn’t been assaulted as she had hit him first, she had no visible injuries and due to being pregnant she was given the all clear by the Ambulance Service.”
79.	These references – whether they relate to the same episode or not appear to be different to the incident in which M states that she received a split lip.  
80.	MGM gave evidence that she had seen suspicious bruising on M on four or five occasions during 2015-2016.  This included bruising to the tops of her arms which looked like grip marks and bruising to her stomach.  She said that she thought that M had been the victim of domestic abuse as a consequence of these injuries and as a consequence of the controlling behaviour she witnessed F1 exhibit towards M.  I accept her evidence in respect of these issues and am satisfied that these represent further episodes of physical violence perpetrated by F1 against M.  M denied that these injuries had been inflicted at the time, when questioned by MGM, and gave excuses as to how they had happened.  MGM was not cross examined about this on behalf of F1.  
81.	I am satisfied that M continues to minimize the extent of the physical domestic abuse that she suffered and that she was physically assaulted on more occasions than she is prepared to admit.  This may be in part due to self interest and a desire to present consistent evidence, however, I am satisfied that in part this is due to her continuing to demonstrate misplaced loyalty towards F1.  Her ability to maintain a separation from him, especially if she becomes isolated from her parents, is a matter, which requires urgent assessment.
82.	M did accept during her oral evidence that her relationship with F1 had always been a volatile one and that she had perpetrated domestic violence towards him on around six occasions, during which times she had lost her temper and hit him repeatedly – around six times on each occasion – around the head and to his arms.  She accepts that the children were present in the property when she did this.  I am satisfied that these occasions occurred and that the children suffered emotional harm as a consequence. 
b.	F1 was violent towards his previous partner. In addition, on the 14.04.08 he was cautioned for an offence of pursuing a course of harassment on her. 
83.	I have not heard any evidence from F1’s previous partner, and there are no statements from her in the bundle.  F1 alleges that she was violent towards him.  I am not in a position to make any determination in respect of whether their relationship featured domestic violence.
84.	F1’s antecedent history is included within the bundle.  On 14th April 2008 it is recorded that he received a Caution for Pursuing a Course of Conduct which amounted to Harassment in contravention of s.2(1) and s.2(2) Protection from Harassment Act 1997.  The complaint, which gave rise to that Caution, is also included in the police disclosure.  It reads that on 10th April 2008 it was reported that F had contacted his female ex-partner via text message and telephone and that this contact was unwanted.  It states that as F1 had been warned by the Police not to contact her either directly or indirectly, he was arrested on suspicion of Harassment and given a simple caution.  During his oral evidence, F1 accepted that he had received this caution as a result of harassing his ex partner by text message when he had discovered that she intended to move to London with his child.  I am therefore satisfied that he received this caution and make that aspect of the finding sought. 
c.	On 07.12.16 A described an altercation between M and F1 in the family home where she alleged that M had threatened F1 with a knife and the police were called. The allegation is true. 
85.	The contemporaneous note of A’s description of this incident is dated 8th December 2016 and was made by RH, A’s class teacher, who was not required to attend Court to give evidence.  M and F1 do not dispute that A said these things to the school in the way that they have been reported. The note reads, “A approached class teacher RH wanting to discuss something in private at 9am this morning.  She told RH how she had hardly any sleep because her mum and dad were fighting.  She said dad had been to pool (playing pool in the pub) and how he “always slags off our side of the family” so they were having an argument.  Then dad “was picking the paint off the radiator, and mum stabbed him with the scraper thing.  Blood was coming out of his hand.  I had come down to the middle of the stairs to see it all and my dad was shouting at me, look at what your mum has just done to me.  I said no she didn’t, because F1 tells lies about my mum all the time and I want to be on my mum’s side.  My mum had to call the Police.”  A then said she hid under her covers and cried most of the night.  She said “these things always happen when dad goes to pool.”
86.	At lunch time that day A was spoken to by JT at the school, she said: Dad had been out playing pool, when he came in mam and dad began arguing, heard mam say “I suppose you were slagging me and the kids off again”, Mam was in the front room, dad was in the kitchen (adjacent) and A was in the kitchen (adjacent to kitchen), when A came out, a coke can was spilling on the floor, A thought Mam had thrown it from the front room at dad in the kitchen, dad was scraping paint off the radiator that mam had just painted.  Mam told him to stop.  He didn’t, Mam pushed him away, dad’s hand was cut by the “scraper”, dad said mam had stabbed him, mam said she hadn’t, while A was in her room she heard them continue to argue, she heard dad say “why are you pointing that knife at my belly?”, mam said she wasn’t she was pointing it at the floor, dad left the house, mam phoned the police to say that dad might accuse her of holding a knife at him but she didn’t, A was very upset so went into her sister’s room, sister woke A settled her, A heard mam on the phone to dad saying “you know A will tell school, we’ll get the kids taken off us”, dad came home.  When asked what time she thought that was, she said about 2am, mam told A to go back to her own room, Dad wanted to go in to speak to A, A said no, mam wanted to speak to her as well, A said she wanted to tell CG (SW), mam said she’d tell her and the school, A said that she is very worried that mam might be taken by the police because “dad tells lies about her”.”    
87.	During M’s oral evidence, she accepted that this incident had occurred almost exactly as A described it.  She admitted that around this period of time, F1 was going out and playing pool each Tuesday night and that it would cause arguments between them, both before and after he went.  He would come home under the influence of alcohol.  They would argue about that and a further common source of arguments was that he would complain about her and the children to others.  She accepted that they had starting arguing that night in the way that A described and that they tousled over the paint scraper and she ended up stabbing him with it, causing his hand to bleed.  She accepted that it was not an accident.  She said that he may well have said she had a knife to try to cause trouble but she did not in fact have a knife, nor did she phone the police afterwards.  She accepted that after the incident happened A was scared and that her fear was of F1.  She accepted that F1 wanted to speak to A after the incident and she asked A if she would agree to that.  A had refused but had she agreed, she would have allowed that to happen.  She accepted that this would have been a frightening incident for A to witness.  She denied throwing a can of coke but said that one could well have been knocked over and that she had not picked it up due to the ensuing argument.  In nearly every respect, A’s description of this event was an accurate one, according to M.
88.	M has not always accepted that A’s description of this event was truthful.  At the time that the incident occurred, both parents had informed the school about it, describing it as “an accident”.  I asked M whether this really had been an accident.  She said it had not been.  I asked her whether my impression that she had said this to try to cover up what had happened at the time was correct.  She agreed that it was.  I am satisfied that the parents each colluded to cover up this incident at the time that it occurred.
89.	F1 was not present in Court when M gave this evidence, having failed to attend Court that day.  He was therefore not aware of the extent of M’s acceptance of A’s account.  During his evidence, he attempted to stick to the original story that this had been an accident.  I do not accept his version of events and am satisfied that his version of events remains the version that the parents’ had colluded to provide at the time in order to conceal from professionals what had truly happened.
90.	I am satisfied that A was telling the truth on this occasion, as corroborated by M.  This was an episode of domestic abuse resulting in injury, which she witnessed.  I am not satisfied that a knife was in fact used, I consider that F1 is likely to have referred to a knife whilst intoxicated and this led to a misunderstanding on A’s part.  What she saw was the scraper and I am satisfied that that was the weapon that led to the injury.  This was a frightening incident for A and I am satisfied that the mention of a knife will have heightened her anxiety about it.  M was the perpetrator of domestic violence on this occasion.  The parents each sought to conceal this episode from professionals and colluded to provide a false account in respect of it.   
d.	On 20.06.17 M told the social worker that F1 is controlling and emotionally abusive to her, for example needing to know where she was at all times. The allegation is true;
91.	CG’s witness statement dated 3.8.17 sets out, “When I met with M on 19th June 2017, she disclosed a long history of emotionally abusive behaviours towards A.  M at this point stated clearly she did not want to resume the relationship, was pressing charges against F1 and wished to seek a Restraining Order.”  
92.	In CG’s parenting assessment of M dated 24th January 2018 she sets out, “During my parenting assessment with her, M stated that F1 had started drinking again in June 2016 following A’s allegation.  She explained this would happen on the weekend and he would become abusive calling her “a fat ugly cunt”.  M stated that this only happened when the children were in bed asleep but accepted they may have heard this.” 
93.	Both M and CG confirmed that M gave this information on 20th June 2017 and during the parenting assessment, I am satisfied that she did so.  In so far as the truthfulness of this information, I have had the benefit of hearing M’s evidence and the evidence of F1.
94.	M’s account of the extent of domestic abuse within the relationship has changed over time.  I am satisfied this is because she has gradually begun to reveal greater details in an attempt to work more openly and honestly with professionals and give a more accurate account to the Court.  These admissions are contrary to her self interest. During her oral evidence, she made a series of admissions, some for the first time, which included that F1 would persistently contact her when she was with MGM, that he would behave in an emotionally abusive way towards her, especially when he had consumed alcohol.  At those times he would call her names such as “ugly fat cunt”.  On around six occasions she accepted that these names would result in her reacting with a loss of temper during which she would perpetrate domestic violence towards him by hitting him repeatedly – she thought around six times on each occasion – and he would not retaliate physically to this.
95.	She accepted that they had always had a volatile relationship and in some respects she “gave as good as she got”.  She admitted that the relationship had been a domestically abusive one and that it had escalated in that regard from 2016 onwards when F1 started drinking alcohol more heavily.
96.	F1 denied behaving in a controlling fashion but did accept calling M names, including “cunt” which he said was a joke.  He accepted that it would upset M when he did this.  He accepted that he would contact her by telephone when she was with MGM “to strike up a conversation” a few times in the morning and a few times in the afternoon each day.  At one stage in his evidence he complained that she was at MGM’s home all day each day and said their relationship “was hardly a marriage” as a consequence.  It struck me that he was irritated that M was choosing to spend this time away from him.
97.	MGM gave evidence that F1 would constantly text and telephone M every half hour whenever she was not with him and was in her presence, and that this was the case all the way throughout their relationship.  It is accepted that during the school term M would spend all day with MGM at her home, five days a week and therefore MGM had ample opportunity to witness F’s behaviour.  She said that M would seem annoyed by these constant communications.  She was not cross examined on behalf of F1 about this.  I accept MGM’s evidence as truthful in respect of these matters.
98.	I am satisfied that M was telling the truth about F1’s controlling and emotionally abusive behaviour and that this was a further element of the domestic abuse that she suffered.   
e.	On 19.06.17 F1 physically assaulted M by punching her head and face. M required hospital treatment. This incident was witnessed by MM. M made a complaint of assault to the police. She sustained substantial bruising to her face. 
99.	In M’s police witness statement dated 19th June 2017 states that on Sunday 18th June 2017 at around 7.30pm she was in the living room with F and the children were in bed.  She states that he began to drink a litre bottle of rum that she had bought him that day for Father’s Day.  She states “F1 was drinking at a fast pace and he began to become verbally abusive towards me.  For example, I was eating popcorn on the sofa when he said, “You complain about your weight.  No wonder you are a fat cunt eating shit like that.”  He also began to call me names such as “a slug” and again “fat cunt” and told me “I could do ten times better than you.”  F1 had consumed roughly three quarters of a bottle of rum when I realized that the abuse from him was becoming more and more aggressive so I took the remainder and hid it from him.”  She then states that he began to verbally abuse her, mocking her sister and calling her father names such as a “paedophile”.  She states, “I eventually snapped at F1 and told him that it was him that was the paedophile.  I was standing at this point when F1 stood up and lunged towards me.  He pushed me back with force causing me to fall back where my body was on the floor and my head was resting on the cushion of the sofa.  At this time F1 used his knee to pin me down so that I could not move and took hold of my hair in his left hand.  I was unable to move with my head pinned down on my left side.  F1 then used his right hand to punch me in the right side of my head and face with force multiple times.  I grabbed hold of F1’s legs in an attempt to get him off me but he is too powerful and I could not move him off me.  I could see blood everywhere from my face and I was shouting for help but F1 did not stop assaulting me.  Eventually I heard the children crying at which point F1 stopped hitting me and stood up.  F1 turned and ran out of the house.”
100.	M confirmed that this account was accurate in her oral evidence.  Photographs of her injuries and of the living room, where the assault occurred, are included in the bundle.  These photos demonstrate that M received a number of significant facial injuries with consequential blood loss.  Blood is apparent on the sofa in the family home.  
101.	A contemporaneous note provided from A’s school dated 19th June 2017, the author of which is JP states, “M asked to speak to JP just before 9 this morning.  The right side of her face up to her forehead was swollen, bruising was beginning to show, her eye was partially closed and her head was cut.  She said; it was F1, he had me pinned on the settee, it was 12.30 last night, I was just thinking about the kids, he ran out when he heard MM cry.  Then I called the police.  Then I just collapsed. I could hear the kids crying but I don’t want them to see all the blood, I’ve been the in the hospital for four and a half hours, he hit me once before in 2013, he’s always putting me down and threatening me until I give him money for drink, he calls me fat and digs and picks and says he could get loads better than me, the police found him at (near?) his mam’s, I thought the kids were asleep but I think MM saw because she said “daddy’s in jail because he punched mam”, I can’t have him back, I’ve got to think of the kids.”  
102.	M stated in evidence that she could not be sure that MM saw the incident but that she could have done and that all the children will have heard the assault taking place.
103.	Miss Fagan, counsel for F1, began her cross examination of M by indicating that she had specific instructions from F1 not to cross examine her about this incident and that he did not challenge her account. 
104.	F1 started his oral evidence stating that he accepted that he had assaulted M and caused her injuries on 19th July 2017 but when he was later taken to the detail of M’s account during cross examination he at first denied that it had happened in that way and then said he could not remember details of it.  Ultimately he conceded that he was not in a position to contradict M’s account.
105.	I accept M’s evidence in respect of this incident.  I am satisfied that this was a serious, sustained and vicious assault, which was perpetrated by F1. I am satisfied that the children were exposed to this incident both in terms of hearing the assault take place and in terms of witnessing M’s significant injuries afterwards. I am satisfied that all of the children have suffered significant emotional harm as a consequence.
(2)	M has prioritised her relationship with F1 over the needs of her children. 
a.	M has blamed alcohol for F1’s assault (19.06.17), thereby minimising his violence. 
106.	In M’s most recent response document she states, “Looking back I think I may have minimised the violence I suffered from F1.  I do not believe that alcohol was the main factor in the assault.”
107.	In CG’s parenting assessment of M dated 24th January 2018 she states “M openly blamed A for F1’s assault, calling A “a fucking little liar” whilst A was present, declaring that A’s “lie” in June 2016 about F1 assaulting her had caused F1 to turn to alcohol which led directly to the domestic incident on 19th June 2017.”
108.	CG confirmed in her oral evidence that this was what M had said.  M accepted that she had said this during the visit on 19th July 2017.  I accept CG’s evidence and M’s admission in this regard.
109.	M continued to maintain in her oral evidence that F1 only really started drinking heavily again, (having had an alcohol problem since before she met him) from June 2016, which she continued to maintain resulted in the domestic abuse that she experienced.  Whilst I am prepared to accept that F1’s use of alcohol may well have exacerbated matters and increased the severity of the domestic abuse, I do not accept that he effectively stopped drinking from shortly after the commencement of his relationship with M until June 2016, save for birthdays and Christmas.  I consider that M continues to minimise the extent of F1’s alcohol difficulties and abusive behaviour.   F1 accepted during his evidence that he drunk alcohol on more occasions than this and that he has always had a difficulty in stopping drinking on any occasion that he starts to do so.
110.	I consider that MGM’s account of M being seen with bruising in 2015 as well as 2016 is accurate and that M was suffering physical domestic abuse on more occasions than she is prepared to accept and over a longer timeframe.  I am satisfied that M is attempting to maintain a consistent account – that she was only assaulted once in 2013 and once in 2017 and that F1 only started drinking again from June 2016 when A made her allegations – but that that account was created to conceal the full extent of the domestic violence in the relationship and F1’s alcohol difficulties.  These are issues that I consider M is still not being fully open and honest about. I consider that this is an area, which requires further assessment.
b.	M has retracted her prosecution, having provided a truthful statement to the police and has resumed her relationship with F1;
111.	Within the police disclosure is a witness statement dated 18.7.17 that M provided to the police.  She accepts that she made this statement.  I reads, “On 19th June 2017 I gave a statement to the police in respect of being assaulted by my husband F1 (d.o.b. 12.09.82).  Further to that statement I now wish to add the following.  I no longer wish to pursue a prosecution against F1.  I do not wish to attend Court or to give evidence.  I would like the charges against him to be dropped.  The reason for this is that I want to reconcile with F1 and get back together.  I want to keep my family together. I have not been coerced or persuaded to make this retraction statement, I make it of my own free will.”
112.	M asserts that this is not a retraction of her statement, it is a refusal to support a prosecution.  Although the Police refer to this as a retraction statement I accept that M is not stating within it that she made up her account of being assaulted. She did not withdraw, cancel, refute or reverse her earlier statement, instead she indicated that she would not support a prosecution.  This was on the basis of a reconciliation.  At no stage did she or has she stated that her account of being assaulted was a false one. 
113.	I am satisfied that M refused to support the prosecution of F1 for the assault that he perpetrated against her on the basis that she reconciled with him. 
114.	What is less clear is when the parent’s relationship came to an end.  In her oral evidence, M ultimately accepted that they permanently separated in November 2017.  F1, not having heard her give this evidence due to his absence in the Courtroom, maintained the couple’s original stance that they separated after the June 2017 assault.  At one stage he said he realized it was over after he attended Deter and that he didn’t know whether to try to save the marriage before that.  I note from the papers that he attended Deter in October 2017.  I am satisfied that the relationship continued until at least November 2017, and that this reconciliation demonstrated M’s inability to prioritise the children’s safety above her relationship with F1.  Her ability to remain permanently separated from him is a significant concern, particularly if she ends up without any support from her parents as has been threatened.  This issue requires urgent assessment.
c.	F1’s alcohol use is problematic and he misuses painkillers. M is aware of F1’s issues but pursues the relationship nonetheless;
115.	F1 accepts that he has been taking painkillers over an extended period of time and that he took, what he states was, an accidental overdose of codeine in June 2015.  He admits that he informed the hospital that he had taken 28 tablets but that actually “it could have been more, or less than that.”  Whilst he asserts that his use of pain medication was all due to genuine medical issues causing pain and that all of the medication he used had been prescribed for him, he also accepted that he was unaware of how much medication he could take each day and to taking as much as he felt he needed.  He accepted in his oral evidence that he has had a longstanding difficulty with alcohol use and that it had been a particular problem over the course of the last year or so.  He stated that he was not an alcoholic but that he had a binge drinking problem and that half his criminal record was due to alcohol.  He accepted that his drinking increased once the LA got involved with the family.  
116.	On the basis of F1’s evidence I am satisfied that his alcohol is problematic.
117.	M accepts that she informed CG that F1 was misusing painkillers.  She stated in her oral evidence that he continued to ask her for painkillers throughout 2017.  I accept her evidence about this.  I am satisfied that F1 has a history of misusing painkillers and that he sought to minimize the overdose he took.
118.	On the basis of M’s evidence, I am satisfied that she was aware of F1’s difficulties with alcohol and his misuse of pain killers and that she continued her relationship with him notwithstanding being aware of these issues.  I am also satisfied that M’s admissions in the witness box went further than any information that she had ever disclosed to professionals about these issues before.  Again I consider that there is a need to further assess M’s ability to work openly and honestly with professionals in light of her evolving admissions and continued minimization and denial of the full extent of F1’s domestic abuse and alcohol use, which I am satisfied was far greater than what M, even now, accepts.
(3)	A has been subjected to physical and emotional harm by M, F1 and MGF. 
a.	On the 31.05.16 F1 assaulted A. On 06.06.16 A alleged this at school.  She sustained two linear bruises to the right arm consistent with A’s account of the incident. F1 denied the allegations and falsely maintains that A is lying. (M stated on 19.07.17 that she was a “fucking little liar”) M also accused A of lying and continued her relationship with F1. 
119.	The original referral to the LA in connection with this incident was made by A’s school on 6th June 2016.  The referral form is contained in the bundle.  The author of the form is AJ, the head teacher of the school.  The detail of the referral reads as follows; “A approached our Family Support Worker, JP, at lunch time for a chat.  A outlined an incident during the half term holiday (Tuesday 31.05.16) when her step-father “attacked” her.  A’s words: “I was playing on my DS and my dad asked me to go to bed.  I wanted to finish my game.  My Dad was in the kitchen, he opened the safety gate, came in and grabbed me by my dressing gown.  He slapped me across the head.  He dragged me into my bedroom.  I was scared because he’s never done that before.  I hurt my leg off the bed.  I banged my arm off the edge of the door.  It hurt.  I was trying to get him off us and I banged my elbow.  In my bedroom he pushed me to the floor.  I bumped into my bed.  He slammed the door behind him.”  JP and Deputy Head teacher, JT, observed bruising on A’s right thigh and inner arm.”
120.	A was taken for a medical examination on the same day (6.6.16), accompanied by her mother and a social worker (LC).  Dr Katherine Brown, Consultant Paediatrician at Queen Elizabeth Hospital carried out the examination.  Her report is dated 7.6.16 and is found in the bundle.  She took the history directly from A as follows, “The event took place on Tuesday 31.05.16 whilst A’s mother was out of the house.  I took the history from A herself.  A stated that last Tuesday she was sitting on the settee in the sitting room playing on her DS.  Dad asked her to go to bed.  A asked if she could finish her game which dad agreed to.  Then A’s brother (G aged 3 years) asked her for help with a game on his DS.  A helped him and showed him which buttons to press.  Then dad came through the gate (child safety gate) into the sitting room, grabbed A by the top front part of her dressing gown at the neck of the gown and dragged her to her bedroom, which is next to the sitting room.  A said that her right arm banged against the leg of her bed.  Dad then went out of the bedroom and slammed the door behind him.  A noticed the bruises the next day when she was showing her nanna that her arm was hurting.  Her nanna advised that it would hurt for a couple of days.  When asked directly, A states that dad had not done anything like this before that she can remember.”  
121.	On examination, Dr Brown noted the following injuries to A; “On the inner aspect of her right upper arm there are two fading green, dark bruises almost linear in shape both measuring 2.5 x 1cm.  On the right upper outer thigh there is a 1.5 x 0.5cm oval bruise similar in colour to those on the right arm.”  Dr Brown concludes “There are two linear shaped bruises on the inner aspect of the right upper arm and one smaller oval bruise on the right upper thigh.  The bruises appear to be fading and are of a similar colour.  The bruises on the right arm are in an unusual site for typical bruising associated with normal play activity in a child.  The pattern of bruises is not characteristic of finger-tip bruising or grip marks.  The explanation offered for the bruising is from hitting against an edge of the bed leg.  The pattern of bruising would be consistent with this although an alternative explanation is possible.”   
122.	A was the subject of an Achieving Best Evidence interview in respect of this incident on 20th June 2016, conducted by the Police.  I have had the benefit of watching the video recording of this interview and of reading the full transcript of it.  She gave a full and very detailed account during her ABE interview, which was consistent with the information that she had given to the school and during her medical examination.  The clear impression I gained from watching her video recorded interview was that she was telling the truth about this incident.  Her account was clear, consistent and compelling without any hint of exaggeration.
123.	Although it is accepted that M was not present during this incident, she has now reached the position that she accepts that what A has said about it is the truth and that F did physically abuse her as she alleges.  However, M did not always adopt this position.
124.	On 24th June 2016 an Initial Child Protection Case Conference was held.  All four children were placed on Child Protection Plans under the category of physical harm.  Professionals raised concerns that M presented as unsupportive of A at the conference and expressed a wish to have F1 back in the family home.  F1 denied A’s account and both parents were said to minimize her disclosure.  It is recorded that both parents were defensive and angry within the meeting, blaming the police and children’s services for their circumstances.
125.	In her oral evidence, M accepts that she did not believe A when she originally made this allegation, despite attending the medical examination with her and accompanying her to her ABE interview.  She said it was only after she was assaulted by F1 in June 2017 that she believed A. 
126.	The Police disclosure reveals that F1 was interviewed by the Police under caution, in the presence of a legal representative in respect of this incident on 28th June 2016.  During that interview he denied assaulting A. A summary of this interview reads as follows, “he stated that he had taken the DS games off A and her four year old brother G and told them to get to bed.  F1 described watching A going to bed stating he had no physical contact with her, he stated that A was lying and that her motivation for lying was because she wanted him out of the way so that she can reunite with her biological father.”  This version of events has been F1’s version of events ever since.  It was also his account in oral evidence.  He states that A is making up those parts of the account in which she complains that he was physically abusive to her.
127.	Both parents sought to advance an alternative explanation for the bruising to A’s arm that a few days earlier one or both of them had grabbed her to prevent her walking into the path of an oncoming car.  M accepts that she did not put this explanation forward at the time of the medical examination.  She initially could not explain in her oral evidence why she had not done this, she later said that she did not want A to think that she did not believe her.  On 19th July 2017 M called A a “fucking little liar” in her presence in respect of her allegation against F1.  M accepts that she did this in her oral evidence.
128.	F1 still raises grabbing A to prevent her being hit by a car as an explanation for the bruising.  I do not accept this account.  Dr Brown’s evidence was not challenged.  She specifically states that these bruises are not consistent with finger tip bruising or grip marks.  Both parents maintain that the grabbing of A to prevent her being struck by a car occurred.  I am satisfied that they are aware that this is not the cause of the bruising, but that at the time, this was an explanation that they colluded to provide.  M no longer advances this as an explanation, although maintains that the event happened.  Her reason for still mentioning this in her oral evidence is troubling.  I am concerned that she continues to display misplaced loyalty towards F1.  This is an area, which requires further assessment.
129.	F1’s account of the incident is remarkably similar to A’s – he accepts that he had the care of the children alone that evening, he accepts that only A and G were not in bed and that they were playing on the DS game.  His account mirrors A’s in every respect save for the point at which he disciplines her and the events that she says follows.  A’s account is coherent and compelling.  She was clear that F1 did not hit her to cause the bruising.  Had this account been fabricated that would have been an easier and more damning lie to maintain.  I do not consider that she has exaggerated or embellished her account.  The details provided by A have not changed; she has repeated her account consistently to a number of professionals.  
130.	I make the finding sought.  I am satisfied that A suffered physical harm perpetrated by F1 on this occasion as she describes and that she suffered emotional harm as a consequence of M and Father maintaining that she was lying about it afterwards.  I am satisfied that by choosing to continue her relationship with F1 after this incident, M prioritized her own need for a relationship above A’s safety and well being and that she exposed all four children to a risk of physical abuse as a consequence.
b.	F1 regularly slaps A. A has alleged that F1 slaps her and her siblings; this included slapping her on the face on a regular basis. 
131.	On 6th June 2016 A informed her head teacher, JT: “He never hits my brother, he always does it to me because I’m not his real daughter, he hurts us nearly every day, he does it when mam’s there but mam doesn’t really do anything, sometimes he gets wrong off her, mam hits me on the hand, sometimes he hurts me in the morning before school, I’ve had bruises from when he pushes me onto the bed, sometimes he hits my mam, a long time ago, not anymore, sometimes dad lies to mam, sometimes he hits MM.  He hits G when he’s naughty, both on the bottom but he misses them so they have a red back.  He does it to them twice but to me a lot more times, I shuffle about and sometimes he gets my back.”
132.	During A’s ABE interview on 20th June 2016 she described being punished by being “smacked” with the hand on her bottom or sometimes on the hand, she said “Like they would like get their hand forced to like smack you and then they would smack you in the hand really hard and sometimes it hurts my hand and then I can’t really bend my hand like that sometimes.”
133.	I am satisfied that A is complaining here about M and F1 smacking her.  M accepts that she used to smack all of the children as a form of punishment.  F denies doing so.  M states that she would also raise her hand to the children as a physical threat.  In her opinion, the line between this being chastisement and physical abuse is when it leaves a mark.  She accepts that she used to hit them on the bottom and the legs and that sometimes she would leave a mark.  I am satisfied that M did physically chastise the children as she describes and that at times, this amounted to physical abuse of them.  I do not accept F1’s denials that he never smacked the children.  This was a household in which smacking was regularly used as a form of punishment.  There were occasions when he was left alone with the children and discipline would fall to him to administer.  I am satisfied that A’s disclosures are truthful and that he smacked her and the other children in the way that she complains he did.
134.	I do not accept M’s evidence that she never saw F1 hit or smack the children.  She was their main carer and was with them for the majority of the time.  Again I consider that she is minimizing F1’s behaviour.  F1 was drinking heavily in the household and, I am satisfied, was capable of extreme violence.  I do not accept that he was capable of exerting sufficient self control to employ more measured methods of discipline of the children than M, or that he simply left such issues to her.  I am satisfied that he too smacked the children.  I am not satisfied that he regularly slapped A in the face however, this was not described in her ABE interview or disclosed to the school.  I am satisfied that F1’s behaviour towards the children would, at times, amount to physical abuse, as described by A and that M failed to protect the children from this abuse and continues to falsely deny that it took place.
c.	The M raised her hand as if to assault A by hitting her on the 27.02.17. A made these allegations on the 28.02.17.  A stated that she felt M did not intend to hurt her and she had no visible injuries.  M has, on more than one other occasion physically overchastised the children. 
135.	The local authority has modified the finding it seeks against M in respect of these matters.
136.	In CG’s parenting assessment of M dated 24th January 2018 she states “A went on to make further disclosures of emotional and physical harm in the care of M and F1, including on 28th February 2017 when she reported M had hit her.  M denied this and A had no visible marks.  M and F1 stated that they were extremely upset and said they were unsure how they could “take any more lies” from A.”… “A alleged on 28th February 2017 that M had assaulted her by hitting her around 6 times the previous night.  At the time, A knew her mother did not intend to hurt her and had no visible injuries of any kind on the area that she pointed out (her upper arm).  M strongly denied this allegation.”
137.	This allegation was made to CG, who did not document it properly at the time.  There are no verbatim contemporaneous notes of what A said and CG now accepts that what is documented was documented from the point of view that she did not believe A.  Her original notes have been destroyed.  I take the view that what A disclosed on this occasion was so tainted by the subjective opinion of the social worker that I cannot rely upon the account.  The local authority recognizes this and therefore no longer seeks a finding that M hit A six times on this occasion.
138.	The only contemporaneous account of the incident is found in an email sent by CG to A’s head teacher on 28th February 2017.  It reads as follows:
“Hello, 
Please read the extract below of my visit to A in school today:
“…I asked A how she was and she said fine, she was smiling…A said that working with Kate was good and she had helped her and F1 to be better at listening by doing things like making good eye contact to each other.  A said there had been no issues with her and F1 in a long time.  I asked about things at home and if they were mainly happy or if there was anything sad.  A said it was sad.  I asked why and she said “mam hit me last night”.  I asked why and A said “me and G wouldn’t go to bed”.  A explained that G was in her room and she was giggling as they were tickling each other and M came in and shouted that they should be asleep, so M lifted G into his room and came back to A’s room where M hit A.  A said she hit her “6 times”, and it started as a slap and ended in a punch.  A said it was “very sore” and was at the top of her arm.  I asked A to show me where and she rolled her sleeve right up, there was no mark on the area of the arm where A was pointing, or any other part of the arm.  I told A what she was saying was very serious and asked her whether she thought her mam wanted to hurt her and she said “don’t know”.  I said to A I would need to speak to her mam and my manager.  When I asked her if she felt safe at home A said no.  I demonstrated by lightly hitting the chair and asked “was it this hard?”  A replied “no much harder”.  A was not tearful or upset, she spoke matter of factly, with no emotion in her voice.  She was very happy returning to class, skipping along and smiling at me.”
At the most recent care team, it was mentioned by Miss H that A had been telling tales e.g. about her granddad dying.  I am concerned that this is becoming a feature of A’s behaviour.  I have referred her to EWBT but this may take some time.  Would it be possible for A to be re-referred to the school counsellor in the meantime?
On advice of my team manager, I contacted M.  She described how she had needed to shout at A and G last night as they would not settle down to bed and she had needed to lift G out of A’s bed.  I asked whether she smacked A and M said “no I raised my hand to her, but I did not lay a finger on her.” M explained that last night A had said she didn’t want M as her mam anymore and didn’t want to live there.  I have advised M not to raise her hand to A and not to make a big deal of this incident later on, as to prevent a further argument.  M was tearful on the phone and blamed a lack of contact from F2, I told M F2 is only a small part of this as this issue is stemming from a wide range of matters, not just contact.
Kate- I have spoken to Debbie about this and she is wondering whether it might be possible that you could involve M along with F1 and A in one session tougher, in order to discuss consequences, disclosures, telling tales etc.?
A had no marks on her visible where she said she was injured, nor was she upset or fearful in any way in her behaviours/voice.  I am most concerned about A’s emotional well being.  I do not believe that A has been assaulted by her mother as she describes on the basis of our discussion, my involvement with the family and A’s on-going behaviours which include attention seeking, emotional needs, telling tales in school and using her emotions to get attention (e.g. crying to teachers and then stopping immediately).
Thank you
CG.”
139.	What A had disclosed was an assault at the hands of M.  Her allegations were not properly documented, it does not appear that the Police were informed and instead, A’s social worker dismissed what she was saying as untruthful.  During her oral evidence, CG accepts that the context in which she was working with the family was a false one, in which she was not aware of what was really happening in the household due to the lies of M and F1.
140.	CG’s oral evidence was that she now believed A.  Unfortunately, because matters were not properly documented at the time and because of the way the investigation into A’s allegations were dealt with in respect of this allegation, it is not possible to make findings in respect of it.  A also alleged that M had hit her “around the ear” on Monday 3rd July 2017 to KA, she stated that her “ear hurt all day” and that she had told a friend but not a teacher.  Again this allegation is not properly documented and no finding is sought in respect of it.
141.	I make the revised finding as drafted, based upon M’s admissions.
d.	F1 was emotionally and verbally abusive towards A and treated her differently to the younger children and told her “I hate you”. The M made this allegation to the Social Worker.  M was aware of this since the birth of G and failed to protect A from it;
142.	During her parenting assessment of M dated 24th January 2018, CG documents that on 20th June 2017, M told her that “F1 treated A differently to the other children, telling her “I hate you”.”.
143.	KA was not required to give oral evidence at the hearing, having initially been warned to do so.  Her witness statement dated 30th January 2018.  Within it she states, “A told me that she felt she was treated differently at home compared to her siblings.  She said she was often shouted at and the younger children were not.  She also said that F1 would give the younger children sweets and not give A any.  A said this made her feel “sad and left out”.
144.	M did not inform any professionals about this until after she was assaulted by F in June 2017.  She now states that a major cause of arguments between her and F was the fact that he treated A differently to the other children and that he did this because she was not his natural child.  She described him shouting at her far more than the other children and treating her in a far more negative way.  She confirmed in oral evidence that she heard him say to her “I hate you”.
145.	F1 denies this and states he treated her exactly as though she was his own child and that she was the “best thing that ever happened to him.”  I reject his account.  I am satisfied based upon A’s allegations and M’s admissions that F1 did behave in the way described.  I make the finding sought.  I am satisfied that A suffered emotional harm as a result of this maltreatment.  I am satisfied that M was aware of this and failed to protect A from this emotional abuse, hiding it from professionals working with the family at the time. 
e.	M has accused A of being responsible for the assault on her on 19th June 2017 stating that “A’s lies drove F1 to drink”. This was said in A’s presence, causing significant emotional harm. 
146.	M admits that she said this and I make this finding based upon her admission and the evidence of CG, who heard her say it on 19th July 2017.
f.	M threatened A that she would “punch her all over” when she was travelling to school. A made this allegation to her support worker on the 17th of July 2017;
147.	In the parenting assessment of M dated 24th January 2018, CG documents, “On 17th July 2017, A told JP support worker at KG Primary School that her mother had threatened to “punch [her] all over”.”  The chronology records that this was reported to a duty worker at the LA on the same day.
148.	M denies this.  The local authority rely upon the fact that M has admitted threatening A before by raising her hand and that, by her own admission, she has over chastised A before.  This incident is said to have occurred just two days before the social worker’s visit on 19th July 2017 when M behaved in an explosive way towards the social worker.  She accepts that she cannot really explain why she was so hostile and aggressive on that occasion and why she said such terrible things about A in her presence.  I am satisfied that at this time, M was struggling to manage her own temper and emotions.  She was not coping with the fact that F was no longer part of the household and was blaming A for this – as she demonstrated during the visit on 19th July 2017.  I am satisfied, based upon A’s disclosure that M did say this.  It was in keeping with M’s behaviour around that time.  I am satisfied that the reason why M is unable to accept that she behaved in this way is due to her feelings of shame at having done so.  She accepted behaving the way she did towards A on 19th July 2017 as it was witnessed by CG, and her other admissions of smacking and ‘raising her hand’ had been made previously, at a time when M had understood her actions to amount to “reasonable chastisement”.  This allegation is of a more serious nature, which is why I consider that M is unable to bring herself to accept it.  I am nevertheless satisfied that it occurred.  
g.	On 19th July 2017 M and MGF were extremely threatening and hostile to the social worker and to A; A was called a liar and told that she was responsible for F1 being out of the house. A was screaming and clinging on to the social worker shouting “no”. There was no concern for A’s emotional well-being shown by M or MGF;
149.	CG’s witness statement dated 3.8.17 sets out her account of this incident and of the incident on 21st July 2017.  That written account is as follows, “A home visit on 19th July 2017 where M, M’s father MGF and the children were present raised significant concerns, as did a subsequent joint visit on 21st July 2017…  Ultimately as a result of these two visits with M, and MGF present, I have significant concerns due to: M stating that she would resume her relationship with F1 “no matter what”, M stating she had already planned to send her children to live with her mam and dad if “Children’s Services tried to get their hands on them”, M’s emotionally and verbally [abusive] behaviour towards A, who she called a “fucking little liar” while A was present and very distressed.  M also blamed A for the family’s difficulties, including F1’s alcohol use and his assault on her, MGF and M’s physically and verbally threatening behaviours towards me, also whilst the children were present, including (whilst the children were not present) MGF stating “The only good social workers are dead social workers”, A’s physical safety in her family’s care given the behaviours and abusive comments from M, which were not challenged by MGF, M’s ability to cope without F1, M’s lack of insight around the risks F1 presents (minimised domestic violence, stating that she was “as bad as him”, stated F1 “not a risk” to the children), the level of distress seen from A, she screamed throughout this incident “NOOOO! STOP IT!!” whilst physically clinging onto me.  A became hysterical when M said F1 would be returning to the family home and M and MGF showed no regard for A’s distress, M having dropped the charges against F1”.
150.	The social worker’s entry in her chronology for the date 19th July 2017 reads as follows: “Home visit by CG social worker – 1:1 with A regarding disclosure on 17.07.17 and about contact with F1.  Overheard by M and MGF on baby monitor.  M and MGF verbally aggressive and physically threatening towards social worker and very abusive towards A.  Serious concerns for A’s physical and emotional well being.  M feels that: A is the problem and has caused family issues, she wants to be with F1 and will do this regardless, F1 is not a risk to the children, she is unable to cope without him, M stated repeatedly that she will have F1 back at the home address and that Children’s Services can do what they want, as “you can’t make me pick between my husband and my children”.  MGF was unhelpful and aggressive, not protective factor.” 
151.	CG gave detailed oral evidence in respect of this incident, which was consistent with her written evidence.  She remained steadfast in her description of events throughout her oral evidence.  It was clear during her oral evidence that she found this incident to be extremely distressing.  She said that she feared for her personal safety and when giving evidence appeared to be clearly shaken by these events.  I accept her evidence as truthful.
152.	M accepts that she behaved in the way described.  I am satisfied that she did so and make the findings sought in respect of her as drafted.
153.	MGF also admitted that this incident had occurred, although he minimised his role in it and attempted to blame M for her conduct and the social worker for “lying to A” about alcohol.  He attempted to downplay his role on the day, stating that he was attempting to calm M down during the incident and that A was attempting to get to him for comfort.  His account was supported by M in this regard but rejected by the social worker.  I accept CG’s evidence that MGF was not a calming influence, I am satisfied that he was an aggravating influence upon M, and that he behaved in a hostile and aggressive fashion towards the social worker himself.  MGF stated that his behaviour was “unacceptable” and that he was “horrible” to the social worker, he accepts that A was deeply upset during this incident.  I am satisfied that these events occurred as CG describes and that where MGF has attempted to minimize his role, supported by M, this is a product of collusion on their part.  I am satisfied that M continues to display misplaced loyalty towards MGF in this regard.  I make the findings sought against MGF as drafted.  
154.	I consider that there is a need to urgently assess M’s ability to distance herself from MGF and protect the children from him, in circumstances in which she displayed a high degree of loyalty and collusion with him during her evidence.
155.	I am satisfied that all four children were exposed to this incident and that it was a frightening one for them.  All four have suffered significant emotional harm as a consequence, especially A who was directly involved in the incident and was the subject of significant emotional abuse from M.
156.	M was making clear her intention to reconcile with F1 on this occasion.  Her behaviour, and that of MGF was threatening and hostile, such that the social worker feared for her own safety.  I am concerned that after this incident, all four children remained in the care of M, without any visits taking place for two days.  The police were not contacted and no applications were made to remove the children by the local authority.  All four children were at risk of significant emotional and physical harm at the time.  I do not consider that they were safe in the care of M at that time.  
(4)	M has not worked openly and honestly with children’s services to address the areas of concern
a.	On 21.07.17 M informed Kerrie Thompson, Health Visitor, that she had told lies, kept secrets, put on a front and “gone along with Children’s Services”, just to “get them off her back”. M said that previous interventions including the parenting interventions to improve her parenting and relationship with A “didn’t work at all”, however at the time she stated that these were beneficial and useful. M also told the social worker on the same date that she had told Children’s Services what we ‘want’ to hear. 
157.	CG’s chronology entry for 21st July 2017 sets out some detail in respect of this incident as follows: “Joint home visit by social worker CG and Kerrie Thompson (health visitor).  MGF present.  Concerns: M’s attitude and behaviour towards A, clear emotional and verbal abuse, M dropping charges against F1, MGF’s lack of insight and threatening language towards the social worker, M’s desire to be with F1 no matter what, overall anger and threatening atmosphere, the children being exposed to further violence, negative or abusive language, A being blamed for current circumstances, M’s statement about placing children in grandparents care so she could be with F1, M admitting previous engagement was an act – meaningless.”
158.	CG confirmed her account orally and gave very detailed and cogent evidence in respect of this visit.  I accept her evidence.
159.	M accepts that this incident occurred as described.  I make the finding sought as drafted, based upon her admission and the evidence of the social worker. 
160.	Following this incident, the local authority asked for M’s permission to accommodate A only.  When M refused and instead decided to place her with MGF and MGM, the local authority issued these proceedings but only sought the removal of A from her care under an interim care order.  I am not satisfied that this demonstrates a proportionate response in respect of the other three children, who were left at home with M in circumstances in which, at that time, they were all being placed at risk of physical and emotional harm as a consequence of M’s stated intention to reconcile with F1.
b.	On 21st July 2017, M refused to allow A to stay with her father, F2 whilst the local authority carried out a risk assessment of MGF in respect of the historic allegations of serious sexual abuse against his step daughters;
143. M accepts this finding and I make it as drafted.
c.	M has since 19th July 2017, alternated between refusing to allow the social worker to speak to A or put conditions around who has to be present before A is spoken to alone;
161.	M accepts this finding and I make it as drafted.
(5)	A has been unable to maintain regular contact with her father, F2
162.	M accepts this although the reasons for it are disputed.  I did not hear evidence about this as part of the fact finding hearing.  With the agreement of all parties, F2’s attendance was excused.  I make the finding sought.  M’s ability to promote A’s contact with her Father in the future is a matter, which requires further assessment.  
(6)	The children have been exposed to the risk of sexual abuse
a.	MGF sexually abused his stepdaughters SM and DF whilst they were in his care and that of MGM;
163.	The evidence supporting this finding comes from SM and DF, who gave oral evidence via video link.  Mr Todd, on behalf of the local authority took them through their evidence in chief without referring them to their police witness statements written in 2002.  They each confirmed those written statements as accurate and had had the opportunity to refresh their memory in respect of them, but then gave their oral evidence unaided.  
164.	Each of them gave consistent, detailed accounts of the sexual abuse that they say that they suffered, clearly identifying MGF as the perpetrator of that abuse.
165.	SM and DF were cross examined at length on behalf of MGF, with additional written questions drafted by MGM being put by MGF’s counsel.  They were challenged on the basis that they; were lying about being sexually abused; that had they been abused, they could and would have disclosed it earlier; and that DF falsely alleged rape against PQ, her ex partner and SM’s current partner and therefore is the type of person to make a serious and false allegation of this nature.
166.	At the commencement of MGF’s evidence and MGM’s evidence each said that SM and DF had not been sexually abused.  MGM said she “did not believe them.”  Only at the very end of MGF’s evidence did he accept that they had been sexually abused but not by him, alleging for the first time in these proceedings that they had been sexually abused by their natural father.  At one stage of MGM’s evidence she too adopted his approach.  Each accepted that their opinion that SM and DF had been sexually abused had not been shared with others in the family, most notably M.
167.	I had the advantage of being able to watch the behaviour of MGF, MGM and M during the course of SM and DF’s evidence and the clear impression I had was that MGF was attempting to communicate a lack of belief in what he was hearing, he was shaking his head, demonstrating surprise and even at some points laughing at the evidence being given.  The conduct of MGF during their evidence was in my view, a clear attempt to discredit them and was highly manipulative.  His efforts were directed towards MGM, who sat next to him, M and towards me.  He repeatedly sought to make eye contact with me during their evidence and to shake his head at the evidence as it unfolded.  At no stage did I detect anything resembling sympathy for the witnesses or an acknowledgment that they had been the victims of the most appalling sexual abuse, which ultimately became the position that he adopted in oral evidence.  That position was not put on his behalf, nor was it ever suggested during these proceedings or to the witnesses, that the true perpetrator of the abuse was someone else.  It follows that their father was never questioned about these matters, was not asked to give any evidence or invited to intervene in these proceedings.  I am satisfied that the reason for this is because MGF only conceded that SM and DF must have been sexually abused when it was put to him how very clear and cogent their evidence had been during his oral evidence.  I am satisfied that both he, and MGM realized that it was futile to attempt to maintain that they were lying once their evidence had been heard and that their shift of position was prompted purely by the obviously truthful accounts that they each heard SM and DF give.
168.	Both SM and DF gave evidence about specific incidents of abuse dating back as long ago as 25 years.  The police statements they made were taken 15 years ago.  They were each unable to give dates and times or say with complete clarity how old they were when specific incidents of abuse had occurred but I would be very surprised if they had been able to.  They were young children when the abuse started.  Their accounts were visual in nature, which is precisely what I would have expected given that they were children at the time.  At one stage, DF said she had “lost the picture in her head” and had to pause giving evidence before being able to continue.  The details they were able to give about incidents of abuse were sufficiently clear and cogent that I am in no doubt that they were each the victim of sexual abuse as they allege.
169.	I accept the submissions made by Mr Ainsley that the presentation of SM and DF was significant. They have, in my view, each been deeply affected by the abuse they suffered, which was all too apparent when they gave their evidence.  I agree with Mr Ainsley that their accounts were appropriately dimmed by time and the understandable wish to suppress what were very clearly painful memories. Their accounts, albeit incomplete, remained consistent. There were no obvious signs of their trying to embellish or fill in gaps that memory did not permit.

170.	Both SM and DF were impressive witnesses in different ways.  The manner in which they gave their accounts was compelling.  There was no hint of malice in what they were each saying.  SM was the more composed of the two witnesses, who spoke with great clarity and conviction in respect of the details she could recall.  DF was more emotional than SM, giving very visual accounts of what she remembered.  Each spoke clearly, spontaneously and fluently.  Both spoke naturally, giving embedded details that could not have been invented.  Each was clearly aware that MGF was listening to their evidence and took the opportunity to state that “he knows what happened” and “he knows what I’m saying is the truth”. 

171.	There is a core of consistency in the accounts given by SM and DF, individually and collectively.   Their accounts fitted together but not in a way that would suggest collusion.  The sexual abuse they each describe is of a different nature.  Their evidence was entirely consistent with what one would expect from victims of chronic abuse during childhood.  The accounts cover a very large number of occasions over a very long period of time.  As they each said during their evidence, individual incidents have been “rolled into one”.  Victims of childhood sexual abuse cannot be expected to give a photographic replay of sequences of similar but varying events and get all the distasteful details right.  They cannot be expected to recall where their mother was working or where she might have been during each episode.  Their focus at the time that an episode occurred, will have been upon surviving that particular incident.  Assessment of such evidence cannot only focus on the level of precision with which witnesses give descriptions, but calls for a much broader survey of all the relevant features.  

172.	In light of MGF and MGM, albeit latterly, conceding that both SM and DFhave been sexually abused, albeit MGF denies being the perpetrator, I am satisfied that the issues in respect of whether DF alleged that PQ raped her or whether this was misinterpreted by their cousin S are irrelevant.  The context in which these events unfolded was in the lead up to a highly charged criminal trial.  The stress that SM and DF were each under at the time must have been considerable.  Each said it led to frequent arguments between them and to them deciding to live separately as a consequence.  DF gave evidence that her complaint about PQ’s conduct to S was based upon her being asleep and him initiating sex, something which troubled her after another boyfriend had done the same thing.  She said that she struggled with these incidents because of the abuse that she suffered.  She made no complaint to the police about them and clearly did not wish to pursue these matters.  I gained the clear impression that her confusion around sexual relations as an adult is borne out of the abuse that she suffered, which is an entirely natural response.  Even if MGF’s case in respect of DF’s alleged propensity to make false allegations of sexual abuse was established, which it is not, it in no way would explain why SM would also accuse him of sexual abuse.  I am also satisfied that the detail in so far as the precise age that they each were when a given incident of sexual abuse occurred and where MGM may or may not have been working at the time is irrelevant.  As has now been conceded, SM and DF have clearly been sexually abused during their childhoods and I am satisfied that that abuse has had a profound impact upon them as adults.  Each of them referred to seeking to “block out” these memories and of “rolling up” incidents into one.  I consider that it is entirely natural for them to seek to do this as a way of coping with what they have experienced.  This in my view, coupled with the passage of time, adequately explains some of their difficulties with recollection during cross examination, particularly in respect of conversations they had in respect of PQ and any rape allegation which may or may not have been made in respect of him.  These matters in no way detract from the powerful evidence that they were each able to give about the sexual abuse that they suffered at the hands of MGF.
173.	I am satisfied that neither of them discussed or colluded to provide false accounts of abuse, each of them making spontaneous disclosures which the other had previously been unaware of, to their aunt WB, their maternal grandmother CT and to the police.
174.	MGF’s case had been put on the basis that the maternal family had in some way negatively influenced SM and DF into making false allegations against him.  His case in respect of this now that he accepts that they have been sexually abused is less clear, but if it is maintained that they have been negatively influenced into falsely accusing him of sexual abuse perpetrated by their father, I reject that proposition as highly unlikely.  Neither WB nor CT were required to give evidence or were in any way challenged on the basis that they had persuaded SM and DF to give false accounts.  At the time that SM and DF made their complaints to the Police they were young adults, living independently.  I am not satisfied that they could have been influenced to the extent that they would pursue a prosecution through to the conclusion of giving evidence at a Crown Court trial.  These were not suggestible young children by the time they made their complaints; they were young adult women.  There is no reason at all why they would falsely accuse MGF of perpetrating sexual abuse that they had suffered at the hands of someone else.  Nor do I consider that they could have been mistaken about the identity of their abuser – each of them said that the abuse continued until they were in their teens and therefore they were each more than capable of forming a clear understanding and recollection of who their abuser was.  
175.	Following on from their agreement to support a prosecution of MGF, 15 years later, I see no sensible reason for them to continue to maintain their accounts now.  They are now women aged in their 30s, who are estranged from all of the lay parties in this case.  I can see absolutely no plausible motive for them to come along and lie to this Court about what they have experienced, nor has any basis for this been suggested.  On the contrary, it makes their evidence all the more compelling that they were prepared to do so, freely and without the need to witness summons them.  The deterrent each of them faced at the time they complained to the Police was the risk that they would permanently lose their mother, MGM, from their lives.  That risk sadly materialized, but notwithstanding the high price they paid they have each maintained these accounts with persistence and I am satisfied that they have done so because they are true.  I do not accept that they are in any way confused or are lying about who the perpetrator of the sexual abuse they suffered is.    
176.	I make the finding sought.  
b.	Both girls were sexually abused on an on-going basis from the age of approximately four years until the age of fifteen years (between approximately 1986 and 1998). 
177.	For the reasons I have already given, I am satisfied that this finding is proven on the balance of probabilities, based on the evidence of SM and DF.
c.	The sexual abuse of DF included on at least two occasions anal rape with the penis. On one of these occasions she was approximately eight years old. 
178.	In DF’s police witness statement, dated 29.07.02 she sets out in detail two specific incidents of anal rape which she described as being examples of abuse that she suffered repeatedly during her childhood.  She was able to pinpoint one such occasion as being when she was around 8 years old.

179.	In her oral evidence, DF gave evidence about these incidents, which was consistent with her written accounts.  She gave graphic details about the abuse she suffered which I am satisfied were accurate and truthful.  Particular details such as the colour of the wrapper on the biscuit and the type of biscuit she had in her hand during one of these incidents of abuse, the colour of MGF’s underpants, the look he gave her over his glasses and the way that the biscuit melted in her hand during the episode of abuse are such that I am satisfied that these are detailed accounts given from memory.  I accept her evidence and make the finding sought.
d.	The sexual abuse of SM included digital penetration of the vagina and attempted rape of the vagina;
180.	In her police witness statement dated 7th August 2002, SM gives detailed evidence of repeated sexual abuse which began as digital penetration and progressed to attempted vaginal rape when she was between the ages of 12-15 years old.  She confirmed the details of this abuse in her oral evidence.  She was clear that MGF never actually managed to rape her vaginally.

181.	Of the two sisters, SM was the more forthright in her evidence.  She was less inclined to demonstrations of emotion.  She gave evidence in a clear and at times, dispassionate way.  Her evidence was given freely with no hint of malice or exaggeration.  She remained composed throughout her evidence.  I am satisfied that this finding is made out on the basis of her evidence.

e.	M and MGM are aware of the allegations and do not believe them. 
182.	MGM was clear in her oral evidence that she has never believed that MGF has sexually abused SM and DF.  She told me that even if I made findings that he had she would not accept them.  I make the finding sought against her.

183.	M’s position has shifted during the course of these proceedings.  She states that she was 15 years old when MGF was acquitted following a Crown Court trial and that she took this as evidence of his innocence.  She maintained that position until relatively recently until, having been given access to all of the police disclosure, she now states that she has an open mind and will accept the findings of the Court.  No explanation has been given for this change of position, save that “she needs to put her children first”.  Miss Sweeting’s closing submissions shed no further light as to whether now, having heard the evidence of SM, DF and MGF she has been able to reflect further on these matters.  I am not clear what her true position is in respect of these matters and whether she will accept the findings that I have made.  I consider that there is a need to urgently assess her capacity to accept my findings against MGF and protect the children from him.

f.	As a consequence, neither perceives MGF to be a risk of sexual abuse. 
184.	MGM told me that she would not accept any findings that I make in respect of MGF sexually abusing her daughters.  I am satisfied that she does not perceive him to be a risk of sexual abuse, and that even if she did, she is incapable of protecting any child from him.

185.	Whether M will accept that he poses a risk of sexual abuse is a matter for further assessment.  Certainly prior to these proceedings, she did not consider that to be the case and she permitted him to have unsupervised contact with the children accordingly.

g.	MGF presents a risk of sexual harm to children.
186.	As a consequence of the findings that I have made, I am satisfied that MGF presents a risk of sexual harm to children.

Further Findings sought:

(7)	The parents neglected the dental care and needs of MM, meaning she has had to have a large number of teeth removed due to the extent of decay.

187.	MM required 9 teeth to be extracted and a further 5 teeth to be extracted on two separate occasions.  The LA accepts that some of these extractions were due to overcrowding but that the vast majority were due to decay.

188.	During her oral evidence, M accepted that the majority of MM’s tooth extractions were due to decay and that this was because she could not get MM to brush her teeth.  She accepted, in answer to my questions, that this decay was because of the parenting that she gave to MM.  I am satisfied that this represents neglect of MM’s dental care.  In her closing submissions on behalf of F1, Miss Fagan accepts that F also neglected MM’s dental care, resulting in the need for a large number of extractions due to dental decay.

189.	I make the finding sought. 

(a)	MGF frequently used physical violence against M when she was a child. She would leave home, come to the attention of the police and be reported missing, placing herself at risk of further harm. 
(b)	On 30.10.01 M aged 13 she was placed in police protection – after being assaulted by MGF and suffering bruising as a result  - she alleged on one occasion she had been held against the wall by her neck;
(c)	In November 2001 M contacted child line alleging her father MGF has hit her causing her to run away from home;
(d)	She was reported missing 6 times in succession (and would go missing 3-4 days at a time) 
(e)	In a record dated 19.11.01 M told a worker from Gateshead that she did not want to be hit by her father any more and a written agreement was out in place whereby MGF agreed this would not happen; subsequent contract agreed by MGF and MGM stated “M will not be hit by her father”;
(f)	Recordings in a strategy meeting of 30.07.02 record that mother reluctantly admitted that he father had assaulted her which led to her being placed in police protection” 
(g)	MGF used high levels of physical violence against his step daughters DF and SM including hitting them with slippers and belts;

(8)	M now denies these assaults against her occurred, however the LA contend these assaults did happen as evidenced by the contemporaneous reporting, Police involvement, consistent injuries and the acceptance by MGF and MGM of support from the community support team detailed above. 

190.	I am satisfied, based upon the evidence of SM and DF that they were each the subjects of frequent, repeated and severe physical violence at the hands of MGF during their childhood.  I accept their accounts for the reasons I have already stated – they gave cogent, clear evidence about this with no plausible motive to lie about it.  Their accounts, which they maintained in oral evidence, include that M was also the victim of physical abuse as a child and that on one occasion MGF had her by the neck and that each of them had to try to drag him off her.  Their evidence in this regard is entirely corroborated by the contemporaneous recordings of complaints that M was making at the time.  I am satisfied that this is the case because it is true.

191.	The evidence of SM and DF is corroborated by the police statement of WB, dated 13th September 2002.  WB was not required to give evidence or challenged in any way about this account.   She states, “I remember MGM worked for about two years, I remember her leaving to have one of her children.  When MGM did work at HFW MGF did not work.  He was left to look after the children at home.  MGM worked different shifts and MGF was always left at home.  He may have had some help from his mother but in the main it was him who cared for them.  However, throughout the time of me living next door to them, which was about two years, I remember seeing and hearing what life was like for DF and SM.  I often saw MGF hitting, whacking and basically just going really over the top belting DF and SM.  But he was never like that with any of his natural children.  I couldn’t believe what he was like with them.  I remember one day seeing him drag both of them in from the back garden into No 41 where he started to hit both of them wildly.  I went inside to see what he was doing and saw MGF just sitting knitting and not batting an eye-lid as to what was going on around her.”  She describes this period of time as being around 1989-1991. 

192.	M accepts that as a teenager, she repeatedly ran away from home, that she made the allegations against MGF that are recorded contemporaneously and that she was made the subject of police powers of protection.  Her case now however, is that she was lying to the police and social services at the time and that the real cause of her running away from home was being bullied by her sisters, DF and SM.

193.	At the very conclusion of her oral evidence, M accepted that she had been physically abused as a child by MGF.  She was considerably distressed when she made this admission, not just in the witness box but afterwards, which required the Court to rise to give her time to compose herself.  Ultimately, MGF accepted that he had physically abused her and that he physically abused SM and DF but “not to the extent that they’ve said.”  He also admitted that “some of it is true” in respect of the historical recordings of M’s complaints and that “I do blame myself for M running away.  Arguments with SM were not the real reason.”

194.	M had, during her evidence, sought to continue what I am satisfied was a false account in respect of these matters, produced as a result of collusion with MGPs to seek to conceal the truth about the physical abuse she suffered as a child and to seek to discredit SM and DF by blaming them for it.  The earliest record of her seeking to blame her sisters is during a meeting on 30.7.03, however, I accept Mr Todd’s submission that this only followed the allegations of sexual abuse that they had made against MGF, (after which M denied threatening to kill DF and SM) and was still followed by a concession obtained from her at the meeting that she ran away as a result of the behaviour of her father.

195.	I am satisfied that M was also the victim of serious and repeated physical abuse as a child at the hands of MGF, in keeping with her complaints and behaviour at the time.  She ran away from home on 13 separate occasions, contacted Child line and made complaints to the Police.  She conceded in her oral evidence, that if the reason was her sisters there was absolutely no plausible reason why she would not have stated that at the time, or why she would seek to blame MGF at the time.  On one occasion she was the subject of Police Powers of Protection overnight due to a complaint that she was afraid of MGF.  She was aware that the Police were investigating matters and that MGF was interviewed by the Police about these complaints.  It simply beggars belief that she would make false allegations against a father she had a good relationship with at the time, rather than simply saying it was her sisters if that was the truth.  It also beggars belief that MGF would undertake work with the community team and sign a written contract to the effect that he would no longer hit M if he was not responsible.  I accept that M’s relationship with SM in particular was not a positive one during her childhood, it may well be that DF also sided with SM at times, as SM was her full sister.  They may well have fought and SM may have been favoured due to her medical condition but none of this explains why M would run away and make the complaints that she did.  I am satisfied that what is described between the siblings was no more than sibling rivalry.    
 
196.	Miss Middleton on behalf of MGF submits, “MGF gave evidence that he did individual work on a weekend with Mr Gunning around appropriate forms of chastisement and behaviour management, which he found useful and helpful and changed the way in which he disciplined the children thereafter. The case was closed within a short period of time, the family having engaged well and the concerns addressed.”  His evidence was not supported by MGM, who said that he continued to smack the children after this work was completed.  Nor was it supported by M who stated that she was unaware of any change in MGF’s attitude to date towards physical chastisement of children or any intervention that had resulted in a change in approach.  

197.	I consider that M continues to be highly influenced by MGF and that her loyalty towards him and his manipulation of her led to her giving false evidence about this.  I consider that there is a need to urgently assess her ability to protect the children in her care from MGF in these circumstances.
 
198.	I make the findings sought.
 
(9)	On the 5.12.17, M allowed CM into her house and into contact with the children, in breach of an agreement with the LA.

(10)	On the 13.1.18, M allowed a person, not authorised to be present in the house, into the house and into contact with the children. This person was on M’s account her friend CM.

199.	M states that there was never a written agreement that prevented her from allowing CM into her home.  That much is accepted by the local authority.  However, CG is clear that M was advised repeatedly about this issue in the clearest of terms, including in a core group meeting.  M accepts that she was given this advice and that she failed to follow it.
200.	        M also accepts that by allowing CM into her home on 13.1.18, she disregarded the advice she had been given by the social worker.

201.	I am satisfied, based upon M’s admissions that these findings are made out.

202.	At the conclusion of the evidence, the local authority indicated that it sought some additional findings against MGM and MGF in light of the evidence that they had given.  These are:

11.	MGM has failed to protect:
(i) Her own children, by allowing the continued over-chastisement of them by MGF without intervention, knowing the chastisement was over the top;
(ii) Her grandchildren, by knowing of the abuse not acting to report the said abuse or intervene to protect. It is alleged on balance MGM had become aware of the signs of on-going domestic abuse between F1 and M and becoming aware that A had disclosed such domestic abuse to MGF.
203.	I have already dealt with these matters earlier in this judgment in the most part.  During MGM’s evidence she accepted a failure to protect her children by failing to prevent them from being hit by MGF and by allowing SM and DF to have contact with their father.  She also accepted a failure to report the domestic abuse that she understood M to be the victim of.  She confirmed that she was aware that A had made disclosures of domestic abuse occurring between M and F and that this was in keeping with her understanding of what was happening between them at the time but that she had failed to intervene or report this to any professional, thereby failing to protect her grandchildren.  I make the findings sought based upon her admissions.

12.	MGM has physically over chastised her children.
204.	During her evidence, MGM admitted hitting her children as hard as she could.  She did not accept however, that this resulted in injury or in her physically abusing them, nor have any of them complained that she physically abused them.  I do not make this finding.

13.	MGF has failed to protect his grandchildren by failing to act when he was informed of ongoing abuse signs by MGM and being told directly by A of such abuse.

205.	MGF accepted during the parenting assessment of him and during his oral evidence, that A had made allegations to him about M and F fighting.  He admitted that she had confided in him but that he felt this was just innocent play.  He accepted that MGM had informed him that she was concerned that M was the victim of domestic abuse.  I am satisfied that MGF failed to take appropriate steps to report what A was complaining of to professionals at the time.

206.	In respect of both MGPs they have demonstrated throughout assessments and their oral evidence their inability to work openly and honestly with professionals and their inability to take any steps to protect the children and grandchildren in their family from abuse and domestic violence.  This was strikingly apparent when they described the complaint of attempted rape that their daughter MF made against BL.  Although MGM threw him out of the home, and indicated that she accepted that the complaint was true, neither of MF’s parents took any steps to report this matter to the Police.  MF was just 16 years old at the time.  MGF’s evidence was particularly troubling that if it was up to him he would welcome BL back into the home and would like to meet up with him to “clear the air”.  

Conclusion

207.	During this judgment I have made a number of very serious findings against MGF and F1, in particular.  I am concerned that M continues to display loyalty towards these individuals and that she has demonstrated, as recently as January 2018, that she struggles to accept and act on advice to distance herself from individuals who may present a risk of harm to her children.  I consider that there is an urgent need to assess whether M is willing and able to accept the findings that I have made and to take steps to protect the children accordingly.  I have not heard evidence about the children’s current welfare in her care, or about whether M is currently meeting their needs to a good enough standard. The focus of this enquiry has been solely in respect of the findings I have been asked to make.  I require an interim assessment from the LA and an interim report from CG to now address this issue so that the Court can determine whether the three youngest children are safe in M’s care pending the final hearing. 

208.	I give permission for SM and DF to be informed of the findings that I have made in respect of the sexual and physical abuse that they have suffered and for them to be permitted to read those parts of the judgment that deal with their evidence and the findings that I have made, based upon the evidence that they gave.  For far too long they have been treated as untruthful complainants.  They deserve to know that their evidence has been believed.  I commend them for the bravery that they have shown in agreeing to give evidence once again about the terrible abuse that they suffered.  Other children within the family can now be protected from suffering abuse as a consequence of the evidence that they gave.