Neutral Citation Number: [2025] EWFC 146 (B)
Case Number: RG24C50148
IN THE FAMILY COURT AT SLOUGH
The Law Courts
Windsor Road
Slough
SL1 2HE
Date: 29 May 2025
Before
HIS HONOUR JUDGE RICHARD CASE
Re C (Risk of Sexual Harm)
Between
SLOUGH CHILDREN FIRST
Applicant
and
MOTHER (1)
FATHER (2)
C (THE CHILD) (3)
Respondents
Representation
For the Applicant:
Bibi Badejo, counsel instructed by the Applicant Local Authority
For the Respondents:
Janet Mitchell, counsel instructed by the First Respondent Mother
Paul Murray, counsel instructed by the Second Respondent Father
Alice Darian, counsel instructed by the Third Respondent child by the Child's Guardian, Nandi Sutherland
Hearing dates: 16, 19-22 and 27-29 May 2025
JUDGMENT APPROVED
This judgment was handed down at a hearing listed at 3pm on 29 May 2025.
Contents
Current living arrangement. 12
3: Denial of accuracy of finding 1. 21
4: Sexual abuse of 19 year old woman. 21
6: M does not accept F is a potential risk of sexual harm.. 22
8: M believes sexual abuse of C by F would never happen. 22
2: C likely to suffer significant harm as a result of finding 1. 24
5: F has shown no accountability or remorse. 25
7: M has failed to engage in work to keep C safe. 26
9: M struggled to answer if she would believe an allegation by C. 27
10: F believes a child can be at fault for sexual abuse and rape cannot occur in marriage. 28
11: F attended family home after findings made against him.. 30
Physical, emotional, educational needs and age, sex and background. 50
Capability of parents: Father. 51
Capability of parents: Mother. 53
Capability of others: Maternal Aunt and Uncle. 59
Any harm suffered or at risk of suffering. 61
Likely effect of change in circumstances. 62
Holistic balancing exercise. 65
Realistic Option 1: No order or Supervision Order. 65
Realistic Option 2: Care order at home. 65
Realistic Option 3: Care Order with long term foster care. 65
1) On 24 December 2021, the court made a series of findings including that Father sexually assaulted A on multiple occasions since A was about 9 years old when she was alone in the family home and/ or when Mother was present. Mother's failure to respond to A's calls for help, regardless of the state of her knowledge as to what was going on, are in themselves sufficient to justify a finding of failure to meet A's emotional needs and failure to protect.
2) The court found C was likely to suffer significant harm as a result of Father's sexual abuse towards his older sister.
3) Father and Mother accept that the court made findings against them as in 1, but they deny the truth of the court's findings.
4) Father and Mother accept Father was convicted of a serious sexual assault of a 19-year-old woman in 2013 but dispute the conviction. Father received a 2-year custodial sentence on 6 June 2014, for a sexual assault against a 19-year-old female. Father was placed on the Sex Offending Register for 10 years.
Mother does not accept and cannot identify that Father presents a potential risk of sexual harm.
5) Father has shown no accountability or remorse for his actions.
6) Mother believes that sexual abuse would never be caused to C by Father despite knowledge of Father's conviction and the findings made against him.
7) Mother failed to discuss and fully engage in sexual abuse work which includes considering how she would identify or keep C safe from the risk of sexual harm from Father, extended family or the community.
8) Mother believes that sexual abuse would never be caused to C by Father despite knowledge of Father's conviction and the findings made against him.
9) Mother struggled to answer whether she would believe C if he expressed concern of inappropriate touch or sexual abuse, stating, 'It will never happen, and I will always be with him'.
10) Father told a social worker it can be a child's fault if they are sexually abused.
11) In October 2023 the Father was present in the Mother's home and on numerous occasions between 29 May 2024 and 5 January 2025 the Father visited the Mother's home. The parents have lied when they have denied this.
4.1 C and his two siblings, A and B, were the subject of care proceedings commencing on 23 March 2021 [RG21C00415]. Proceedings were issued further to allegations made by A that the father had sexually abused her since she was approximately 9 years old.
4.2 A fact-finding hearing took place and a number of findings were made against the parents [J51-70], including that the father had sexually assaulted A on multiple occasions, and the mother failed to respond to A's calls for help. The Court found neglect of A's emotional needs and a failure to protect.
4.3 The father was convicted in 2013 for sexual assault against a 19-year-old female, which occurred during his work as a taxi driver. The father received a 24-month custodial sentence and was placed on the sex offending register until 2024. The court also found that the father did not accept responsibility for this conviction.
4.4 At the conclusion of the proceedings on 26 October 2022, Final Care Orders were made in respect of A and B with a care plan for them to remain in foster care. A detailed pathway to reassessment plan was filed as part of the local authority's final evidence with the aim of ensuring the safety of C and his siblings, and to allow for further assessment of the mother to consider the rehabilitation of B to her care [J289-306].
4.5 A 12-month Supervision Order was also made in respect of C.
4.6 After the conclusion of previous proceedings, the local authority remained involved with the family. Donna Price, ISW, was commissioned to undertake a bespoke piece of work with the mother which included tailored sexual harm work to address the concerns raised within the fact-finding judgment and the assessments undertaken of her within the proceedings [F1-18]. Ms Price details that the mother was either not able or willing to participate effectively with the adapted programme of work offered.
4.7 In October 2023, B's foster carer advised the local authority that B stated he had visited his parents at the family home with C, which would have been in direct breach of the written agreement in place preventing the father from having any unsupervised contact with the children. The parents denied the allegation, and B later stated he had seen his mother on a few occasions but not his father. Considering this, the local authority sought for the parents to sign an updated contract of expectations on 12.12.23; however, the parents initially refused. Due to the escalating concerns, the matter progressed to an ICPC on 18 January 2024.
[J81-82]
35. Threshold has been met in accordance with HHJ Marshall's judgment dated 15 December 2021:
[B161]
98. Finally I turn to consider the specific findings sought and remind myself of the need to ensure that the facts found justify the threshold findings.
99. I have no difficulty in finding that the LA has proved that A was suffering significant harm at the relevant date. There is no evidence that B or C were suffering such harm, but I am satisfied that the LA has established that they were likely to as a result of F's inappropriate actions towards A.
100. Allegations 1 - 4 I find made out on the basis of my findings. The allegations based on M's knowledge of F's inappropriate sexual behaviour are not made out, however I do find that her failure to respond to A's calls for help, regardless of the state of her knowledge as to what was going on, are in themselves sufficient to justify a finding of neglect of A's emotional needs and failure to protect.
36. The reference to allegations 1-4 being a reference to the final threshold:
[A81-82]
1. F has caused actual and/or likely sexual and/or emotional harm to children. For example (but not limited to):
a. F sexually assaulted A, a child, on multiple occasions since she was about 9 years old when she was alone in the family home and/or when B was present, including (but not limited to) –
i. inappropriately touching her on her chest and/or her breasts (under and over her clothing) I132, I88; and/or
ii. inappropriately squeezing her breasts over her clothing I89; and/or
iii. inappropriately touching her on her genital area I132, I88; and/or
iv. inappropriately kissed her on the mouth I88; and/or
v. digital penetration of her vagina I89; and/or
vi. using inappropriately sexualised language to her I89; and/or
vii. inappropriately feeling her vagina and/or genital area to see if she was wearing sanitary pads I89
b. Such behaviour by F was sexually and/or emotionally inappropriate.
c. Such sexually and/or emotionally inappropriate behaviour by F caused actual significant physical, sexual and/or emotional harm and/or was likely to cause such harm and distress to A.
d. Such sexually and/or emotionally inappropriate behaviour by F towards A in the family home and/or in the presence of B was likely to cause significant emotional harm to B.
e. Such sexually and/or emotionally inappropriate behaviour by F towards A in the family home was likely to cause significant emotional harm to C.
2. Despite his conviction for serious sexual assault on a 19 year old woman in 2013, for which he received a custodial sentence of 24 months and his name being placed on the Sex Offenders Register until 2024, F does not accept responsibility for his criminal behaviour I16, C54
3. M knew of and was aware of the fact and circumstances of F's criminal conviction F5, F31/F33
4. M knew and was aware of the fact that F does not accept responsibility for his criminal conviction F33, C13, E34, E44
[J92]
82. I am satisfied it is necessary and proportionate to make a Supervision Order for 12 months, it will allow time for the Mother to engage in the Pathway to Re-Assessment, her compliance with a working agreement can be assessed and her development of capacity reviewed, if necessary an application can be made to extend the duration of the order.
83. I have considered if I should make no order but reject this option on the basis that there are
evidenced weaknesses in Mother's care of C both in terms of the risk of emotional harm given her views of Father's culpability but also her ability to provide adequate stimulation and recognise his needs. I mean no criticism of the Mother as I suspect those shortcomings arise from her cognitive difficulties but they still need addressing.
84. In terms of duration any shorter period would provide inadequate protection given the work
proposed in the Pathway to Re-Assessment and the need for a further assessment of the Mother at around 6 months.
4.8 The local authority initiated the pre-proceedings process on 7 March 2024. During the course of previous proceedings, the mother had a number of cognitive assessments and had the benefit of an advocate. As a result the local authority sought an updated assessment of her during the pre-proceedings. Farah Fairweather, Occupational Psychologist, assessed the mother and provided her report on 28 March 2024 [AA27-43]. It was assessed that the mother's IQ was within the 'Extremely Low range' and ranked on the 0.5th percentile. The mother's FSIQ of 61 meets the threshold for having a global impairment of intellectual functioning.
4.9 As a result of the mother's cognition, the local authority instructed lay advocate Pauline Foy to support her with meetings, and an ISW was instructed to undertake a Parent Assess-framed parenting assessment.
4.10 Prior to the completion of the parenting assessment a risk assessment was undertaken of the father as he sought an increase to his contact [AA44-59]. The risk assessment highlights the father's continued denial in relation to his conviction and the findings made against him. The father is also recorded to have shared concerning perspectives of child sexual abuse, whereby he believes it can be a child's fault if they are sexually abused. The outcome of the assessment was that an increase in contact may have a negative effect on C causing him emotional harm and therefore the father's contact with him has remained at once per fortnight supervised by the local authority.
4.11 Blossom Francis, ISW, undertook the mother's parenting assessment [AA87-AA117]. Ms Francis highlighted the mother's complete denial of the father's conviction and the allegations made by their daughter against him and her refusal to explore these further or engage in an intervention to support her learning something which has been the concern of the local authority since the previous proceedings. Ms Francis assessed that the mother is able to meet C's needs to a satisfactory standard with support from her family members, however, there are concerns as to her ability to anticipate and respond to C's evolving needs in the future and to safeguard him from potential risks. Ms Francis recommended that the local authority formulate a long-term plan for C's safety and care.
4.12 The local authority tried to provide support and teaching to the mother in order to improve her knowledge and understanding of sexual harm however the mother's complete denial of the father's conviction and findings, alongside her failure to fully engage with any work provided has meant that the situation has not changed since final orders were made in 2022.
4.13 Alongside this, there are concerns that the mother's cognitive ability will limit her ability to meet C's evolving needs as he grows older. The local authority submit that C is at risk of long-term neglect, emotional and sexual harm whilst in the care of his mother. As a result the LA issued a Section 31 application on 6 September 2024 and initially sought an Interim Care Order with a care plan of foster care for C [B1-8].
7.1 The court heard and granted the local authority's application for permission to instruct Evidence Matters to undertake a forensic phone analysis of the parents' mobile phones ("relevant phones") on 28 March 2025. At the hearing, the parents each agreed to provide their mobile phones to the allocated social worker on 2 April 2025.
7.2 The following was recited on CMO of 28 March 2025 [B160]:
1. The mother and the father agree to give their mobile phones to the allocated social worker on 2 April 2025 for analysis (SIM cards not required). The SIM card must remain in the phone until handover to the social worker, who will ensure that the process advised by Evidence Matters to remove the SIM is followed.
2. The local authority is seeking funding to provide the parents with replacement phones until their own phones can be returned to them. The local authority will seek return of the phones from Evidence Matters as soon as possible after the download.
7.3 The social worker initially arranged to collect the parents' phones on 2 April 2025. The social worker subsequently agreed to collect the phones on 3 April as the replacement phones ordered by the LA were not available until this date. Neither had their relevant phone: the father claimed his phone was stolen from his car on 30 March 2025 and the mother stated that she was given a new phone for Eid (29-30 March 2025) and had therefore removed her sim card, placing the same in a new phone. A police report in respect of the father's alleged stolen phone is at [H64-65].
7.4 Evidence Matters received the new telephones of both the mother and the father and warned that following an initial review, the handset may have been factory reset so a forensic examination may give us the date it was wiped.
7.5 The LA also sought an amendment to the forensic analysis to include analysis of the parent's network call data records and colocation report to determine whether father has been to the family home. This was granted on 11 April 2025. The court made disclosure orders against Three and O2 in order to disclose the parents telephone records which would then be sent to evidence matters to conclude their report. The order to O2 was later amended under the slip rule to EE as the recipient of the disclosure order.
a) Reanna Burns, social worker, co-author of Father's risk assessment;
b) Blossom Francis, independent social worker, author of the parenting assessment of Mother;
c) Maria Riaz, social worker, co-author of Father's risk assessment and C's former social worker;
d) Anakolo Otshudi, C's current social worker;
e) Maternal uncle;
f) Maternal aunt;
g) Mother;
h) Father; and
i) Nandi Sutherland, the Guardian.
(2) A court may only make a care order or supervision order if it is satisfied –
(a) that the child concerned is suffering, or is likely to suffer, significant harm; and
(b) that the harm, or likelihood of harm, is attributable to –
(i) the care given to the child, or likely to be given to him if the order were not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give to him; or
(ii) the child's being beyond parental control.
"...society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done."
20. ...The principles are conveniently set out in the judgment of Baker J in Re L and M (Children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam), to which I was taken. So far as material for present purposes what Baker J said (and I respectfully agree) was this:
"First, the burden of proof lies at all times with the local authority.
Secondly, the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.
Third, findings of fact in these cases must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation ...
Fourthly, when considering cases of suspected child abuse the court must take into account all the evidence and furthermore consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. The court invariably surveys a wide canvas. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof.
...
Seventh, the evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability.
Eighth, it is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 )." [I address this further below]
21. To this admirable summary I add three further points.
22. First, that the legal concept of proof on a balance of probabilities "must be applied with common sense", as Lord Brandon of Oakbrook said in The Popi M, Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Edmunds , Rhesa Shipping Co SA v Fenton Insurance Co Ltd [1985] 1 WLR 948, 956.
23. Secondly, that the court can have regard to the inherent probabilities: see Lady Hale in In re B (Children) (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) (CAFCASS intervening) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC 11, para 31. But this does not affect the legal standard of proof, as Lord Hoffmann emphasised in the same case (para 15):
"There is only one rule of law, namely that the occurrence of the fact in issue must be proved to have been more probable than not. Common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question, regard should be had, to whatever extent appropriate, to inherent probabilities. If a child alleges sexual abuse by a parent, it is common sense to start with the assumption that most parents do not abuse their children. But this assumption may be swiftly dispelled by other compelling evidence of the relationship between parent and child or parent and other children. It would be absurd to suggest that the tribunal must in all cases assume that serious conduct is unlikely to have occurred. In many cases, the other evidence will show that it was all too likely."
24. Thirdly, that the fact, if fact it be, that the respondent ... fails to prove on a balance of probabilities an affirmative case that she has chosen to set up by way of defence, does not of itself establish the local authority's case. As His Honour Judge Clifford Bellamy recently said in Re FM (A Child: fractures: bone density) [2015] EWFC B26, para 122, and I respectfully agree:
"It is the local authority that seeks a finding that FM's injuries are non-accidental. It is for the local authority to prove its case. It is not for the mother to disprove it. In particular it is not for the mother to disprove it by proving how the injuries were in fact sustained. Neither is it for the court to determine how the injuries were sustained. The court's task is to determine whether the local authority has proved its case on the balance of probability. Where, as here, there is a degree of medical uncertainty and credible evidence of a possible alternative explanation to that contended for by the local authority, the question for the court is not 'has that possible alternative explanation been proved' but rather it should ask itself, 'in the light of that possible alternative explanation can the court be satisfied that the local authority has proved its case on the simple balance of probability'."
14. Parties should understand that the court's approach to witness evidence based on human memory will be in accordance with CPR PD 57AC, Appendix para 1.3.
This states that human memory:
a. is not a simple mental record of a witnessed event that is fixed at the time of the experience and fades over time, but
b. is a fluid and malleable state of perception concerning an individual's past experiences, and therefore
c. is vulnerable to being altered by a range of influences, such that the individual may or may not be conscious of the alteration.
9. To these matters I would only add that in cases where repeated accounts are given of events surrounding injury and death the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of any reported discrepancies. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is of course that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record keeping or recollection of the person hearing and relaying the account. The possible effects of delay and questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one person of hearing accounts given by others. As memory fades, a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural - a process which might inelegantly be described as "story creep" - may occur without any inference of bad faith.
25. No judge would consider it proper to reach a conclusion about a witness's credibility based solely on the way that he or she gives evidence, at least in any normal circumstances. The ordinary process of reasoning will draw the judge to consider a number of other matters, such as the consistency of the account with known facts, with previous accounts given by the witness, with other evidence, and with the overall probabilities. However, in a case where the facts are not likely to be primarily found in contemporaneous documents the assessment of credibility can quite properly include the impression made upon the court by the witness, with due allowance being made for the pressures that may arise from the process of giving evidence. Indeed in family cases, where the question is not only 'what happened in the past?' but also 'what may happen in the future?', a witness's demeanour may offer important information to the court about what sort of a person the witness truly is, and consequently whether an account of past events or future intentions is likely to be reliable.
26. I therefore respectfully agree with what Macur LJ said in Re M (Children) at [12], with emphasis on the word 'solely':
"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."
...
28...There will be cases where the manner in which evidence is given about such personal matters will properly assume prominence. As Munby LJ said in Re A (A Child) (No. 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 12 said at [104] in a passage described by the Judge as of considerable assistance in the present case:
"Any judge who has had to conduct a fact-finding hearing such as this is likely to have had experience of a witness - as here a woman deposing to serious domestic violence and grave sexual abuse - whose evidence, although shot through with unreliability as to details, with gross exaggeration and even with lies, is nonetheless compelling and convincing as to the central core... Yet through all the lies, as experience teaches, one may nonetheless be left with a powerful conviction that on the essentials the witness is telling the truth, perhaps because of the way in which she gives her evidence, perhaps because of a number of small points which, although trivial in themselves, nonetheless suddenly illuminate the underlying realities."
29. Still further, demeanour is likely to be of real importance when the court is assessing the recorded interviews or live evidence of children. Here, it is not only entitled but expected to consider the child's demeanour as part of the process of assessing credibility, and the accumulated experience of listening to children's accounts sensitises the decision-maker to the many indicators of sound and unsound allegations.
Hearsay evidence is admissible as a matter of law, but...this evidence and use to which it is put has to be handled with the greatest care and in such a way that, unless the interest of the child make it necessary, the rules of natural justice and the rights of the parents are fully and properly observed.
In considering the extent to which, if at all, a judge would rely on the statements of a child made
to others, the age of the child, the context in which the statement was made, the surrounding circumstances, previous behaviour of the child, opportunities for the child to have knowledge from other sources, any knowledge, as in this case, of a child's predisposition to tell untruths or to fantasise, are among the relevant considerations.
The reliability of the person relating what the child said is of vital importance.
4 Considerations relevant to weighing of hearsay evidence.
(1) In estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings the court shall have regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence.
(2) Regard may be had, in particular, to the following—
(a) whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for the party by whom the evidence was adduced to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness;
(b) whether the original statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the matters stated;
(c) whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay;
(d) whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters;
(e) whether the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another or for a particular purpose;
(f) whether the circumstances in which the evidence is adduced as hearsay are such as to suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight.
54. That a witness's dishonesty may be irrelevant in determining an issue of fact is commonly acknowledged in judgments...in formulaic terms:
"that people lie for all sorts of reasons, including shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure and the fact that somebody lies about one thing does not mean it actually did or did not happen and/or that they have lied about everything".
But this formulation leaves open the question: how and when is a witness's lack of credibility to be factored into the equation of determining an issue of fact? In my view, the answer is provided by the terms of the entire 'Lucas' direction as given, when necessary, in criminal trials.
55. Chapter 16-3, paragraphs 1 and 2 of the December 2020 Crown Court Compendium, provides a useful legal summary:
"1. A defendant's lie, whether made before the trial or in the course of evidence or both, may be probative of guilt. A lie is only capable of supporting other evidence against D if the jury are sure that:
(1) it is shown, by other evidence in the case, to be a deliberate untruth; i.e. it did not arise from confusion or mistake;
(2) it relates to a significant issue;
(3) it was not told for a reason advanced by or on behalf of D, or for some other reason arising from the evidence, which does not point to D's guilt.
2. The direction should be tailored to the circumstances of the case, but the jury must be directed that only if they are sure that these criteria are satisfied can D's lie be used as some support for the prosecution case, but that the lie itself cannot prove guilt. ..."
12. Lies, however deplorable, are significant only to the extent that they affect the welfare of the child, and in particular to the extent that they undermine systems of protection designed to keep the child safe."
(1) What type of harm has arisen and might arise?
(2) How likely is it to arise?
(3) What would be the consequences for the child if it did?
(4) To what extent might the risks be reduced or managed?
(5) What other welfare considerations have to be taken into account?
(6) In consequence, which of the realistic plans best promotes the child's welfare?
(7) If the preferred plan involves interference with the Article 8 rights of the child or of others, is that necessary and proportionate?
The Local Authority alleges that:
On 24 December 2021, the court made a series of findings including that Father sexually assaulted A on multiple occasions since A was about 9 years old when she was alone in the family home and/ or when Mother was present. Mother's failure to respond to A's calls for help, regardless of the state of her knowledge as to what was going on, are in themselves sufficient to justify a finding of failure to meet A's emotional needs and failure to protect.
Father and Mother accept that the court made findings against them, but they deny the truth of the court's findings.
Father and Mother accept Father was convicted of a serious sexual assault of a 19-year-old woman in 2013 but dispute the conviction. Father received a 2-year custodial sentence on 6 June 2014, for a sexual assault against a 19-year-old female. Father was placed on the Sex Offending Register for 10 years.
Mother does not accept and cannot identify that Father presents a potential risk of sexual harm.
M believes that sexual abuse would never happen despite knowledge of F's conviction and the findings made against him.
Mother believes that sexual abuse would never be caused to C by Father despite knowledge of Father's conviction and the findings made against him.
The court found C was likely to suffer significant harm as a result of F's sexual abuse towards his older sister.
[J70]
99. I have no difficulty in finding that the LA has proved that A was suffering significant harm at the relevant date. There is no evidence that B or C were suffering such harm, but I am satisfied that the LA has established that they were likely to as a result of F's inappropriate actions towards A.
The court found C was likely to suffer significant harm as a result of Father's sexual abuse towards his older sister.
F has shown no accountability or remorse for his actions.
[AA56-57]
F denies committing any sexual offences and believes the Local Authority's involvement with his family is inhumane. F's lack of insight into his behaviour for which he has been convicted and had findings for is troubling. Not being able to take any accountability or show any remorse is very concerning, as it suggests he is unable to think about the impact of his victims, have empathy for others and ultimately cannot establish between appropriate and inappropriate behaviour.
Father has shown no accountability or remorse for his actions.
M failed to discuss and fully engage in sexual abuse work which includes considering how she would identify or keep C safe from the risk of sexual harm from F, extended family or the community.
[AA91/6]
However, there are significant concerns too especially M's complete denial of F's conviction and allegations made by A, M's refusal to explore these further or engage in an intervention to support her learning...
[AA92/7]
While I believe that M has the capacity to participate in an intervention designed to support her learning, there is denial and lack of motivation to do so...
[AA97/31]
M was able to differentiate between scenarios presented to her about what could be appropriate touch and what could be considered inappropriate touch or sexual abuse when these were about some fictional children and families. However, she shut down as soon as there was any discussion about how she would identify or keep C safe in future from any possible risk of sexual harm. She immediately reverted to her narrative that her husband would not do anything like that. M was not open to discussing any risk of sexual abuse for C whether from F or anyone in the extended family or community. She asked me to move onto another topic or [said] that no one in the family would do anything to C.
[AA99/38]
I tried to approach the aspect of sexual abuse at various points in the assessment with the use of case scenarios, pictures, etc. However, M shut down each time asking me to talk about something else or reverted to her narrative.
[AA99/40]
I was both amazed and alarmed by the frequency with which M repeated her narrative, even without prompting, from the very first session. Even when we shifted to completely different topics, M would revert to reiterating her position. Other professionals have also noted similar observations. It appeared as though she has conditioned her mind through constant repetition of her narrative, leaving little room to explore other scenarios or possibilities.
[C7]
Ms Price detailed that M was either not able or willing to participate effectively with the adapted programme of work offered. It was anticipated that there would be 12 sessions of direct work with M, however only 4 sessions took place.
Mother failed to discuss and fully engage in sexual abuse work which includes considering how she would identify or keep C safe from the risk of sexual harm from Father, extended family or the community.
M struggled to answer whether she would believe C if he expressed concern of inappropriate touch or sexual abuse, stating, 'It will never happen, and I will always be with him'.
[AA108]
M struggled to answer the question about whether she would believe C if he was expressing his feelings now or in future especially if it was about any concern of inappropriate touch or sexual abuse. She was unable to move on from 'it will never happen and I will always be with him'.
Mother struggled to answer whether she would believe C if he expressed concern of inappropriate touch or sexual abuse, stating, 'It will never happen, and I will always be with him'.
During his risk assessment, F stated that:
a) it can be a child's fault if they are sexually abused and
b) Rape cannot occur within marriage.
[AA54]
He also believes that only a married male and female can have sex and when asked if a husband should seek consent from his wife, F said "no they are married". He clarified, things are different in his culture, compared to mine (White British).
During the sexual abuse session conducted on 10.05.2024, I asked F whether he thought it could ever be a child's fault if they are sexually abused. F was very clear in his view that it can be a child's fault that they are sexually abused. When challenged, F said he respects my viewpoint that it is never a child's fault, and he said it is more often the adult's fault, however he does not agree with me, because children can also be at fault. He explained, children today are heavily influenced by the internet and social media, and therefore they know what they can do with their bodies.
JQ You say it can sometimes be a child's fault if sexually abused. Is that your view A I said children can make mistake JQ Is that your view, sometimes it can be a child's fault if they are sexually abused A Since I found out that under, children under age of 16 I would say they can't be at fault, I have been given this information by [Ms Burns] JQ Is it your view that sometimes a child can be at fault if they are sexually abused A If it's adult sexually abusing? JQ Yes A From the knowledge I have now I can say they can not be Q Did you tell Ms Burns they could be at fault A Yes I did say the child could be a mistake JQ I said at fault not mistake A No, child cannot be at fault but there can be a mistake JQ By whom A By child |
Father told a social worker it can be a child's fault if they are sexually abused.
Between the conclusion of the previous proceedings on 26 October 2022 and February 2025, and on more than two occasions, F attended the family home and M permitted unauthorised and unsupervised contact between C and his father in breach of written agreements. For instance in or before October 2023, when B visited the parents and C at the family home.
[J71-2]
1. M must make sure that there is no face to face or virtual contact (eg FaceTime/Zoom/MS Team) between C and F except for each Sunday between 10am and 11am. M must supervise that contact. The social worker may request to observe that contact as part of their work under the Supervision Plan.
2. M must not allow F to see or speak to C outside of the contact centre and unless that is agreed by Social Care/C's social worker.
3. M must immediately tell Social Care (by using the contact details below) if F has asked her to allow unsupervised contact with C
4. M must tell F to leave immediately if he comes to the home address, school or a family members home if C is present. If F refuses to leave, M must tell Social Care on the contact details below.
...
6. M must not permit F to enter the home at all.
...
11.. F must not attend the family home when C is there or any of the children's school address when A, B and/or C are there.
12. F's contact is to only take place in the contact centre unless the venue is changed by agreement with Social Care.
[F20]
[] shared the following:
-I found out from B that he has been lying about seeing cousins, instead he went to see his birth parents on 8th October around 12:00 or 13:00 and came back to placement around 5/6 pm and 15th October 2023, he left placement around 12:00 and came back around 18:30.
-On 8th October, he came back looking lost and was not giving eye contact to his carers. shared that she though something was not right with B.
-Carer called [] as B told foster carer that he was with him. However, [] said he has not seen B in a while.
...
-Carer shared that she gave him money (£15) on 8th October and additional money (£6); B shared with carer that he has given the money to mum.
-B has been travelling to Slough to visit birth family by Train using Oyster card.
-B is seeing his parents at mums house in [], dad is also present and C.
[F25-6]
B disclosed that he had been visiting his mothers home the days he had been out with []. He said his cousin would come to get him and they would go on the train. I asked what they would do. He said his Mum, Dad and C would be home together. He said they eat together. He was stuttering a lot while speaking.
B reported that he had been giving the cash to his mother.
B has started to open up a bit more about what happened at home. He said that he would
spend time with his Mum, Dad and C. His cousin would help him travel back and fourth [sic].
He looked really guilty and upset, he has apologised for lying many times.
[F22]
B expressed that when he visited his mum's home in Slough, he only met with "Mum, C and stated that "my dad was not there".
[G1-2]
1. M must make sure that there is no face to face or virtual contact (eg FaceTime/Zoom/MS Team) between C and F except for each Sunday between 4pm to 5pm. M must supervise that contact. The social worker may request to observe that contact.
2. M must not allow F to see or speak to C outside of the contact centre and unless that is agreed by Social Care/C's social worker.
3. M must immediately tell Social Care (by using the contact details below) if F has asked her to allow unsupervised contact with C
4. M must tell F to leave immediately if he comes to the home address, school or a family members home if C is present. If F refuses to leave, M must tell Social Care on the contact details below.
...
6. M must not permit F to enter the home at all.
...
12. F must not attend the family home when C is there or any of the children's school address when A, B and/or C are there.
13. F's contact is to only take place in the contact centre unless the venue is changed by agreement with Social Care.
M had said F was in Pakistan at the time and her brother had taken his car and parked it outside her house while he was away. M was argumentative when asked various questions. F shared that he parked his car[] there as where he lives, it is not safe for him to park.
a) The incident was in February 2025 or in 2024;
b) The car was parked at Mother's and moved to Maternal Uncle's or the car was parked at the Maternal Uncle's and moved to the Mother's and then back;
c) The keys were posted through the Mother's letterbox or the keys were posted through the Maternal Uncle's; and
d) The Maternal Uncle asked the Father about parking or he did not.
Q Yesterday Maternal Uncle told the judge that F had parked his car in the parking bay before he went to Pakistan, is that true A No Q Has he ever A He hasn't parked his car in the parking bay since separating; no-one else has |
Q Now I've read that to you does it help you remember a time when F's car was parked outside your house in the parking bay A When he goes to Pakistan he parks at my brother's and dropped keys and no space there so Maternal Uncle brought to me Social worker saw it, I called my brother and he drove it back JQ A moment ago you said no-one else had parked it there A I couldn't understand the question My brother brought the car there |
Q During the period you were visiting you didn't see anything that would suggest Father was living in the home A That is correct JQ Was there anything to suggest he was visiting A Occasions when Mother took too long to answer the door and came down being flustered but no evidence of Father being in the home, I recall on one occasion I needed to look into the back garden, she had taken way too long to answer and she was flustered and I asked to see all rooms and back garden but I couldn't see anything |
[F29]
At a child protection home appointment on 30 January 2025, C was asked to draw a picture of his family. He drew his mum, himself and his dad. When asked who lives in his house he shared that his mum, dad, himself and his picacho (toy) lives in his house. C spends time with his father and older siblings on a bi-weekly basis in a supervised contact centre. It is unclear whether C is indicating that there have been further breaches of the working together agreement.
In the living room, I asked C to draw a picture of his family. He drew his mum first, himself and then his dad. I asked who lives in his house he shared that his mum, dad, me and picacho (toy) lives in his house. I asked the question again and you repeated the same thing. I asked where does your dad sleep and you said Dad sleep in the house, Dad sleep everywhere...Your mum came in saying that you enjoy the time you spend with your dad and I said that C also enjoys spending time with his brother and sister but did not include his brother and sister in his drawing and he did not say that he lives with his brother and sister.
[C158]
At a child protection home appointment on 03 October 2024, I the drew a house with windows and a front door and C said "house". I asked whether he lives in a house and he nodded. I asked who he lives in his house and C said "mum and C". I then asked who visits him and mummy in his house and C shared that "[friends/cousin] and my toys" visits his home.
[F33]
Discussion with M on CP Visit 6/02/2025
I shared that i was worried that C said that his father lives with him. M said "he's a little kid, my husband does not live here, he's a little kid, its only me and him".
...
I looked around the home and there was no one at the home other than C and M. There were two adult toothbrushes in the bathroom beside the living room. M said that the second toothbrush was C's, I asked why C would have an adult toothbrush, then M said that she had ordered a child's toothbrush and she was going to throw away the second adult toothbrush which she then removed from the bathroom.
[C180/24]
There was an adult toothbrush for C as he needed a new toothbrush. I ordered him a new child's toothbrush. At home, I already had a packet of toothbrushes. I gave him one from the packet until his child toothbrush came through. His child toothbrush came on 7 February 2025.
7.1 The court heard and granted the local authority's application for permission to instruct Evidence Matters to undertake a forensic phone analysis of the parents' mobile phones ("relevant phones") on 28 March 2025. At the hearing, the parents each agreed to provide their mobile phones to the allocated social worker on 2 April 2025.
7.2 The following was recited on CMO of 28 March 2025 [B160]:
1. The mother and the father agree to give their mobile phones to the allocated social worker on 2 April 2025 for analysis (SIM cards not required). The SIM card must remain in the phone until handover to the social worker, who will ensure that the process advised by Evidence Matters to remove the SIM is followed.
2. The local authority is seeking funding to provide the parents with replacement phones until their own phones can be returned to them. The local authority will seek return of the phones from Evidence Matters as soon as possible after the download.
7.3 The social worker initially arranged to collect the parents' phones on 2 April 2025. The social worker subsequently agreed to collect the phones on 3 April as the replacement phones ordered by the LA were not available until this date. Neither had their relevant phone: the father claimed his phone was stolen from his car on 30 March 2025 and the mother stated that she was given a new phone for Eid (29-30 March 2025) and had therefore removed her sim card, placing the same in a new phone. A police report in respect of the father's alleged stolen phone is at [H64-65].
[F37]
Meeting with F:
...
I asked F whether he could show me that his apps were open and he showed that his facebook and whatsapp was open. I asked how long he had his mobile phone for and he explained that he has had his phone since Sunday 30th March 2025. He explained that he went out for a meal and his phone was on charge in his car. He mistakenly left the car window open and the phone was stolen. He filed a police report with Thames Valley Police...
...
Home visit to C:
...
Your mummy shared that she was well. I asked your mummy if i could check that her phone apps were open and she explained that for Eid your uncle [] brought her a mobile phone and that she has taken out her sim card from her old phone and placed this into her new phone.
I asked why she changed phones when she knew that i would be providing her with a replacement phone and your mummy said that " i need my phone, my son goes to school, if there is an emergency, i need my phone on me".
[C210-211]
I have never done factory resetting on my phone. I don't even know how to do that. I did a smart switch on 01/04/2025 to copy data from my Samsung Galaxy S22 Plus phone to the Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra phone which I'm using temporarily. This was to give me access to important apps/data such as my contacts, banking, emails etc.
I am using a phone given to me by my brother, []. This is a Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra. The smart switching transfers a copy of what was on my phone to the new phone. It does not delete anything it only transfers a copy.
5. I was waiting to hear from the social worker about them giving me another phone as was discussed at court. Ana did not tell me until Wednesday after the hearing that she could get me another phone. By that time, my brother had already given me another phone to use.
Q There was discussion at court before the phone was handed over about her brother providing her with an alternative phone and she had had a discussion with you about that and indicated to you she'd give you her phone and he would give her one for Eid, that's what was discussed at court A Absolutely not as I wouldn't have endeavoured to seek funding for another phone if M had said that |
[B160]
3. The local authority is seeking funding to provide the parents with replacement phones until their own phones can be returned to them. The local authority will seek return of the phones from Evidence Matters as soon as possible after the download.
[E70]
10.11. Based on instances of mast activations, within 500m and within five (5) minutes for voice calls, text messages and data sessions, I have identified just twelve (12) instances of potential colocation on two (2) separate dates; one of which is the [] Hospital mast on 9th December 2024.
[E59]
9.4. The red arrows are a pictorial indication of the direction of cell service for those cells likely to provide a service at or around [M's address] and are not an accurate measurement of the extent of the service. It should be remembered that the phones could be at [M's address] whilst connected to these cells, but they could also be at any other location served by the cells, either together or separately. This is not evidence that one or both phones are at [M's address].
9.5. MAP 2 shows all the masts connected to by the phone for [M's phone] between 09:29 on 23rd April 2024 and 12:24 on 5th March 2025.
9.6. MAP 3 shows the same call data records as a 'heat map' with the most used mast shown in red. This shows that the most used mast for [M's phone] is (4G) [location identifier A given].
9.7. MAP 4 shows all the masts connected to by the phone for [F's phone] between 17:24 on 12th May 2024 to 23:42 on 6th March 2025.
9.8. MAP 5 shows the same call data records as a 'heat map' with the most used mast shown in red. This shows that the most used mast for [F's phone] is OPPOSITE [address given]. This mast is south of the M4 and would not provide a service at or close to [M's address].
9.9. I identified two hundred and eighty eight (288) billing events where [F's phone] is using either the (4G) [location identifier A given] and [location identifier B given] or the [location identifier C given] masts which could provide a service at or to the mother's address in [M's address]. I produce a schedule of these as exhibit SV/25149/02.
9.10. This is not evidence that the [F's phone] is at the mother's address and the phone could be in any other location served by the masts, however it does not preclude the possibility that it is.
[E71]
10.15. It is equally possible that there are other times when the two phones could be together but simply aren't being used within the five (5) minute window used for the colocation query.
a) The Father's device having gone into range and generated a billing event may have then gone out and back in to range of the cell sites rather than staying in there continuously although a more granular analysis (see below) can rule out those occasions; and
b) There is no evidence of the coverage of the relevant cell sites so no very good analysis can be made of whether the Father had reason to be within range other than visiting the Mother's home.
a) 116 days within the period 16 May 2024 to 23 February 2025 when the Father's phone was in range;
b) Some of the durations are quite lengthy some in excess of 10 hours;
c) Many are at weekends; and
d) There is some evidence of being in range soon after a social work visit.
Date |
Social work visit time |
F's phone first connected to cell site |
Page reference |
16/7/24 |
17.00 |
21.41 |
[E81] |
25/7/24 |
17.15 |
19.54 |
[E81] |
30/7/24 |
Not known |
20.32 |
[E81] |
23/9/24 |
17.30 |
18.49 |
[E82] |
3/10/24 |
15.45 |
18.15 |
[E83] |
31/10/24 |
14.30 |
20.11 |
[E83] |
2/1/25 |
15.15 |
19.15 |
[E85] |
a) Despite being the owner of the business he asserted he would do deliveries;
b) Yet he had two delivery drivers between them covering the delivery hours of the business from 5pm to 3am on Sunday to Thursday and 5pm to 4am on Friday and Saturday;
c) The business also offers delivery via Uber Eats, Just Eat and Deliveroo and they have their own delivery drivers;
d) Despite covering a wide geographic area there seem to be a large number of billing events in proximity to the Mother's home; and
e) He generally slept in on Sunday mornings as a rest day.
Date |
Connection start |
Connection end |
Page reference |
Comment |
29/5/24 |
09.21 |
21.21 |
[E80] |
A significant proportion of this 12 hour single data billing event is within non-delivery hours for the takeaway |
16/6/24 |
11.59 |
14.55 |
[E80] |
The entirety of this single data billing event is within non-delivery hours for the takeaway |
29/6/24 |
13.55 |
23.21 |
[E80] |
3 hours of this 9 hour single data billing event is within non-delivery hours for the takeaway |
28/7/24 |
09.01 |
20.59 |
[E81] |
A significant proportion of this 11 hour single data billing event is within non-delivery hours for the takeaway |
2/9/24 |
05.01 |
09.57 |
[E82] |
The entirety of this almost 5 hour single data billing event is within non-delivery hours for the takeaway |
16/9/24 |
18.01 |
20.53 |
[E82] |
Although this single data billing event is within delivery hours it is almost 3 hours which is not consistent with making even multi-drop deliveries |
15/10/24 |
23.38 |
11.35 (following day) |
[E83] |
A significant proportion of this almost 12 hour single data billing event is within non-delivery hours for the takeaway |
22/12/24 |
06.39 |
18.37 |
[E84] |
A significant proportion of this almost 12 hour single data billing event is within non-delivery hours for the takeaway |
25/12/24 |
02.43 |
04.48 |
[E85] |
Some of this 2 hour single data billing event is within non-delivery hours for the takeaway |
[E58]
8.2. I produce as exhibit SV/25149/01 a schedule of the communication between [M's phone] and [F's phone], [numbers given]. The colour of the 'event type' indicates which party call data records the event is within.
a) On 29 May 2024 at 10.28 the Mother called the Father whilst her phone was connected to one of the cell sites serving her home [E90];
b) On 16 June 2024 at 14.22 the Mother called the Father whilst her phone was connected to one of the cell sites serving her home [E92];
c) On 29 June 2024 at 14.01, 14.16, 14.58 and 17.05 the Mother called the Father whilst her phone was connected to one of the cell sites serving her home [E93];
d) On 28 July 2024 at 16.20 and 20.46 the Mother called the Father whilst her phone was connected to one of the cell sites serving her home [E95]; and
e) On 2 September 2024 at 09.29 (twice) the Mother called the Father whilst her phone was connected to one of the cell sites serving her home [E99].
a) As I found above, in October 2023 B accurately reported the Father was present in the Mother's home when B visited her;
b) On 27 December 2023 the Father sent a message to the Mother saying "I come 23.00" which I found was him telling her he was going to visit her home at that time;
c) The parents delayed signing the renewed written agreement between October 2023 and January 2024 without good explanation;
d) At various times between January 2024 and October 2024 the Mother delayed answering the door to social work visits;
e) C reported the Father living in the home on 30 January 2025;
f) The Mother has failed to give a credible explanation for the presence of two adult toothbrushes in the home on 6 February 2025;
g) The Father fabricated the explanation for the loss of his phone in April 2025; and
h) The Mother attempted to mislead the social worker about whether she met the Father at hospital on 9 December 2024.
In October 2023 the Father was present in the Mother's home and on numerous occasions between 29 May 2024 and 5 January 2025 the Father visited the Mother's home. The parents have lied when they have denied this.
[C155]
C has made limited improvement since he has been at [] Primary despite the marked improvement in his school attendance. Staff are not seeing any improvement in C's speech, language and communication. He still does not talk and is only able to use singular words to communicate at some points. He cannot read and the writing that is in his homework book has been copied, he is able to copy words but does not really comprehend what it means.
[J502/6.1.9]
There is no evidence that F poses a sexual risk to male children. Therefore, in terms of sexual risk, I am reasonably certain that F would continue to pose a sexual risk to A but does not appear to pose a sexual risk to B or C.
[J502/6.1.11]
F's denial of committing sexual violence also has emotionally harmful implications for B and when older, also for C. Both B and C will be exposed to the account adopted by F, that he did not sexually assault A (and was innocent of the conviction of sexual assault for which he was found guilty). This stance will emotionally harm the children as they will be asked to believe that
A has made false allegations against their father.
[J503/6.1.11]
It is also reasonable to consider that a parent who has sexually abused their child will have a number of psychological factors that could potentially present emotional and sexual risks to children in his care, even if these are not immediately evident.
[AA49]
SCF receive contact reports from the contact centre after each supervised session. It is positively noted that F is consistently attending and on time for sessions, and he engages with C and B in a warm, affectionate manner. It is important to note that play with C during contact is child-led as F's attempts at engaging C in activities is often sporadic and inconsistent. Furthermore, F is reported not to make much of an effort to correct C's behaviour when he is swearing or misbehaving.
...
F has also been observed by professionals supervising contact to have inappropriate conversations with his older son B, telling him to ask his social worker to speak to his grandparents in [], asking him to ask his sister A to come to contact.
[AA55]
I also asked F if he could think about potential emotional harm that C might have experienced because of the conflict and split within the family - with his older siblings going into foster care and no longer living in the home, along with his father no longer living at home. F said C is "happy" and "fine" at home and has "not been harmed". I attempted to prompt F to mentalise the children's experiences, but F was very dismissive again and said it is "not relevant".
[AA56]
Whilst C's behaviour is often observed to be slightly aggressive, it is a concern that unsupervised contact with his father may increase the prevalence of these behaviours, due to F's consistent unresponsiveness, as highlighted in contact reports. There is a worry that without professionals to step in to correct behaviour, C's aggressive behaviour would continue and potentially increase. I am also concerned that F would have inappropriate conversations with C also, as he grows older given the fact he has attempted this on multiple occasions with his son B, despite repeated reminders from staff around appropriate conversations to have with his children. Similarly to his brother B, C could be subject to emotional harm, with F placing pressure on him or trying to probe or coach him.
[AA57]
It is concerning that F seems to downplay the seriousness of the crime for which he has been sentenced and does not view himself as an offender. It is also concerning that F believes his crime and the aftermath of which is 'over' from June 2024.
...
Whist sexual harm work has been undertaken with F, any work is likely to be ineffective whilst he remains in denial...
[AA58]
Whilst it is noted that the allegations of sexual abuse have come from females only, and there has been no evidence of sexual harm towards B or C, it is my view that F would be an unsafe adult to be unsupervised around C because of his extremely troublesome ideas about child sexual abuse and rape.
[AA59]
I am concerned that increased contact may have a negative effect on C, causing him emotional harm, especially as he grows older and begins to understand more of what has happened. The denials, lack of mentalisation and insight into the impact of child sexual abuse, as well as the victim-blaming attitudes could be detrimental to C's emotional wellbeing and safety, as F is unable to identify risk and therefore safeguard appropriately.
[AA91/5]
There are certain positive aspects in M's current parenting such as providing a clean-living environment, a healthy diet, good enough basic routine, good school attendance, ability to seek medical advice, positive support from family members and positive, warm interactions between C and M.
[AA91/7]
M is currently able to meet C's needs to a satisfactory standard with support from her family members. However, I have concerns about her ability to anticipate and respond to C's evolving needs in the future and to safeguard him from potential risks.
[AA95/25]
I have noted positive interactions between M and C.
[AA93/15]
Unfortunately, M remains steadfast in her views in relation to the risk of sexual harm posed by F from what she had shared with Mr Ahmed (PAMS assessor) and Ms Donna Price (ISW). Mr Ahmed completed his assessment in May 2022 and Ms Price completed her safety planning with M in February 2023. M used same words and expressions that she had used with these experts whenever I approached the subject of sexual harm.
[AA94/16]
M does not accept any of the findings made against her husband. She has verbalised this repeatedly during this assessment that she knows her husband and he would not do anything like that.
[AA94/20]
M may be unable to acknowledge or consider the possibility of F being a sex offender due to the potential repercussions on the family dynamics within the extended family.
[AA96/30]
M was unable to consider any possible scenarios of harm or likelihood of harm in future. For example, M verbalised that she holds C's hand and supervises him in the community now but she was unable to understand or explore the possibility of how she will keep him safe when he is a teenager and he may not want to hold hands when in the community. M kept reverting to the sentence that she knows how to keep C safe. This in my view is a combination of her learning needs (difficulties with non-verbal reasoning and problem solving skills) as well as her determination to show professionals that she does not need any support.
[AA97/33]
I have observed that M struggles to stimulate two-way interaction with C during a game.
[AA98/36]
The most significant support and learning M requires is understanding sexual abuse, its impact upon a child and how to keep children safe from risk of sexual abuse. However, Ms Price was unable to complete this work and engage M fully with this work. Considering M has not made any progress in acknowledging any of the allegations made by A, I do not see any benefit in providing further support in this direction unless there is genuine commitment from M.
[AA101/51]
There is a factor that I believe impacts her ability to engage with professionals meaningfully. M has significant trust issues with professionals particularly with social workers. This in my view creates a barrier to positive working relationship and engagement. M perceives that professionals are against her or there to criticise her parenting causing her to present as 'on edge' or guarded which hinders open and meaningful communication.
[AA113]
M said that the only help she needs is around admin tasks such as reading letters or filling forms that her sister helps her with. However, I have observed that M called her sister a couple of times during my sessions to clarify some question that I was asking or that she misinterpreted what I was asking her.
[AA100/44]
It was apparent that M relied heavily upon her family members especially her sister and brother. She called her sister during some of my sessions to repeat the questions that I was asking. She even said a couple of times when discussing local authority concerns that she wanted her brother or sister to answer these questions. M's brother and father support her with appointments as she does not drive. F pays for all the bills and manages finances.
[AA100/45]
M is dependent on F and maintains regular contact with him, particularly concerning financial matters.
[AA112]
It is evident that M has always needed support from her parents and siblings due to her learning needs and they continue to offer her support. She struggled to talk about how she will adapt to meeting C's changing needs in future and that she will ask her family.
M is capable of managing her own and C's day-to-day basic care needs, including cooking, cleaning, school run and shopping. However, she seems emotionally and financially dependent on her husband.
[AA114]
M appears capable of performing basic household chores independently. However, she requires assistance from her family in areas such as managing money, filling out forms, traveling, and communicating with professionals.
[C11]
C is likely to suffer significant harm under the care of M which includes neglectful parenting, emotional harm and sexual harm due to the risks posed by F.
[C13]
Professionals have attempted to explore non-verbal communication with M in conversations, but she has not been able to understand, and has repeatedly reverted to her view that he will talk to her and she knows her son. It is my view that M would continue to struggle to understand her son and respond in an appropriate way, which will harm him emotionally.
[E20/23]
Many attempts have been made by various experienced professionals over a considerable period to explore these issues, all without any success. It must be accepted at this stage that there is very little prognosis for M to develop insight in this regard. This means that I do not consider she would be able to protect C of her own volition, and at best, this would need to be led and managed by the Local Authority on a long-term basis, with M complying because she effectively knows she needs to, to avoid C's removal.
[E21/24]
I do consider that she would be more able to accept any allegations made by C if they did not conflict with her own beliefs; i.e. she would respond more appropriately if C told her he had suffered abuse within school or from a stranger, than if he made an allegation related to family.
However, this does inevitably leave a deficit in C's safeguarding within his family and friends' network.
[C178/13]
I have help from my family when I need it. My sister, [] and brother [] help and support me generally and in meetings with professionals. They are good at explaining things to me. Sometimes, I find them better to understand than professionals and even the Lay Advocate. My sister and brother are used to how I speak and can understand me more than professionals. They help me with filling out forms if I do not understand them. I speak to them every day.
At the end of previous proceedings there were uncertainties about M's capacity to develop insight and more widely about her capacity to meet C's developing needs however I was mindful of the fact C had been in her care and there was a clear plan of work developed by the Local Authority and my position was there should be a robust assessment after that work, it felt appropriate for C to be given the opportunity to grow up in the care of M if she was able to engage in that work to protect him. We're some time on from that and no progress has been made in that area and I don't think there's a prospect of further progress and remain concerned about M's capacity to adapt her parenting as C's needs change.
[F17]
The strength of [the wider family's] assertions that F is innocent and poses no level of risk would need to shift exponentially before the support beyond that they already practically provide could encompass an understanding of what is required within the context of protecting these children [i.e. B and C] from sexual harm, or likelihood of the same.
[E17]
6. There has been no meaningful shift since the initial analysis was written, and indeed, since the fact finding hearing in the initial proceedings in 2021, in any of the involved adults' positions in respect of risk. F entirely refutes his conviction and the findings made against him. M maintains that her husband has not ever sexually abused anyone and poses no risk, and her family indicate that they do not believe F poses a risk of sexual harm, but that they are willing to abide by the Court's expectations and any safety plans.
7. Within this context, it remains impossible to properly explore the concerns with M, and scrutinise any of her assertions about being able to protect C. It is somewhat unclear to what extent these conversations are hindered by M's cognitive difficulties, and to what extent there is an emotional/psychological obstacle for her in engaging in these discussions.
8. Given this, and M's apparent lack of willingness or motivation to explore these issues, there remains significant concerns about how she could effectively safeguard C; primarily from the risk posed by his father but also in a wider context.
The relationship between C and M is close, but there is not the level of deep emotional engagement or connectiveness that you might see because I'm not sure C and certainly M have the capacity for those more complex and deeper rooted connections; I'm not sure the extent to which he tells her of his worries. That is a function of C's special needs and M's learning disability.
[E23/37]
Realistically, whether C remains in M's care or is moved into foster care, he will inevitably experience continued social care involvement long-term, if not for the remainder of his minority. This is a considerable intrusion into his life.
[E24/38]
There is also the risk of a further set of proceedings should concerns increase as he grows, and the more nuanced, complex aspects of parenting overtake the 'basic care' elements which M is more familiar with.
[E26/49]
I am clear that there could not be any assurance of long-term adherence to safety plans without the ongoing intervention of the Local Authority in the most significant way. A Supervision Order would be wholly insufficient; I cannot envisage a time when the Local Authority would feel confident in stepping away and allowing the risk to be managed within the family.
I think the fact that M's insight has not shifted is a significant block and it was anticipated that for example M increasing insight would enable B to return back home which was the plan at the time so the fact that there's been no progress is very significant because it highlights the same risks then are present today. It also underscores M prioritising relationship with F.
...I'm worried about the level of professional scrutiny that has been required and what that means for the rest of C's minority. Long term foster care would look very different with 6 or 12 weekly social work visits, it's much more light touch than announced and unannounced visits.
Factors in favour |
Factors against |
Remain with M |
Risk of neglect |
Probably consistent with wishes |
Risk of emotional harm |
|
Risk of sexual harm |
|
Likely some ongoing Local Authority involvement to ensure compliance with written agreement |
|
Limited or no engagement with work envisaged under the previous Supervision Order |
Factors in favour |
Factors against |
Remain with M |
Risk of neglect |
Probably consistent with wishes |
Risk of emotional harm |
|
Risk of sexual harm |
|
Becoming a looked after child for his minority |
|
Ongoing intrusive level of social work involvement to ensure compliance with written agreement |
|
Risk of further proceedings should the written agreement not be adhered to or the deficits in Mother's parenting become more marked as C matures |
Factors in favour |
Factors against |
Safe from harm |
Separation from M |
Needs met |
Probably inconsistent with wishes |
Less intrusive level of social work involvement than under a Care Order at home |
Becoming a looked after child for his minority |