England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)

IN THE FAMILY COURT
(Sitting at Medway)

		Anchorage House 47-67 High Street Chatham Kent, ME4 4DW
		1st June 2015

JUDGE CAMERON:

INTRODUCTION AND NEED FOR FURTHER FACT FINDING

1. In what was intended to be the concluding chapter in this complex and prolonged public law case, initiated now as long ago as August 2013, with the four children being removed from their mother's care in December 2013, it is obviously most regrettable that the Court has had to undertake a further five day Fact Finding Hearing. That concerned discrete issues involving the alleged behaviour of the paternal grandfather towards his older granddaughter, Child A, at contact sessions occurring in January and February of this year. However, I consider that it is has indeed been necessary and proportionate to have the evidence ventilated and challenged.
2. I make it clear that I respect the mother's fearless determination to have these matters explored by the Court and the facts either found proven or not and for the air to be cleared once and for all for the future, if at all possible. That is so even though the mother has known her father-in-law and seen him with her growing children over many years and had said herself about him, "[the paternal grandfather] would not do that."
3. Unusually here, the local authority itself, which of course usually would be in the driving seat pursuing and seeking to prove such matters, did not support the need for such a hearing, but considered that the issues arising could be dealt with away from the Court arena by other measures. That would have included some sort of work to be undertaken with the grandfather, and the father too, by both the very experienced Guardian and the Social Worker as to boundaries and inappropriate touching and so on.
4. The local authority's perfectly understandably viewpoint was that it had conducted a full and thorough investigation of the allegation of sexual assault by the grandfather on Child A on 29^th January this year and found insufficient evidence to justify the making of any finding to the applicable standard. Its view about that in fact had not changed at the conclusion of this hearing.
5. Mr. Tucker, for the local authority, expressed some concern that there may have been expressed by others a critical undertone about the local authority's approach in deciding not to pursue the case emanating from the mother's counsel. For the Court's part, I do not criticise the local authority in that way at all. The local authority had acted properly and helpfully in assisting the Court and other parties by facilitating the preparation of witness statements and calling the lay witnesses, even though it had firmly decided not to pursue any of the allegations of its own volition. That assistance was fully in accordance with Ryder LJ's approach in Re W.
6. The mother, I accept, is driven by the purest of emotions, the wish to have her daughter safe and protected, and not by any desire to seek revenge or out of grudge or spite towards the paternal side of the family and the grandfather in particular. Over the years, she has accepted and relied on a lot of practical, financial and emotional support from The paternal grandfather and from his now estranged wife as well, while calling The father "controlling." I do not find that there was any scurrilous agenda operating on her part in wishing to pursue these matters through a full hearing which, in essence, was somewhat akin to a private prosecution.
7. Moreover, there is an important contextual background here of allegations being made by Child C of a sexual nature against both his father and grandfather and teenage uncle and various teachers and also fantasy characters too, and also Child A's own modesty and autonomy over her developing body being infringed by her father helping her to wash after her soiling incidents.
8. Those and other allegations were the subject of a painstaking Fact Finding Hearing covering some 22 days in July, August and September 2014. Although, ultimately, the sexual allegations in that case were not pursued, for reasons appearing in a separate short judgment, it is the context of all of that which inevitably has heightened the mother's and others' concerns about any overstepping of the boundaries of propriety between the powerful grandfather and Child A, then 12, shortly to be 13, in late January of this year.
9. This aspect is fundamentally important here because, once the Court's role is relinquished and the local authority's supervisory involvement comes to an end, the paternal family only will be trusted with the entire responsibility of caring for and protecting the four children. The mother has a new life and relationship in Essex, about which really very little is known. She has very limited support from her own side of the family, her mother having let her down badly during her childhood and, sadly, her father having been killed during her childhood. She also has her own ongoing vulnerabilities and cognitive limitations.
10. All of that means that she will have little regular knowledge about, and input into, the children's daily lives and experiences, bar through her monthly contact. That, in itself, depends upon her own motivation, commitment and effort consistently to travel to see the children and not to let them down, as she has on occasion in the near past. Nobody wants that important relationship of mother and children to atrophy. Child A, in particular, who has been so close to and caring of her mother, needs to have that repeated reassurance that her mother is happy and stable, still cares about her and her siblings and wants to see them all.
11. The dynamics of this family are very particular and were fully canvassed in the extensive Judgment given on 1^st October 2014. I need not rehearse all of that for the purposes of this judgment, but it is the paternal grandfather's overarching role as patriarch of a complicated family structure that is the nub of this issue. He is a highly influential figure to his son and to other family members.

THE NEW ARRANGEMENTS

12. The father, together with his partner, Mrs N, has been entrusted with the care of Child C, now 11, after a thorough parenting assessment undertaken by Janice Barton in April this year. Mr and Mrs M, Mrs M having been a child protection social worker for some three and a half years, and Mr M being the paternal grandfather' half-brother, have been entrusted with the care of Child A and Child B, now respectively 13 and 12. They were granted parental responsibility and children arrangement orders and party status at the conclusion of the six day hearing which had taken place, concluding on 18^th March this year. It is under an intended Special Guardianship Order that the children were placed with them. Judgment Number 2, I should say, was given after that hearing. Mr NL, Mr M's brother and the paternal grandfather' half-brother, has been entrusted with the care of his great-niece, Child E, who is now aged 6 years, again intending to become her Special Guardian.
13. Each of those three have been very positively and thoughtfully assessed by Vernal Cooper and Helena Ware, respectively, in February of this year. The contact with the paternal grandfather and other family members and the siblings together is going to be an important component part of that responsibility and trust. As Ms Cleontis James-Cooke, the excellent social worker who took over the case fairly recently, had recognised in her final statement of 1^st May, even though the paternal grandfather's assessment for Special Guardianship for Child A and Child B too, she said, was unsuccessful, he, together with the mother, "... will continue to play a very significant role in the children's lives."
14. Moreover, it is not to be forgotten that he and his wife have been the joint carers of the father and the mother' fourth child, Child D, now aged 9 years or so, from when she was only some 3 weeks of age, and were made Child D's Special Guardians in October 2012. The paternal grandparents have also their own two sons: schoolboy-aged Child G and Child F, now an adult. That is relevant here because the three girls, Child A, Child D and Child E, have a very strong relationship and there will obviously need to be contact arrangements for the paternal grandfather to see Child D and of course Child G as well, given the breakup of the marriage of the paternal grandfather and paternal step-grandmother.

FINDINGS NOW SOUGHT

15. A short Schedule of Findings Sought has been prepared. It is the case that the most serious of the allegations is that of the grasping Child A's breasts at the conclusion of a contact session. This was witnessed contemporaneously by two separate and wholly unconnected women, neither of whom in my judgement have any axe to grind or reason to be dishonest or untruthful, either to the local authority or to the Court. There was an admitted touching of sorts of the breast/chest area of Child A by the grandfather and that much was conceded in his evidence, all of which I will explore shortly.
16. Each of those witnesses, both women, have long experience in careers devoted to child protection and child welfare. Each of them instinctively reacted in their own way to what they each were quite sure they had seen and each of them had their own individual understanding, interpretation or conclusion about what they had witnessed occurring within a very few seconds.
17. The contact supervisor, Ms. Paula Foster, never involved with the father's family at all, was sure that the movement by the grandfather was deliberate and calculated, while the foster carer of Child A and Child B, Mrs Y, did not like what she had witnessed, but considered it to be purely accidental and easily misinterpreted. It is the Court's task to try and reconcile the variance in those accounts and to decide how Child A can be protected from any reoccurrence or confusion in the future.
18. The mother's case, in essence, is that the grandfather is far too free with physical overtures towards Child A, in particular, which are unwanted by the child and which make her feel uncomfortable and which are sexually abusive, he indulging unchecked in a pattern of behaviour towards her daughter which is damaging. The Schedule extends also to denied allegations of further inappropriate physical contact and touching, including hair stroking and rubbing of Child A's arms, both before and after the most serious matter complained of.

THE EVIDENCE

19. The court heard sworn oral evidence from eight witnesses in all about this matter. Four were employed as contact supervisors at the Wayfield Contact and Family Centre. Its manager, who had not previously been required to make a witness statement, Sarah Cahill, also gave evidence, as did the foster carer, the grandfather himself and the social worker who had had the matter reported to her by email by the manager at the centre. I will summarise the evidence that the Court heard.
20. Ms. Paula Foster, whose report to her manager triggered the concerns, the subsequent inquiry and, ultimately, this hearing, struck the Court as a mature, impressive and independently-minded woman. She has been employed by Medway Council Children's Social Services for 11 years as a part-time contact supervisor and, before that, had been a family worker, and so has had a career dedicated to children throughout. She had undergone child protection training for a day a few years ago. She had never been involved, herself, in supervising a contact for this family and only knew of the family through them attending the Wayfield Family Centre. She told the Court that it had not happened often over her years of experience that she had had to report things to her line manager, who was Sarah Cahill that day, and nothing like this really had happened in the past. She was here though, giving evidence for the first time, because of what she called "inappropriate actions" by the grandfather to Child A on 29^th January this year. She had not read any other witness account of this incident. In her email to her manager on the next day, she said:

"He put both arms around her and squeezed her breasts firmly. Child A said or did nothing. The reception was extremely busy, with three to four families coming and going. Hence no one but myself saw this happen."

21. In fact, as became known, the foster carer, Mrs Y, saw exactly the same incident, but put a completely different complexion on it. Ms. Foster, herself, had come down to the reception area at about 5.00 p.m. to hand over some other children to their carers and did her best to describe the layout of the centre and indeed drew a small diagram to try and assist the parties. It was a bustling busy time with four families in all and therefore about 13 adults and 12 children in a not large space.
22. Taking into account the Turnbull Guidelines in relation to identification which is explained to jurors in criminal trials, I accept that she had a clear unobstructed view in good lighting conditions and that she was not distracted by Child B's behaviour a little distance away, or anything else that afternoon. Child A and the paternal grandfather were standing on front of her, facing her, with Child A slightly angled towards her, facing to the right, and the grandfather standing behind the child. She therefore had an unimpeded view across that not large corridor area. No one was in the way, she confirmed. Ms. Foster had her own back against the wall, with the door to the foyer on her right. She also noticed her colleague, Leanne Reynolds, standing slightly back to the right of Child A and the father, The father, was standing over to the right of her in the front. She did not notice the foster carer, Mrs Y, because there were so many people in the room.
23. She observed the father rubbing Child A's arms, in her statement she said the top of both Child A's arms, above the elbow, firmly, with each of his hands. She said she had had a detailed view and did not need to and was not wearing her glasses at that point. She could see the material of what was probably quite a loose coat worn by the child rippling as the father undertook those movements. That was an absolutely normal gesture when people meet or said goodbye, she agreed. She saw Child A look over her right shoulder and smile at her grandfather and then turn her head back. The girl was slightly angled in front of her.
24. It was the next movement that she witnessed that concerned her. She saw suddenly both the father arms appearing around Child A. She saw the motion of that, she said, and the right hand was placed on Child A's right breast and his left hand was placed on the child's left breast. That detail arose only when she gave her oral evidence, some four months later, and did not appear in her statement. She was emphatically clear and sure about what she had seen. It was not a crossover arm gesture that she saw from her vantage point. She stated that, from the indentation and creasing of the material of the coat, and for her to see that, it was a firm hold. She saw the grandfather squeeze with his hand and thumb together firmly on each respective breast, just the once, and the material of the coat moved as she observed it.
25. She felt this, when she was asked, to be a considered, forceful, purposeful movement, when those words had been put to her by Mr. Fletcher, and said that this was not done by mistake in her perception. It was a squeeze by the hands of the grandfather and that could not be a mistake in her view. The whole thing lasted seconds, maybe a minute. Child A said nothing.
26. While Ms. Foster said perhaps she had used the word "frozen," what she had intended to convey was that Child A was "non-expressionable," to use her own word, showed no emotion at all and did not move. She added in cross-examination by Mr. Swales that Child A appeared to her to be frozen on the spot at that time. She then agreed that no physical response did not equate to freezing. She had not read any of her colleague's witness statements and, in fact, it was actually Leanne Reynolds who had stated that Child A appeared to freeze for a second. So that was where the word emanated from.
27. Ms. Foster told the Court that she was quite shocked and it caused her to gasp. The grandfather looked straight ahead and made no eye contact with her. Nothing else was said or done. There was no, "Oops" or "Sorry" and no jump or reaction from Child A. Ms. Foster immediately felt the action was inappropriate and improper. She knows what she saw and hence she gasped.
28. Dealing with that gasp, which was heard by Leanne Reynolds, who has been a contact supervisor since July of last year, Ms. Reynolds told the court that she was standing with her back to the wall next to Paula Foster on her left. She was in the middle and the paternal grandfather and Child A were next to her. She could see them only at an angle, not their faces, only [the paternal grandfather]'s arms. She was actually watching the father and Child B, who were in front of and opposite to her in that not wide corridor. Once she heard Ms. Foster gasp, she said, "What's wrong?" and looked to her left. She saw nothing that concerned her. In her contemporaneous log she said she looked at Child A and she appeared to freeze for a second. The father then gave Child A and Child E a cuddle.
29. Mrs Y, the older children's foster carer, whose evidence I will deal with shortly, only noticed the contact supervisor in the distance, looking over at them. Mrs Y though heard no sound at all and clarified that Ms. Foster, as we now know her to be, was maybe a foot in front of them, standing holding her book across her chest. Mrs Y was aware that that person was looking in their direction.
30. The obvious rhetorical question accordingly raises itself: why did Ms. Foster automatically gasp, which was heard by another, and would she have done so if this had been a perfectly natural and normal hug around a child by a loving grandfather? Ms. Foster went on to say, when challenged about it, that, yes, she did interpret the action she saw as being with a sexual motive. She gained that impression, she was clear, and therefore she contacted her manager immediately who, in turn, contacted the social worker. Her opinion was that this behaviour was sexually abusive and that is why she reported it. That is what she saw and that is why she was here. She thought it was unusual and she wrote down what she had visibly seen. He did just hold each breast and squeeze them. It was not a hug with both the grandfather's hands crossing. That had not happened and therefore she did not write that. It really perturbed her.
31. She agreed that Mrs Y had a completely different opinion to her. She did not understand why Mrs Y had said that the father leant over Child A as he was standing behind her and is taller than the child. She, herself, did not see Child A's eyes wide open and actually saw no movement in Child A at all. She did not see a hug, but a clasping of the breasts. That was Ms. Foster's view. She did not accept that this was an accidental touching of Child A because the action was so clear and the gripping of the breasts was so clear. It was a purposeful considered action on the grandfather's part in her view.
32. Ms. Reynolds also recorded that, once all the family had left the centre, she went back into the office with her colleague, Ms. Foster and Ms. Foster was explaining to her and their manager that she had witnessed the paternal grandfather rubbing Child A's arms, Child A looked up at the paternal grandfather, he had then moved his hands onto Child A's breasts and grasped them. "Grasped" is just one of various words which have crept into this allegation. The word Ms. Foster used in her oral evidence to the court was "grabbing." A different word, "cupping," was used by Mrs. Sarah Cahill, the contact co-ordinator, when she gave her evidence on Day 4 of the hearing. She had reported the matter to Ms. James-Cooke at 5.08 p.m. on 29^th January and there the word "squeezing" had been employed.
33. Mrs. Cahill had also sent the email as an attachment to Helen Brackstone, her supervisor, who has since retired. It has still not been clarified as to whether, or when, Ms. Foster forwarded her 30^th January email to the social worker. The email sent to Mrs. Cahill the next day, on 30^th January, at 11.26 a.m. by Paula Foster, refers to the grandfather putting both his arms around Child A and, again, squeezing her breasts firmly, with Child A saying or doing nothing, not "cupping" or "grasping," but "grabbing."
34. Although Ms. James-Cooke records in her 2^nd February statement that she read in the email that the grandfather had "grabbed" Child A's chest, that is not the phrase used in the email. When the social worker spoke to Mrs. Cahill on the phone, Mrs. Cahill then used yet another word, "fondled" Child A's breasts, and that Child A had frozen when this had happened.
35. In her oral evidence, Mrs. Cahill said that she thought the word she had used in her email was "groped" and said maybe she had used or got the word wrong; Paula had used the word "squeezed" to her. She said that "chest" and "breasts" are pretty much the same in her opinion. When challenged that she was sending a different message from the one she received, she agreed it could be deciphered differently. Ms. Foster had been dictating to her and telling her about it and she was typing and they had worked it out together. She had made sure that Ms. Foster read what she was typing so there was that early collaboration as it was between the two women then. There were other staff members milling around, finishing their day, Mrs. Cahill recalled, although she said no one came over and listened to them or comforted Paula Foster.
36. She described Ms. Foster's demeanour as quite upset, very flustered, taking a couple of minutes to calm to speak to her properly and saying something like, "I cannot believe what I have just seen." Mrs. Cahill said she did not recall having seen her colleague like that before. She cannot recall if Ms. Foster demonstrated on her own body what she had seen and thinks that Ms. Foster remained standing, although at one point in her evidence she referred to Ms. Foster sitting.
37. Mrs Y, the foster carer of both Child A and Child B, also provided a statement and gave oral evidence. She stated that Child A liked contact with her grandfather and had always been quite complimentary about him. However, the one thing that Child A had said was that she did not like Granddad cuddling her too tight or squeezing her too hard. Mrs Y said, in answer to a question from the children's solicitor, that Child A would pull away, it was almost as if she wanted to get away from that situation and was not comfortable with or happy about his physical contact at some of the contact sessions.
38. She herself had seen Child A moving away from the paternal grandfather. Moreover, she knew that Child A did not like contact with her father at all and had to be persuaded to see him. She would go a bit rigid and pull back when with her father. With her, Child A could be cuddly, although it had taken quite a while to build that up. Even if she was upset, Child A would not want or seek a cuddle generally. So Mrs Y herself was aware of that, although the grandfather had not picked up on that reluctance on the part of Child A at all.
39. Mrs Y agreed that, at that time, in January of this year, the Court had not yet finally decided where Child A would be living in the future and that it might have been with the grandfather as he was being assessed as a possible full-time carer. Mrs Y demonstrated the action of the grandfather's rubbing of Child A's upper arms. She did not take any particular notice of that contact herself. She thinks that Child A was wearing her coat, but was not 100 per cent sure. Child B, who had been crying because of a little bit of an argument or upset between himself and his father, was a bit further forward and was not speaking to anyone.
40. Mrs Y herself was standing at the back of the room, facing as if to go out, with Child A to her right and the grandfather just behind the child. She was right there, beside them. Her priority that afternoon was to get the children out at the end of contact.
41. Although, in her statement, she had described the grandfather as 'leaning,' she said in the witness box that it was not actually a body lean, it was more the arms. That part of his arms were forward, then literally on the chest area. He was looking directly ahead. She did not see his hands move from the arms to the breasts and had no idea if his elbows were out. She described the father as bigger in build than Child A, but not in height, but said later that he was a little bit taller. While she did not have a brilliant view of things, she saw out of the corner of her eye, then turned her head when she saw the hands on Child A's breasts. She was aware of the contact supervisor looking at them, maybe a foot in front of them. That, of course, was Ms. Foster.
42. Mrs Y considered that Child A suddenly was aware or noted where Granddad's hands had ended up. Mrs Y turned to look and, pretty much at the same time, the father took his hands away. She does not know if he was aware that she had seen him. That might have been coincidental and not because she was looking, she said. She thought he had not realised where his hands were. Child A's arms remained by her side.
43. Mrs Y herself saw no squeezing, although she said that could have been done in the moment when she was not looking. Child A's eyes did widen and that could have been because she realised and was surprised about where her grandfather's hands were. Mrs Y said she was "just aware of Child A being pulled back, likely for a final farewell and 'We're going.'" Mrs Y herself thought this was accidental, absolutely, she said, when asked, and added, "I would certainly have pulled Child A away very, very quickly if I had seen a squeeze."
44. She herself had not seen anything physically inappropriate between the grandfather and the children. She had not witnessed him stroking Child A's hair. She had had no concern watching him on other occasions, when she generally did stay in the contact area, and felt there was just normal familial touching. She thought that the grandfather had not realised that Child A had shot up in height and went for a hug at the top of the chest and not the breast area, having not seen her more than a couple of times for some time. She did not hear any gasp herself.
45. Mrs Y said this, in answer to questioning from the Court:

"Because his hands were on her breasts, I needed to get the children out of here. I'm not liking what I'm seeing. Her eyes were on stalks, uncomfortable. We needed to go."

46. Mrs Y finally said that, with so many people around, anyone seeing this after the event could misconstrue it and considered that the grandfather had been "behaving inappropriately," to quote a phrase that Child A has used to her in the past. In that regard, she felt certain that Child A definitely would have mentioned afterwards, that "Granddad had touched me inappropriately," if that had happened, but Child A had not said anything like that at all. Child A had knowledge of appropriate and inappropriate behaviour and was able to discuss things freely with her foster carer, just as she had reported as inappropriate a boy touching her leg at school. The social worker had then got in touch with her, she said, a few days after the incident. I found Mrs Y to be a thoughtful and accurate witness of truth, doing the very best that she could about this brief incident.
47. Leanne Reynolds, already mentioned, also did not provide direct feedback to the grandfather at all, although she said she was trained in what to look out for. She had provided feedback to the social worker on previous occasions when she felt that the contact had been particularly bad for the children. That, of course, the Court has not seen or heard about. Child A had often confided in Ms. Reynolds her feelings and concerns about contact and had also often asked to speak to her in the ten minutes allowed before the adults arrived and also in the ten minutes after they had gone.
48. Leanne Reynolds was the supervisor on 15^th January, the first occasion of contact about which the Court has notes, and noted Child A pulling a face and looking at the floor and not looking happy when she was informed that the paternal grandfather was present on that day. Child A wanted to wait for Child E to arrive and Child B went in to join his grandfather, but did not reciprocate the cuddle that he was given. Ms. Reynolds had observed that Child B and Child A do not cuddle their grandfather back, commenting that she was "not saying they reject it, but ..." She also said that Child A is uncomfortable and holds back.
49. When Child A and Child E entered the contact room, Child A looked uncomfortable, Ms. Reynolds saying that she holds back and does not run into the room and say hello. She did not cuddle her father and grandfather back as they cuddled her and Child E moved away from both her father and grandfather when they tried to cuddle and tickle her. The father talked to Child E in a baby voice and, within three minutes, Child E had repeated five times, "Me go home," and continued doing that. She in fact left after another five minutes, refusing a kiss to both the father and the grandfather. The grandfather then sat cuddling Child A, trying to make her smile, having told the father to sit with Child B, who appeared extremely bored.
50. Child A chose to sit next to the staff, Ms. Reynolds in fact, and asked for their help with her homework when the grandfather had left the room to take a phone call from the social worker. There was then some joking between the father and the grandfather about who would help, but the grandfather did praise Child A and Child B when they got the answers right. When the paternal grandfather went and sat on the sofa with Child B and said, "Child A, come over here, we've five minutes left," Child A shook her head, preferring to stay sitting next to Ms. Reynolds. Again, there was no cuddle back from either of the children to the father or grandfather at the end of that contact session.
51. Ms. Reynolds commented that Child A often has a vacant look on her face with no expression at all during contact. She was very in herself, not the typical child that they see coming into contact and wanting to see their family and say hello. She herself was not sure why Child A reacts in this way. She knew that it had been a long time that the father and grandfather had not had contact with Child A and agreed that perhaps they were getting to know each other again. She was aware that Child A had actually soiled herself when the grandfather first came back into contact and had had to clean herself up before going into contact. Sometimes she had complained about her tummy or having a headache.
52. On 29^th January, Ms. Reynolds had noticed Child A looking a little uneasy, physically moving away from her grandfather on the sofa when he continually stroked her hair and Child A then sat on the floor. Generally, Ms. Reynolds did not consider that the grandfather or father had ever done anything inappropriate in contact, but it was the reaction of Child A to the hair-stroking or cuddling which had caused her concern.
53. Child A seemed a bit calmer when the card game was being played and Child B appeared to enjoy that too. However, Child B wanted to go and had left early, after a slight contretemps when he snatched some cards from Child A's hand and the father asked him if he had hurt Child A, Child B apparently feeling that his father was taking sides unfairly.
54. Ms. Reynold's log of that contact showed that, on three occasions, the paternal grandfather put his arms out for a cuddle from Child E and twice she either stood still or shook her head and moved away. She did not answer his repeated questions and, at one stage, said, "Go away," and made it plain that she did not want to talk to him. When he said from across the room, "I love you," to Child E, she looked away. The grandfather also kissed Child A on the cheek suddenly, to which she did not react. The father had promised to bring sandwiches and fruit, but did not do so. That omission in fact had been a bit of a theme during contact: promises being made to the children not kept. The father talked to Child E, who was 6 years of age that week, in a baby voice and tended to focus on her to the detriment of Child B and Child A.
55. Janet Reynolds, another contact supervisor, who is in fact the mother of Leanne Reynolds, had some nine months' experience and supervised the family contact on only the one occasion, 28^th January, the day before the incident complained of. Again, she just recorded what she saw in a non-judgemental way and did not provide any feedback to the grandfather.
56. She had recorded that the grandfather held his arms up and out to the children and hugged them, saying, "Hello" and asking if they were okay, although the children stood still. The grandfather had told Child A to sit next to him and pulled both Child A and Child B closer to him, putting his arms around them both. He also played with Child A's ponytail a couple of times and she moved her head away, plainly, it would seem, not liking that. There were some good interchanges and Child A told her grandfather that she has to talk in her counselling sessions about her nerves when she comes into contact. The grandfather tried to make a joke about that, as he did when he told them that they were the lucky ones as he would be seeing them three times that week, to which the children did not reply, not seeming to get that as a joke as it were.
57. Mrs. Reynolds noted that Child A would move herself away from her grandfather, her body language being to sit away and face away from him when they spoke. That was the day the Independent Social Worker, Mr. Vernal Cooper, preparing the assessment of the grandfather in relation to a possible Special Guardianship Order, had attended and sat in for simply the last half hour of contact. Mrs. Reynolds observed the card game that was played with the children, them being chatty and Child A relaxing on the floor to count and play, both of them seeming much more relaxed towards the end of contact and enjoying the Pontoon playing.
58. That says it all really, in my view. The children enjoy the activities and the games, but they do not enjoy or need the focus of all the physical attention which has been aimed at them.
59. Mr. Cooper, in his report said that he had observed emotional warmth and affection between the grandfather and the children which was reciprocated. At the end of the contact, in the reception area, the paternal grandfather cuddled both the children, but neither cuddled back. With hindsight, all of that might usefully have invited a discreet mention to the father not to overwhelm the children with physical interaction that clearly was not welcomed or reciprocated, including that hair-touching of Child A.
60. Tina Dineen was the final and other contact supervisor who also gave evidence and she had some ten months' part-time experience. She had observed only the contact on 12^th February this year, which of course was less than two weeks after Ms. James-Cooke had raised the issue of concern about the grandfather's behaviour on 29^th January with him. Having recorded that, at the start of the contact, the paternal grandfather spent a lot of time standing behind Child A, holding her hands and moving her arms and also holding his hands on her shoulders and moving his hands up and down on her upper arm, Ms. Dineen confirmed that she did not feel the need at any time to raise any issue with the grandfather as Child A was not at risk. She agreed it was a fair comment that Child A did not want to be near the father or the paternal grandfather that day. The adults had tried to be a bit jokey with Child A. Child A had simply giggled at the picture of her that the grandfather had put in the jewellery box, a present he gave her, he having said that there was a picture of a really beautiful girl in there. Child B had not wanted cuddles from his father at first and Child A seemed preoccupied and rather solemn and quiet.
61. Having said he would take a step back to allow the father to have time with the children, the grandfather then quickly moved back into the group. The father put his hand on Child A's leg and moved his hand up and down her thigh once, while the grandfather put his arm around her and continually asked Child A why she was upset, which she wrote down later was because she was missing her mother and foster carer.
62. Ms. Dineen recorded that Child A's body language was always to face away from the father and the paternal grandfather, who were sitting next to her, and sometimes looking at them as though they were stupid and not wanting to engage in conversation with them, while also giggling at different things they were doing. Ms. Dineen's viewpoint was that the children did not look very enthused to be there. The father constantly looked towards staff, as if to win them over, and the paternal grandfather had taken over the role of reassuring Child A and would not let the father help.
63. It is plain that some techniques to make the children more comfortable should have been suggested to both the father and the grandfather when contact was reintroduced. With the benefit of that glimpse of contact and how it developed, it would have been helpful if both the father and the grandfather had been given guidance and ground rules once that contact restarted, particularly where the children had been away from home and had not very regular contact with the family in two separate foster placements for more than 12 months by the January of this year.
64. Dealing then with the grandfather's evidence, I did feel some real disquiet at times when hearing the grandfather giving his evidence, that he had a tendency not to think of the children's sensitivities and their own wishes, feelings and needs. He may have wanted to show to the various contact supervisors that he was a warm and affectionate grandfather and therefore perhaps rather overplayed that approach. As I reflected in my previous Judgment, both the father and indeed Child C too have that noticeable habit of watching the faces of people who may be viewed as authority or influential figures in order to gauge their reaction. The father has done that indeed with Janice Barton and has continued to do just that to me throughout all these hearings, which, understandably, the advocates do not see and about which they may not be aware.
65. The grandfather's own rationalisation about all of this was that there had been that lengthy gap in his contact to his grandchildren which previously had been very frequent, with him being a large part of their lives. He considered that the only way that he could manifest his love for them after the gap of time, and given that contact was for only one hour once a month, and to reassure them, was to hug and cuddle them and to start to rebuild and resurrect their relationship and to re-bond with them. He evidentially felt that he had to cuddle or ask the children to sit close to him or next to him just to re-bond and did not appear to see that one could do that by the tone of his voice, a smile, showing an interest on what they were saying or doing, something really without having to resort to actual physical contact from the word go.
66. He was simply not aware, when challenged about it, that Child A was totally making it plain, at times, that she did not want to be cuddled or to have her hair stroked. He said he accepted that she did not cuddle back, but he felt she responded to him more and more as the contacts went on. His rigidity, if I may call it that, and mind-set about these delicate matters was not helpful. In these what used to be called "politically correct" days of harassment at work cases and men touching women and so on in a not looked for fashion and not being sensitive to all of that, I felt a little surprise that The father did not take his cues more from the children's responses and grow with that. Obviously, it would not have been appropriate to shake hands with them, as he mentioned, but there are a myriad of other ways to show love and reassurance that he could and should have employed. He said that he knew that Child A had never been very demonstrative in the past. That is probably true and perhaps he should have run with that.
67. The paternal grandfather said that he was very upset and shocked when he received the phone call from the social worker the following day, after that 29^th January contact, and realised that concerns had been expressed about his actions the previous day. He believed, and he said straightaway, that CCTV footage would exonerate him of any impropriety and texted her to that effect. That could well have been the hallmark of an innocent man raising that as an issue, not aware that there was in fact no such coverage in that corridor area. He thought that the action that was being described to him by Ms. James-Cooke was his arms crossed in a cuddle. That very probably would have been unobjectionable and would not have raised a concerned complaint from an eye witness.
68. The paternal grandfather agreed with the description of him as a touchy-feely tactile man. He said that he had never been aware of anyone recoiling from him. In his own mind his rationalisation was that he had not seen the children for a long time, he was happy and joyful to see them after that period of time and this hugging or cuddling was the only way he had of demonstrating love and affection. He did not overly do it, he felt, but, "What else can I do?" he said, trying to re-establish that bond and relationship broken by a long period. He did not appear to see that, in his face, voice, mannerisms, interests and so on, he could show how very pleased he was to see them and to let that physical interaction happen at their own pace, to stand back, as it were, and to give them some space.
69. He said that he does not remember much about the occasion on 29^th January. He vaguely remembered putting his hands on Child A's shoulders and rubbing her upper arms, as he demonstrated from the witness box, but he does not remember putting his arms around her, although said that, yes, that was probably quite likely that he had done that. That lack of memory seemed strange to me, given the concern highlighted to him the very next day and then the visit to his mother's home two days later by the social worker to deal with the particular allegation. One would have thought that it would have all have been fresh in his mind at that point as a rather unusual and unwarranted situation. He had already had those two contacts on 15^th and 28^th January and the 29^th was therefore the third in that sequence about which the Court has read from that small selection of contact notes received.
70. It was put to him that Child A's height was no surprise to him on the 29^th as he had already sought to hug and put his arms around her on the previous occasions. To him, it was just a quick cuddle and he did not experience the children physically pulling back or being reluctant or the need to be especially sensitive or alert to their needs, while agreeing that Child A was a very complex young girl. He agreed that it was being recorded that the children did not cuddle him back. He simply did not remember Child A pulling away from him or sitting away from him. His perception was that she was interacting a lot more with him, particularly the day the Independent Social Worker was there, not seeing that the presence of another person may have reassured the children. He really did not seem to follow the questioning when it was put to him that the children were giving obvious visible messages to him that they were not comfortable. He really did not "get it" in essence and did not pick up on those clear indicators.
71. He acknowledged that to Child E he was probably almost a stranger, adding, "She has her own problems as well," and he agreed that she did not cuddle back or want to go for a kiss. He said that the children were not physically pulling back, but it was true that they were not cuddling back. At the end of the contact on 15^th January, he had said to Child A, "Come over here, we have five minutes left," and she had shaken her head and stayed next to the staff. When it was put to him that it was clear that she was not comfortable, he said that all he could do was offer, it was up to the children to take it or leave it and that she had not come to him at that time; that was right. I should add that when Child A went to sit on the floor, he felt that she was still within reach of him and therefore she had not deliberately moved herself entirely out of his reach.
72. He said that he vaguely remembered standing behind Child A and touching her shoulders, the top of her arm, and he has no recollection of putting his arms around her. He assumed, when it was put to him, this was a crossed arm to arm, and that is how it was explained to him by the social worker. He has no recollection of squeezing Child A's breasts and did not deliberately do so with the intent of indecently touching his granddaughter. It was a subconscious act if so and he would be aware if he had done that, he said. It would have been foolish for him to do that with the contact supervisor and foster carer and others standing right beside him.
73. The father said that he now accepted and acknowledged that Child A and Child B may not appreciate his tactile approach and was more than happy to address that issue. He said, with hindsight, he would probably now wait for them to come to him, rather than him making the overtures and going to them.
74. When Ms Cleontis James-Cooke started giving her evidence, there was an unexpected revelation that she had not, in fact, met Paula Foster, a distinctive attractive blonde woman, at all. She had been present in Court, seeing all the Wayfield Centre staff giving their evidence, but did not raise, until she was in the witness box, that the person that she had seen with Mrs. Cahill on the Friday, 30^th January, when she went there to gain information about what had actually happened and exactly what was done, she now realised was not the person who had seen and reported the incident. She apologised in her evidence for not speaking to the right person. I accept that she genuinely thought at the time that it was Paula Foster, although Mrs. Cahill did not introduce this person, nor, regrettably and unhelpfully as it played out, is that visit logged in either of their records, that is the social work records or the Wayfield Contact Centre records. Whoever that person with brown hair was, as Ms. James-Cooke reported her to be, has still in fact not been identified to this day.
75. That, plainly, was a bit of a bombshell, as was the social worker's clear recollection that staff members had said in her hearing, "He did it, he did it, he did it," three times, when she had gone there to understand more about what had happened. All of that did nothing to deal with the continuity of the allegation being investigated and the "one hand on one breast" which emerged on Day 1 of the hearing, but there was no understanding that that was not Ms. Foster that Ms. James-Cooke had met at the contact centre until Day 4.
76. Inevitably, Mrs. Cahill had to be asked to speak to her contact supervisors to see who that person might have been, on either 30^th January or the following Monday, 2^nd February, but clearly it was not Paula Foster. Two people, Lucy Hardman and Charlene Hardman, in fact have proved uncontactable, but none of the other seven or so people remember seeing the social worker on either of those dates according to Mrs. Cahill's statement produced on Day 4 of the hearing.
77. As Ms. James-Cooke said, this was a quick "pop in" visit, an unscheduled, unfortunately unrecorded meeting to understand more about what had been witnessed, "even though I had heard about it on the phone." She had said "Okay, show me," when she was there in the contact centre office and the person there demonstrated it on her, so she thought that person was Ms. Foster. She then went on afterwards straight to speak to Child A and her foster carer.
78. In essence, the Wayfield Centre evidence appeared to be that the social worker never visited, certainly not on 30^th January at all and no one described or physically demonstrated the event to her on that occasion at all. That plainly cannot be right and where the social worker's evidence differs from Mrs. Cahill's, and there is considerable variance between the two accounts, I make it clear that I much prefer that of Ms. James-Cooke, who has been a thoroughly fair, honest and cogent witness. She is trusted by the family and by the Court and has an understanding how high the stakes are here for accuracy, given the poor relationship and lack of trust between the paternal family and the previous social worker.
79. Ms. James-Cooke knows and recognises Mrs. Cahill and was positive that Mrs. Cahill was there and that she saw her on the 30^th and that there was another person also in the room. She described this unknown person whom, understandably, she had automatically assumed to be Ms. Foster demonstrating to her how the grandfather's arms had come around and hugged Child A with the hands crossed, just as she showed to the Court from the witness box. It was reported to her as rubbing of the shoulders and then squeezing of both breasts with the arms crossed. She had not formed a view at that stage.
80. When she saw Child A a little later that afternoon, Child A demonstrated that movement too, showing her exactly how the grandfather had held her. Unfortunately, Ms. James-Cooke's statement signed on 2^nd April does not work effectively through the chronology of people that she saw or spoke to. She refers to the email contact of the 29^th from Mrs. Cahill that she picked up the next day, the 30^th, and then subsequently speaking to Mrs. Cahill, who reiterated what she had said in her email: a member of staff witnessing the paternal grandfather squeezing Child A's breasts. She met with Child A, Child B and Mrs Y on the same day, having also contacted the grandfather and the parents and notifying them of the allegation.
81. In the statement after meeting with Child B, Child A and Mrs Y, she says, in paragraph 10 that she met with Ms. Foster, now known to be another person, and Mrs. Cahill on 30^th January too. That statement could have been more accurately drafted to reflect the order in which she had spoken to all the various people involved, but there we are. That, again, is a post hoc rationalisation.
82. I am buttressed in my finding that Ms. James-Cooke had spoken to staff at the Wayfield on the Friday before she went to Mrs. Y's home by the very fact that Mrs. Cahill had raised concerns regarding the children having unsupervised contact at Child G's family birthday party which was taking place the next day, Saturday, the 31^st. Ms. James-Cooke had told her that there was no need for supervision. Mrs. Cahill accepted that, saying, in essence, "Well, she is the social worker, she is the one in charge."
83. It is to be doubted that Ms. James-Cooke could possibly have come to that decision had she not seen the demonstration from the person she believed to be Ms. Foster and she then compared that with Child A's own description and demeanour and Mrs Y's view and decided that it was an innocent, unfortunate and inadvertent movement that the grandfather had made. She asked Mrs Y to accompany Child A to the party, which would not have been appropriate if Child A and Mrs Y themselves thought that something improper had happened and were worried about the grandfather.
84. The social worker opined whether there was a degree of "professional over-sensitivity operating here," although I make it plain that I do not myself think that there has been any collusion or conspiracy and/or the staff at Wayfield deliberately wanting to exaggerate what had been seen. They are a shifting body of women supervisors there and they have their individual families to supervise in their various and different sessions. It would be Machiavellian in the extreme to begin to allege that there was any sort of conspiracy or distorted thinking between the local authority and the contact staff and/or the school, indeed, of Child C and the staff there. I reject the rather side comment that Mr. Fletcher made about that out of hand. There was no evidence adduced to support such.
85. Ms. James-Cooke had her eyes wide open when she took over this far from easy case. She had observed some of the contact sessions and had tried to speak to every individual involved because she was fully aware that there was a lot of background here and she therefore questioned everything reported by the professionals regarding the paternal family. That is exactly why she wanted to see what was being alleged at the "not proper" meeting, as it was called, and therefore to go off thereafter and speak to the foster carer and to Child A to get a fuller understanding. She was aware also that other professionals, particularly at Child C's school, disagreed with the outcome of the previous Fact Finding, feeling that the local authority and the Court had got the case wrong and that the Court had erroneously endorsed the local authority's care plan; that is particularly in relation to Child C.
86. Ms. James-Cooke told the Court that there was an almost venomous way in which the family had been spoken about and she had never seen anything like it. She stood by her strong words that the school may have embellished or fabricated reports about Child C, revealing a very troubling approach. Child C's welfare at school at times had troubled her. At one point he had been sent out of school, on a windy and cold day, when he was being disruptive and would not put on his coat. The school had said that that had been for no more than five or ten minutes outside, but the father had felt it to be closer to 25 or 30 minutes and that clearly could potentially constitute neglect.
87. Ms. James-Cooke stated in cross-examination that had she been told at the outset that it was left hand on left breast and right hand on right breast that was being alleged and squeezing, individually, of those breasts, she would have still have gone away and made the same enquiries. It would have been more suspicious, but she had not been told that contemporaneously by this "imposter," as she called her; it was arms over chest, crossed that had been conveyed to her. She did say though that even if it had been left hand on left breast and so on, she could see it could have occurred in an innocent way.
88. When Ms. James-Cooke met her, Child A described her grandfather patting and rubbing her shoulders, the top or cap of her shoulders were shown, he was talking to her and then there was a final goodbye hug when he said, "Take care, see you next week," and his arms came around and hugged her, with the elbows almost touching with the hands. Ms. James-Cooke did not think her assessment would have been very different if she had been told about each hand allegedly on each breast and the detail of the material moving too. She had a light-hearted conversation with Child A, asking mostly open questions, not leading her or putting something in her mind and being properly aware of the ABE Guidelines. She felt that Child A had a mature and proper understanding of what was appropriate touching and what was not. I can do no better than quote the outcome of her visit and her analysis of the situation:

"I spoke to [Child A] and asked her to tell me what had happened when they left the contact room. She stated that [Child E] did not want to walk and so her dad picked [Child E] up and she walked out with her granddad. I asked [Child A] how she walked out with him. [Child A] said she was slightly ahead of [the paternal grandfather] and [the father] and [Child E] was by [the paternal grandfather]'s side.

I asked [Child A] how she said goodbye and she said she hugged [Child E], [the father] and [the paternal grandfather] and said, 'Bye.' I asked [Child A] to show me how she hugged them, and she stated, "I don't know, I hugged them." I asked [Child A] to show me. [Child A] re-enacted this to me, which appeared quite innocent. She then stated that her granddad did say, 'Bye' and hugged her from behind, but she told him, 'Bye' by turning round and hugging him. [Child A] told me how this was done by going behind me and demonstrating this. From [Child A] doing this, a clear picture was forming of how an innocent hug could have been misconstrued. [Child A] was fully aware, because she pointed out all the appropriate areas to touch, then she stated, that 'someone can touch your shoulders and it means nothing and someone else can touch your shoulders and it's bad.' [Child A] could not explain to me exactly how this could be, but she did have an awareness of appropriate and inappropriate touching.

I asked [Child A] if anyone had ever touched her inappropriately and she said, 'Only my dad and another boy at school.' She talked about her father bathing her and she did not like it because he touched her 'down there.' She also spoke about the boy at school touching her upper thigh area and he had been excluded from school due to similar behaviours.

I asked [Child A] if any member of her family had ever touched her to make her feel uncomfortable or in a sexual manner and she said no. I asked her, if anyone touched her inappropriately, what she would do and she stated, 'I would tell my teachers, mother, foster carer or you,' referring to myself. [Child A] then wanted to know the reason I was asking her such questions. I told her that I wanted to ensure that she knew what was appropriate and inappropriate touching and wanted to ensure that she knows who to speak to in the event this happened.

I then spoke to [Mrs Y], who informed me that she witnessed the alleged incident and, while she did not like what she witnessed, she did not believe there was anything sinister. [Mrs Y] said [the paternal grandfather] should be mindful of how he touched [Child A], but can wholly understand how this has been misconstrued. [Mrs Y] said [the paternal grandfather] was standing behind [Child A] and he rubbed her arms whilst speaking to everyone and saying goodbye, then he leant over and hugged her and 'his arms was almost, if not on top, of her breasts.'"

89. Ms. James-Cooke was entirely satisfied from the way in which Child A explained it to her that the investigation did not need to go any further, but first of all she had to discuss the matter with her manager. She also informed Mrs M that same day, who said that she had known the paternal grandfather for a long time and, as a social worker herself, if she had any doubts about his character, she would not speak to him. Mrs M described the father as a devoted and wonderful father and grandfather who was passionate about his family and would never do anything to hurt anyone, especially the children. Ms. James-Cooke also spoke to the mother, who did not think anything had happened.
90. Dealing then briefly with 2^nd February, that was the day that her car had broken down and she had to wait in the car until 7.00 p.m. for a tow-truck. She had attended her morning and early afternoon visits and had already spoken to the paternal grandfather on 2^nd February, before the car had broken down in the earlier afternoon, to tell him that all of her enquiries were done and closed and that he was in the clear. Patently, she could not have done that if she had still not seen Mrs. Cahill and her colleague, whoever that was. That makes no sense at all in my perception. Ms. James-Cooke was clear that she did not speak to the person that she thought was Ms. Foster on 2^nd February at all, or have any meeting that afternoon with Mrs. Cahill. Because the car had broken down near Wayfield, she did walk into the centre to do something personal, which we know is to visit the lavatory, according to Mrs. Cahill, and then she went straight back to her car. On neither 30^th January nor 2^nd February were her two brief visits signed in or out at all, highlighting that this was a less than fool-proof system to show just who was in the centre at any one time.
91. Also on 2^nd February, Ms. James-Cooke was able to conclude her investigation and state as follows:

"After discussion with all parties, I had a case discussion with my manager and it was decided that no further action should be taken. The reasons for this are: [Child A] has not made a disclosure. The foster carer, whilst concerned, did not believe that this was deliberate, [Child A] is aware of appropriate and inappropriate touching, [Child A]'s behaviour following contact did not give rise to concerns. Discuss with [the paternal grandfather] to be mindful of the way he touches [Child A] or any other child. I met with [the paternal grandfather] at his mother's home on 2^nd February and informed him that no further action would be taken. I explained to him what had happened and enacted this with [the paternal grandfather] and showed him how this could be misconstrued. [The paternal grandfather] said he was relieved as he would never do anything to harm [Child A]. He said he would not hug [Child A] or any of the other children as he does not want this to be misinterpreted. [The paternal grandfather] said he felt confused, frustrated and just wondered if he should stay away from everyone. I told [the paternal grandfather] that the children love him and if he were to do that it would actually cause the children more harm."

92. Ms. James-Cooke added in her evidence that, reading through the contact notes, she had remembered thinking that maybe there was a need to discuss with the father and the grandfather about being over-tactile and over-affectionate with the children before all of this had raised that issue more starkly. However, she had to get to know the children, she also had to write and organise the transition plans and there was a lot for her to catch up with. In hindsight, it is obviously regrettable that this discussion was not tackled head-on earlier, which might have obviated this complaint or this event and made for much happier, less tense contact for the children. Ms. James-Cooke will be undertaking the necessary piece of work with the grandfather, and possibly with a practitioner from CAMHS, in the near future.
93. Finally, commenting about Child C, she credited the father with being absolutely brilliant when coping patiently with Child C's bad language, that being particularly in relation to Child C wanting the iPad on one occasion. She confirmed that the father has held out the hand of friendship to the mother and would like to promote more contact with her and Child C. That will be watched and reviewed over the summer months. The mother needs to be aware that if Child C expects his mother to attend and she does not, he then responds by his behaviour deteriorating. Happily, Mr and Mrs M are open to the mother having telephone contact with Child A and Child B and that would have to be on loudspeaker initially as, in the past, she had said inappropriate things to the children. Again, that can be discussed first of all with the mother. Ms. James-Cooke's evidence is fully accepted as honest, convincing and accurate.
94. Dealing then with Mrs. Cahill's evidence, she told the Court that she had held her present position as a contact coordinator for three years and had been at Wayfield Contact Centre for nine years in all. Having thought about it over the weekend before she gave her evidence, she was clear, she said, that she saw Ms. James-Cooke on the Monday, 2^nd February, when the social worker was due there to meet another family at around 3.30 p.m. That was the day Ms. James-Cooke's car had broken down, she had called the AA, come in to use the toilet and they had a discussion about the incident involving the paternal grandfather. She agreed that Ms. James-Cooke would recognise her as the centre's manager. She said there were several members of staff milling about the very busy office, but she could not recall who. Michelle Bennett was sitting at one of the other two desks apart from her own. She said that Ms. James-Cooke was not there on 30^th January at all.
95. Paula Foster had told her, on the 29^th, what allegedly she had seen. Mrs. Cahill does not remember herself or anyone else giving a physical demonstration that day, on 2^nd February, of what was alleged to have happened and she could not herself demonstrate it as she had not seen it. She said it was about the paternal grandfather rubbing the top of Child A's upper arms and shoulders at the outset and then going down the upper arms and cupping the breasts.
96. She recalled 2^nd February because she makes notes in her diary which she keeps at home and that had jogged her memory as she had written some sort of comment about "Cleo," Ms. James-Cooke, missing the first meeting and then arriving after that to use the toilet. That diary, of course, has not been produced and includes admittedly confidential material which Mrs. Cahill said she knows is not Medway Council policy to keep at home, but is a personal prompt for her.
97. Some nine other members of staff would have been in and out on 2^nd February and she named them and then subsequently had asked them, at the request of the Court, to try to remember if they had seen Ms. James-Cooke on either of those two days. In fact, as I have stated already, nobody remembered seeing her on either of those dates at all it would seem. Mrs. Cahill acknowledged that the log of comings and goings is only as accurate as the people who complete it, which they do not do as assiduously as they might. It was clearly a far from fool-proof system. Although they try to ensure people sign in, it was possible that Ms. James-Cooke had been there on another day, the Friday, if she had not signed in and logged out. However, Mrs. Cahill stood by what she had said and did not recall Ms. James-Cooke being there on the Friday, although possibly Ms. James-Cooke had contacted her.
98. She recalls passing on details regarding what Paula Foster had said three or four days earlier, then said she did not recall the conversation. She might have passed on the word "cupping" or got the word wrong, she is really not sure at all. She certainly did not recall anyone in her office saying, "He did it, he did it, he did it." She thought that she would have heard it if it had been said as it was a small, but very busy office, with staff milling in and out. Had it been said, that would have been unprofessional and she would have addressed it and spoken to the member of staff if aware it had been said.
99. It was difficult to remember, but she thought the social worker had been there for between 30 and 60 minutes, but then said she was not with her throughout that time. She does not recall expanding and telling her other things that Ms. Foster had told her about what had occurred. Maybe it was possible, but she does not time conversations at all. She had no control over other people speaking to the social worker and other people were swirling around. Ms. James-Cooke had also gone into the back office to ring up about her car, giving the possibility that the social worker might have spoken to other people or heard other people there, when Mrs. Cahill was elsewhere, pursuing her own duties.
100. She said that the email that she had drafted and sent out at 5.08 on 29^th January would have been forwarded on to the social worker by Ms. Foster, she believed. The Court received no confirmation about that from any source, although certainly Ms. James-Cooke saw it the next morning.
101. Mrs. Cahill gave rather confusing evidence to my mind when she said that if she had known the social worker was there she would have gone and got Paula Foster, but she does not know if she checked or not. While accepting that she realised that it was important to have first-hand information, she did not suggest to the social worker that she should try and see Paula Foster. The social worker was dealing with her car, she said. She accepted that maybe she should have asked Paula Foster to come out of the contact she was supervising or asked Ms. James-Cooke to wait for her, but she did not do so and Ms. Foster had already sent her email about what she had seen.
102. I found that evidence rather bemusing. On the one hand, Mrs. Cahill was telling the Court that she realised that this was a serious and unusual incident that was alleged to have occurred and is not frequently seen in their centre and she expected it to be progressed quickly and they had never been in a situation like this before and she did not know the protocol. However, on the other hand, Mrs. Cahill, seemingly knowing that Paula Foster was actually in the contact centre, on her account, with another family and Ms. James-Cooke having raised the issue with her and discussing what Paula Foster had told her, she did not say, "Let me get Paula." She also said that she does not know if she checked or not.
103. The staff log of 30^th January does show Paula Foster in at 9.30, but records no out time, just as it does not for another member of the team, Lynn Jouxson. The log for 2^nd February has not been made available to the Court and nor has the Court seen any visitors log, so there is a real lacuna in the documentation available.
104. Mrs. Cahill stated that she would have said the only person that Ms. James-Cooke spoke to on 2^nd February was her and no one else was with her giving a demonstration. She said it could be perceived as a normal hug; everyone's perception is different. It is possible that she demonstrated with her arms around her, but she does not recall. She stood very much by what she said, that the social worker did not attend the centre on Friday the 30^th January she had not logged in or out, although it was possible that she was there.
105. I do not find that Mrs. Cahill deliberately misled the Court at all, but consider that she may well have forgotten or got confused about two different days and rather conflated events, given that there was no clear documentation. At the end of it all though, she was not an impressive witness of facts and did not greatly assist the court.

FINDINGS OF FACT

106. Having had the benefit of considering the totality of the key witnesses' evidence very thoroughly indeed, the Court concludes as follows:

(i) It is accepted that the local authority considered it had conducted a thorough investigation of the events of 29^th January and more widely and hence did not itself wish to put in train a fact-finding hearing. In fact, it was a somewhat wrong-footed and flawed inquiry from the word go because, when thoroughly ventilated at court nearly four months later in the May, there has been that revelation of Ms. James-Cooke entirely unwittingly meeting the wrong person and getting, as it were, a second-hand hearsay demonstration and version of events. No CCTV footage at all has been available to assist and the Court is reliant on the social worker's analysis and the other evidence. I respect the local authority's viewpoint, having heard all the evidence, that it still feels the case is unproven and has not changed its stance. The local authority also bear in mind that contact in the new family placements will take place anyway, unrestricted by any Social Services involvement, subject to the father's and also the Special Guardians' views about what is in the best interests of the children.

(ii) The social worker was a credible and accurate witness doing her very best. She bravely admitted in the witness box getting it wrong about to whom she had spoken. That is never an easy thing to do when standing there in public and it inevitably caused nearly a day of Court delay while further evidence had to be gathered from the Wayfield Centre staff. Although that was regrettable and should have been raised earlier as to who she felt she had met and did not recognise in the witness box earlier in that week, no personal blame attaches to her. It was one of those things that can happen. We are all only human and fallible.

It makes no sense at all that the social worker did not go first to the contact centre and speak to the staff there to flesh out more information about the bare details in the email before she went to speak to Child A, the foster carer and then to question the grandfather. I accept that to be the right sequence of events on 30^th January and I have already made it plain that I accept Ms. James-Cooke's recollection and evidence about that.

(iii) Ms. James-Cooke is not infected in any way by any mala fides or caught up in any narrative or systemic belief that the paternal family is sexually dysfunctional, nor was she trying to implicate or protect the paternal family. I found her work and evidence to be objective and truthful and particularly fearless when dealing with the vexed issued of Child C's relationship with his school. She wanted to conduct a thorough investigation, obtained what she thought was an account from the primary source and immediately received a narrative from the child herself, a child about to become a teenager, and from the experienced foster carer, the other eye witness.

(iv) I accept Ms. James-Cooke's evidence that she definitely spoke to Mrs. Cahill and somebody else, honestly believed at that time to be Ms. Foster, on 30^th January, speaking to the eye witness being the most important bit of evidence, as she agreed, wanting to see what was being alleged as having occurred and obtaining a visual account about that from the source, as she thought. I accept that there was no interaction between her and Mrs. Cahill on 2^nd February at all, bar her popping in to the centre to use its facilities.

(v) We are where we are now and the evidence is closed. There will be no more and the Court must decide, in the usual way, on the balance of probabilities, neither more nor less, weighing up the veracity, credibility and demeanour of the various witnesses and exercising proper caution about this not easy matter. It is obviously unfortunate that somebody now known not to be Paula Foster demonstrated what might have been an innocent hug, albeit with the hands or arms across a 12-year-old's, soon to be 13-year-old, breast area.

Mrs. Cahill, knowing or believing that Paula Foster was on the premises should have gone to get her or ask Ms. James-Cooke to come back or wait. She should have volunteered that the other person, although she did not particularly accept there was another person, was absolutely not Paula Foster. However, I do not find that that failure reinforced or instigated in the social worker an erroneous approach. She went next and spoke to the victim, as it were, but Child A was not actually a complainant at all and nor was her foster carer, who knows her very well indeed.

Neither did Child A complain to her brother, as she might have been expected to do if she had felt that something had happened. He had nothing to report at all either. Child A is well able to state if something feels inappropriate to her; she has done so in the recent past, both about her father washing her "down below" as she called it, and the boy touching her thigh at school. She has been a reliable witness about that. The fact that she did not have anything critical to say in these circumstances is eloquent evidence in my judgement, in the final analysis, of innocence and inadvertence on the part of her grandfather.

(vi) I find that there was sufficient probing of Child A very quickly after the incident to elicit any complaint that she may have wanted to make or that the foster carer wanted properly to make on her behalf. In the substantive Judgment the Court had referred to all the records and evidence which showed that Child A had "told plain lies and acted evasively and deceptively with her mother, which certainly was not in her best interests, as a young girl." That is a quote directly from my previous Judgment. That though was entirely in the context of her being, at that time, sadly used and manipulated by her mother, being her mother's best friend, protector and confidante and indeed parentifying her mother.

As recently as 21^st January this year, the mother had said to the social worker that she was missing Child A, who was her friend. This event happening 13 months after Child A had been removed from her mother's care and sway of influence therefore can be treated very differently in my judgement. She has not been coached or parroted any complaint emanating from her mother and she has not volunteered any unhappiness about her grandfather's inappropriate treatment of her.

She has been happy and confident with Mrs Y and even bothered to query with her social worker, as quoted, why this line of questioning was being pursued with her on the Friday. She did have the opportunity at the time to jump or react or say something like, "Oi, Granddad, do you mind?" or something similar, or tell Mrs Y that she disliked what had occurred, but none of that came through. She did not perceive herself as being abused or something inappropriate having happened at the end of that period of contact. It was only the general complaint about the grandfather tending to squeeze too hard that she has raised, nothing to do with any "sinister intentions," as she understood them to be.

(vii) I consider that it is too far-fetched and really an adult interpolation to suggest, as did the mother's Counsel in his closing submissions, that, because at that stage Child A might have been aware that her grandfather's application for Special Guardianship was still being considered and he was being assessed and that he was still seeking for her care only to be entrusted to him, she would have been less likely in those circumstances to spill the beans and make a disclosure.

She has had ample time and opportunity since to mention it to her counsellor, to her social worker, her foster carer and more recently to Mr and Mrs M, but has not done so. It would appear that Child A herself thought that her grandfather was simply hugging her goodbye from behind, which had gone across her chest, despite her not liking all the attempts at kissing and cuddling at contact, both before and after that, to which the contact supervisors properly have referred and which certainly does need attention. It was not actually put to the social worker for her consideration that the grandfather's Special Guardianship assessment might have been operating in Child A's mind at all.

(viii) I do not find that any of those contact centre witnesses have embellished their evidence, far from it. They have reported it entirely factually and objectively and have no axe to grind. They are lay people of course and are not trained in the way that social workers are. I accept that Ms. Foster, a well-meaning, uninvolved and, as a contact supervisor, a very experienced practitioner, genuinely reported what she had seen and herself automatically attributed an inappropriate motive to it which was not understood or shared by the foster mother, Mrs Y. That may have been understandable given the nature of the gesture.

Ms. Foster, of course, cannot look into the grandfather's mind, nobody can, and understand what was actually operating at that precise moment. It was most unhelpful that only in her oral evidence for the first time was the assertion revealed that the grandfather allegedly had touched the right breast with the right hand and so on. That had not been said before in any of the statements or in any discussion with or by the social worker. Moreover, the person at the centre had demonstrated to the social worker a crossing of arms. Ms. Foster's comment that it was the fact that the grandfather did not cross his arms that she found unusual and worried her I found really nonsensical in the final analysis. She had left the area immediately and had probably not seen Child A then turning round to hug her grandfather, it would seem. Plainly, when an allegation is made against somebody, Article 6 requires that to be fully and thoroughly investigated as close to the point in time as possible and that, sadly, was simply not the situation here as the matter turned out.

(ix) The Court is asked to take into account, almost as a makeweight, I felt, the grandfather's glib joke during his time in the witness box, with a suggestion that that undermines his evidence in some way. Dealing with hugs, he said, with a smile and a laugh, that he has to hug his son, the father, sometimes too. I take into account that standing in the witness box with everybody staring at you is a stressful and unnatural ordeal for anyone and that a perfectly natural automatic human response, within reason, can lighten the atmosphere. The Court does not want to be po-faced and hypercritical about such an off the cuff remark, which in fact had been mentioned in the grandfather's own witness statement as something that he does perfectly normally to both his adult sons. So I did not find that helpful to pray into aid at all.

(x) I do not and cannot find that the mother has proved what was her case to prove, having brought it, on the balance of probabilities within Lord Hoffman's binary approach. Either a thing has happened or it has not. What has been starkly marked here is that it should have been discussed with the father and the grandfather before the contact was restarted after many months, the proper parameters of their behaviour and what was likely to be unacceptable or unwanted to three of the children who had been living in those two different foster homes for more than a year.

That is particularly so here because it appears that some of the staff at the contact centre also may have felt that the Court had got it wrong and that the grandfather was a perpetrator, underlined by that wholly inappropriate mantra heard by Ms. James-Cooke of, "He did it, he did it, he did it." She said, highly significantly, as I found it to be, and I have already referred to it, that she would question everything reported by professionals in respect of the paternal family.

(xi) While paedophiles and people who wish to abuse and interfere with children do operate in plain sight, as recent high-profile cases show all too clearly, and can become emboldened and feel invincible when not challenged, just as do people who grope others on public transport or in public places and rely on confusion and embarrassment to avoid detection, the Court simply cannot here make the quantum leap required by the "lone voice," of the mother's counsel, to find the allegation of sexually inappropriate behaviour and sexual assault proven here. To sexually assault a child in a family contact centre, in a small area, with others present, including the child's own foster carer, with the possibility of there being CCTV in operation, would be enormously bold, foolish and stupid and I cannot find that this case is proven to that standard.

(xii) The consensus of objective opinion of all the contact supervisors, bar Ms. Foster, and the foster carer too, was that there was nothing inappropriate or untoward here. The Court cannot go behind that. They were there on the ground, they witnessed the children's discomfort at times, but never felt the need to intervene or offer constructive feedback to the adults at the end of the sessions. However, they clearly did express qualms that there was too much direct physical contact, not welcomed by Child A in particular. Ultimately, the Court echoes that.

This has been a real object lesson in giving guidance in advance of how to behave and how to allow contact to develop at the child's pace, to be child-focused and to allow them appropriate space to respond as they wish. There should have been no rush or pressure about all of this, while accepting that the contact was only for a limited period of time.

(xiii) What is operating here, I am quite clear, is an adult desire to show love and affection, particularly when observers are present, which, at times, has completely failed to have at its forefront the children's wishes and feelings and sensitivities. There is an over-enthusiasm on the part of the father and grandfather. It is also the adults' reactions that have come to the fore again, the grandfather being, if I may say so, rather, "me, me, me," crying when these allegations were put to him and him being a physically demonstrative and tactile man, as he said in his witness statement. He is a man I think now in his early 50s who needs to control his emotions and be much more aware of the children's comfort and feelings rather than want to overwhelm them with unwelcome physical attention. What he may want and want to do does not accord with the children's, I thought, very clearly expressed needs and wishes. Perhaps there was an element of over-compensation, trying to make up for the lost time and to show to the supervisors what a loving, close family they were, although in fact Dr. French had said at the end of her January report that:

"[Child A] had had enough of her dad and did not want to see him anymore. This was her decision. On the no list was [the paternal grandfather] and [the father]."

That had been read by these parties and should have been properly taken into account as it seems to me.

(xiv) It is surprising indeed, reading the notes, that the two men's antennae were not activated to realise that there was altogether too much tactile behaviour, particularly on the part of the grandfather, which was visibly uncomfortable and unlooked for by all three children, in fact, certainly the older two, but particularly in relation to Child A. He had, after all, been under the spotlight for those many months in respect of the alleged sexual abuse of Child C resulting in that sad breakdown of his marriage and him living in a car at some stage. I found it strange also that, having had the allegation put to him very swiftly by the social worker on 30^th January, that the grandfather did not then temporise in his actions on the next contact on 12^th February. So there has not been a learning opportunity perhaps taken there, although it could be said it was also a sign of innocence because he did not think he was doing anything wrong. There we are. There will, I think, be some growth and development after this Judgment has been digested.

Immediately on arrival on 12^th February, the father again was standing behind Child A a lot of the time, moving his hands up and down on her upper arm and moving her arms. She was quiet and upset, with that closed body language, but the grandfather took over the role of reassuring her and would not let the father help. The grandfather will be having more of a back seat role perhaps in the new placement arrangements and I felt a little concerned that he had not developed more insight about his proper role as grandfather, given the local authority's earlier concerns in the substantive Fact Finding Hearing. He will be one step removed from the children now, as it were, with their Special Guardians having that important role.

(xv) I find that the father who is, as was said in a previous Judgment, idiosyncratic and perhaps not everybody's cup of tea, very much follows his father's lead and that the behaviour of the two of them together can become therefore rather intense for the children. It means that there is not one, but two people trying to force kisses and cuddles on them. Things like pulling Child A's ponytail because she was moody and teasing her in that way by the grandfather, as he set out in his statement, and the father's mention again of Harvey and calling him Child A's boyfriend may be amusing to the adults, but they can become irritating and annoying to the children and there needs to be some sensitivity there. It is to be hoped that Mr and Mrs M and Mr NL too, for Child E, are able carefully to regulate the content and extent of the father's and grandfather's time spent with the children in the now much less artificial settings of their new homes.

(xvi) Overall, I conclude:

(1) That the grandfather did not deliberately grasp Child A's breasts, on purpose and with any sexual intent that day. Touching per se and the showing of affection is of course perfectly normal and natural between family members and circles of friends, providing it is not accompanied by any sleazy or inappropriate sexual motive to gratify the giver and provided it is welcomed too by the recipient. His hands or arms did cross her breasts, but that caused no upset to Child A and was a momentary inadvertent and accidental movement in my judgement, echoing the foster carer's response to this. He was engaging in normal leave-taking, but just overdid it somewhat. The inconsistent evidence of her showing no physical response and/or freezing did not assist the Court, while the vacant look referred to by Mrs. Reynolds underscored that, from Child A's perspective, nothing concerning at all had happened, although I do take into account Mrs Y's comment about her eyes widening.

(2) I conclude that the grandfather did not behave inappropriately with her or to her in contact in the various ways set out in paras.2, 3, 4 and 5 of the short Scott Schedule. Whilst Child A may have been irritated at times and had some reticence about the new contact regime and getting used to seeing her father and grandfather again, with their tendency to want that physical contact, and there was plainly scope for guidance and contemporaneous feedback, I do not find that the actions were done with any sexual motive. That is not actually alleged in terms, but rather has that taint about it, norm in themselves were they inappropriate. The family need to close this chapter and embark on the new lives and routines for these four damaged children.

WELFARE DISPOSAL AND FINAL ORDERS

107. At the end of an enormously long and complex case, the Court and, no doubt, the parties too, expresses relief that these different children with their different needs have been able to avoid the uncertainty and shifting care pattern of long-term fostering and corporate parenting and are able to grow up within the three paternal family households. Accordingly, there is no need to undertake a Re B-S compliant holistic analysis of avoidable options. All are now agreed that this is the best outcome for them, even though the mother, until recently, wanted ongoing foster placements over and above the paternal family placements. The court respects the mother's views about that, but she now understands that they are placed in the best possible way.
108. The Guardian's analysis is that all four children have now successfully transferred from the local authority placements to permanent placements within the paternal family without any regression reported in any way during the transition and, happily, with no significant difficulties. Child A and Child B moved to the paternal great-aunt and uncle, Mr and Mrs M, full-time on 2^nd April and Child E moved to the paternal great-uncle, Mr NL, on 4^th April, each of those under the auspices of Interim Supervision Orders.
109. Child C's own transition was done at a necessarily slower pace for him, over some seven weeks. He has been full-time with his father and Mrs N since 19^th April under an Interim Care Order. Great credit is due to Mr and Mrs M and to Mr NL for their commendable openness and honesty when working with the local authority and being prepared to undertake these considerable responsibilities. All parties' Article 8 rights have therefore been effectively preserved and the proposed Orders are appropriate and proportionate and fully justifiable in the final analysis.
110. Dealing with the children separately and applying the welfare checklist principles, while Child A had been "particularly ambivalent," as the Guardian called it, about moving to live with the paternal family, the house is smaller than she had got used to at the foster carer's and her soiling increased, as it had historically when she was faced with change and a sense of loss of control, she in fact settled very quickly once the actual change had been achieved, bar a few hiccups about boundaries and so on. She is making good progress at school. That is all very good to hear, but there are bound to be challenges facing the Mr and Mrs M in the future, over the coming years. I congratulate them for their commitment to attending meetings and their close working with the social worker to ensure as seamless a transition as possible has been achieved.
111. She has continued to express the view, as the Guardian understood it, that she does not wish to have direct contact with her father at this time, with no mention about her grandfather, and the Mr and Mrs M are committed to respecting her wishes about that and are entrusted with making appropriate decisions. As the guardian will be off the scene, it is intended that the local authority, along with CAMHS, I believe, will undertake the obvious necessary work with both the father and grandfather about touching and being sensitive to the children's feelings. The father needs to bear in mind that a girl of Child A's age who has not had much emotional tactile support when living with her parents, it would seem, will not welcome displays of touching, any irritating comments about boyfriends and so on and any intrusive questioning about such matters.
112. Ms. James-Cooke, together with CAMHS, is charged with making contact much more agreeable for Child A in particular, if that is to happen in the near future. I am rather critical, and I feel it appropriate to mention this, about the Wayfield Centre contact supervisors, who obviously view their role very much as uninvolved loggers and observers. It would helpful, in hindsight, if they had taken the father and grandfather aside for a debriefing at the end of some of the visits and explained about Child A's discomfort or perhaps asked the social worker to do so and waylaid some of the tactile behaviour. That was a missed opportunity in my judgement which allowed that behaviour to be reinforced by the lack of any intervention or comment.
113. As Mr. Tucker recognised in his closing submissions, this is a close family and contact will take place between all family members. The grandfather and other family members need to undertake work within the support plans for these children leaving local authority care after such a long span of time. I bear in mind also it has been recommended that there be a gap between Child A's current counselling with Mrs. Pawley at Oakfields and then embarking on actual individual therapeutic intervention commencing for her with CAMHS and possibly some family therapy too. The Court was told that there is already a first appointment for Child A arranged with CAMHS for 26^th June and that also the local authority will pay for the anticipated five to ten sessions. That was good to hear.
114. Dealing then with Child C, Ms. James-Cooke confirmed that the excellent support worker, Mr. V at the residential unit, where Child C had lived for some months, was very pleased about how the transition to the father's care had gone. It was better, in fact, than even the social worker had expected. Again, that was very reassuring to learn and is a credit to the father and to his partner, who have gone very much at Child C's pace and are a good team to manage his care and to embed him in their new family unit.
115. The important issue of respite care once a month, viewed as essential by Janice Barton, to allow the father and Mrs N to ensure their own relationship remains stable and solid, is still an unresolved issue at the moment, as far as the Court understood it. Plainly, the nearly £3,000 a week that the residential unit would have charged to keep a bed open for Child C is disproportionate and unsupportable. Ms. James-Cooke has been actively searching for a respite placement. The Court was told that one had been identified but was quickly ruled out as simply not being suitable for Child C's particular needs. A search goes on for a therapeutic respite arrangement for him to give his carers, and Child H too, for the times that she is there, a break from Child C and his particular challenges. As the Guardian rightly commented, this will require very careful matching.
116. The paternal grandfather may put himself forward to provide some respite care for Child C, although he has spent very little one to one time with Child C. The Guardian envisaged some additional training and guidance being required in light of Child C's complex needs and The father needing to undertake some work around issues that gave rise to this Fact Finding Hearing before that could be considered in any event. The Court concurs with that opinion.
117. Ms. Freestone recognised the positives in Child C's family placement, saying at paragraph 18 of her report as follows:

"[The father] and [Mrs N] remain committed to caring for [Child C in the longer term and have been very open and honest regarding their need for additional training as well as support by respite and professionals, which quite understandably they will need to care with a child with needs as complex and lifelong as [Child C] has. It is commendable that they have both strived to keep [Child C] at the centre of their thinking over the transition period, despite the clear difficulties in terms of finances and their personal frustration at professional organisations involved with [Child C]."

118. Regarding Child B, again he has settled well, having been keen to be placed with the Mr and Mrs M. There has been some oppositional behaviour in the placement. As the Guardian properly reflected, this is not new behaviour and had been noted by the foster carers at times when there was disparity between his own wishes and what the adults around him considered to be in his best interests. Both Child B and Child A, now on the cusp of adolescence, had had confusing parenting at home, with either authoritarian or permissive regimes, meaning that inevitably they are likely to rail against the more appropriate and authoritative parenting with proper boundaries that the Mr and Mrs M are striving to provide. There are bound to be hiccups and, at times, the older children have expressed a wish that they were back at the foster carer's, but it was good to read that Child B has now been able to become more involved with his love of football, which Dr. French had strongly recommended for him, and the children have settled well. The court was also delighted at the IRH when Mr M spoke warmly of Child A and Child B and reported they were both "enjoying" the children; a very important word amid their new roles of being the children's primary carers.
119. Lastly, dealing with young Child E, the situation is entirely encapsulated in the Guardian's report at paragraphs 12 and 13 from which I quote:

"It has been particularly reassuring to read of the far better than anticipated transition of [Child E] into [Mr NL]'s permanent care. From my regular updates from the social worker, I am aware anecdotally that [Mr NL] has remained very focused on [Child E], despite the difficulties as reported in the social work statement, and has achieved a level of emotional intimacy with [Child E] over a short period of time, very much as the transitional plans were set up to try to promote. [Mr NL] has warmly embraced Child E's love of 'Frozen' to engage her and has begun to develop methods of supporting [Child E]'s behavioural and emotional needs through strategies which are wholly personalised to her world view.

He was very proactive in attending all meetings relating to her care and has therefore benefited from a holistic view of [Child E] from all the professionals who have been working with her. It is delightful to read the school's view that they can tangibly feel the difference between [Child E] being loved rather than cared for and the positive relationships which Mr NL has built within the atmosphere of well-documented adversity which can only benefit [Child E] positively in the long term."

Child E has obviously made great strides and her development has been "positively furthered," the Guardian's phrase, even over this short space of time.

120. Ultimately, the Court is content therefore to approve the Final Re-amended care Plans and to make Special Guardianship Orders to Mr and Mrs M in respect of Child A and Child B. I make also a Special Guardianship Order to Mr. NL in respect of Child E. A Child Arrangements Order is granted in respect of Child C to the father and Mrs N, together with a 12 month Supervision Order to Medway Council.
121. It is to be hoped that a good solid network of support around Child C can be built for the future with professionals, including a new school in September, and the family working together and having a better and easier relationship than has been the case at times. The Disabilities Team will also need to become involved towards the tail-end of the supervision period. Child C is a charming but complex young man who is expected to require lifelong input of specialist provision in the years to come.

CONTACT FOR THE MOTHER

122. In relation to the issue of contact going forward in the children's now established placements, the mother has stuck to her wish and her instructions to have fortnightly contact to all four of them. That is so even though she now lives out of Kent in a different county, in Essex, and will have the logistical challenges of travel, effort and the expense involved. I understand she also is now working in some capacity, but nothing further is known about that commitment. The mother did not actually attend the final day of the hearing, although she is here today, and Mr. Fletcher therefore was not able to assist the court with any information about the mother's working and commitments. She also seeks an actual order defining a minimum of contact in contrast to what was called the "traditional Special Guardianship Order approach to contact" and it being left to the Special Guardians to manage it. In fact, the levels of contact in such orders vary hugely from case to case given their own individual facts and merits and may be only four or may be much more. It is all dependent, of course, on the needs and welfare of the children, as enshrined in the Children Act and ultimately now is the important responsibility of the three respective Special Guardians and the father, in Child C's case, to gauge and review the frequency and nature of contact arrangements and the benefit to the children.
123. Accordingly, I do not accept that there is a tariff operating or a usual number of such occasions. I am entirely clear that contact to, and time spent with, their mother will only be a positive thing for these children and that, provided the mother commits wholeheartedly to it and hopefully does or says nothing to upset or undermine their newly-won security, it certainly should be left to move and develop over time. It could be envisaged, for example, that the mother would be invited to join in family barbecues or birthdays or events and so on and spend more time with the children in that way. The Court, of course, is wholly aware of the mother's vulnerability and difficulties. She is in that isolated position, with no reliable family members to support her, and has those limitations in relation to memory and intellect. She still harbours perfectly understandable human emotions of hurt and betrayal about her husband's behaviour towards her. Ms. James-Cooke recognised in her February statement that the mother has not managed to obtain that same sense of belonging and family cohesiveness that she once had with the paternal family and that is probably inevitable given her current circumstances.
124. Child A and Child B had been very unimpressed last year about her commitment to seeing them. She had failed to attend arranged contact sessions and did not let anybody know. Understandably, they felt disappointment and distress and that their mother was not prioritising her energies and efforts to see them and to reassure them that she was there for them and was doing all right herself. They, of course, had taken on that rather parenting role for her at times in the past and the Court recalls they had called her "stupid" and "an idiot" and felt that she preferred to spend time with her new boyfriend, who has not of course wanted to be seen by any of the professionals. The children have experienced real feelings of resentment and betrayal about and by their mother. Her approach really did not reconcile with her expressed fears that, after the Court case was over, she would be denied access to her children by the paternal family, as she said had happened with Child D. Discussions had taken place on 24^th February, very properly, to try and alleviate those fears once and for all. Mr NL had strongly reassured her that he would never, ever prevent Child E from seeing her mother.
125. Overall, the Court was told that she has attended some 70 or 75 per cent of available contacts. That may be viewed as not a particular good hit rate and at times the children have been left upset by their mother's failure to come and see them. I acknowledge that one of those occasions was focused on a bereavement and/or funeral of Mr P's father, I believe, which she had already told social workers was fixed for 5^th February. There was also illness on her own part prayed in aid. Even given that, the mother could and should have avoided letting down the children on quite so many occasions. That track record does not inspire confidence that she would suddenly be able to materialise every two weeks and fulfil her stated wish.
126. She is a damaged woman who has not been particularly good at comforting or certainly emoting with her children in the past. It was therefore very heartening, and Ms. James-Cooke gave her proper and particular credit for it, that, on the 16^th April, the mother seemed supportive and insightful. That was an important recent visit as Child A and Child B had not seen their mother for a month and there had been real concerns about Child A's health, worsening soiling and her presentation. The contact went very well and The mother notably tried to reassure the children that everything would be fine in their new family placement and asked them to be good for the Mr. and Mrs. M. That was good to read. It was unfortunate therefore that she managed to sneak, as it were, some money to the children, when Ms. James-Cooke momentarily had stepped away. Of course, the giving of the £5 each to them would not have been objected to by the social worker at all, but that sudden secret handing over was not really appropriate and unfairly left the children in a bit of a difficult position. Things will be different now the children are in their family placements.
127. Although a meeting was arranged to discuss that on 24^th April, the mother failed to attend that appointment and did not contact the social worker to cancel it, so inconveniencing and wasting the time of the social worker, sadly. Similarly, she did not attend Child C's Looked After Child Review on 27^th April, nor had she called to cancel. Apparently, the mother subsequently gave one explanation to her former husband: that she had been attending hospital. It is known and I have seen that she has a damaged hand, but she had reported to the social worker that she was working, and so there are conflicting stories that were presented there. The upshot of all of that, and I add also her continuing at one time erroneously to collect state benefits relating to Child C which meant that they could not benefit him directly, to the financial detriment and upset of the father and Mrs N's household, led the Guardian to state that the mother's inability to be consistent and to understand and prioritise her children's emotional needs remains a concern.
128. In relation to Child D too, the mother has conveyed rather mixed messages, promising to the paternal step-grandmother, since the 18^th March this year, that she would be and wanted to visit Child D but, to date, having not done anything further to actually achieve that and not calling anymore on the phone. Child D had been anticipating seeing her mother, but has now stated via her grandmother that she does not care, which obviously is sad. Ms. James-Cooke considers that the lack of consistency is not deliberate on the part of the mother, but rather that she lacks a genuine understanding of the impact on the children of her actions and her failures.
129. Ms. James-Cooke herself had been calling the mother to remind her of contact and had said, "Please don't let the children down." However, the mother's phone was not always on and the social worker many times, she told the Court, had actually had to call the father to ask if he had heard from the mother. The mother admitted rather blankly on one occasion that, yes, she should have asked the gas man to call at a different time in order to prioritise contact with the children.
130. The local authority's Final Care Plans and the closing submissions are very clear and are fully endorsed by the Guardian. There is to be contact on a monthly basis to Child A and Child B. The Court fully accepts that. The mother needs to engage fully. She needs to demonstrate real commitment to the arrangements and to improve her relationship with her children. They need to be able to rely, that crucial word, on her coming and, if all goes well, the contact can move forward from there in the future. Child A, in particular, has those concerns about her mother's welfare and needs that regular reassurance that her mother is alright and will turn up and really enjoy time with them.
131. There are then those different recommendations for the two younger children. There are six breaks during the school year and an extra one will be added at the end of the long summer holiday, after one at the beginning too. Accordingly, Child C and Child E will see their mother on seven occasions in the year. Again, the local authority wants to ensure that the mother engages well and works with those sessions and it is fully anticipated that they can be continually reviewed and extended if that is the case.
132. I am entirely clear that granting the mother's wish of more frequent contact than that would be to set her up to fail and to set up the children for potentially more upset and disappointment and feelings of rejection. With the assistance of her excellent advocate, Christine Silk from VPSS, and in the context of the ongoing proceedings, she has been able to attend once a month for the last two months. Why disturb that progress and overwhelm her with too much too soon in new living arrangements for everybody, the Court asks itself rhetorically?
133. The Court is entirely content to approve those recommendations which are fully supported by the Guardian and have them marked in black and white in the order as the entirely fair, child-focused and minimum level of contact for now. Once the structure of the proceedings and the Court's, Guardian's and local authority's input, and also that of Mrs. Christine Silk, has ceased in the case of three of the children, the mother will be reliant on the family to remind her of the dates that she is expected to attend to see the children. The father and Mrs N too have made it very plain that they in no way obstruct the full promotion of contact with Child C for the mother and will fully facilitate it, including in their own home if appropriate. I have no doubt that they have good intentions there and will pursue those. There is no ill will between the two women either.
134. The father has said that he is happy to take on the responsibility of reminding the mother about the dates when contact is due and will be the first person to advocate for her if all is going well, the Court was told and accepts. That collaboration can only be healthy for the children and hopefully will lead to the mother being confident and consistent in her attendance to see the children.
135. In relation to any travel warrant or funding needed to ensure that the expense of travel is not a bar to frustrate the contact happening, Mr. Tucker undertook to look into any financial support which might emanate from the local authority, possibly within the Special Guardian Support Plans. No doubt the Court will hear about that after this judgment has been delivered.
136. I have to deal also with additional concerns. As has been the situation throughout this complicated case, two other aspects here have arisen during the hearing for the Court's consideration and comment, in addition to what I have already referred to in the social worker's evidence. So, for completeness, I must necessarily deal with them as they each involve Child C's still current school.

(i) Firstly, the Court was disappointed to learn that Child C's school has not accepted the Court's October Fact Finding Judgment and decision to entrust Child C's care to his father, even though all the parties to the action have accepted the Judgment and have not sought to contradict or appeal it. The school has written to Ofsted about this, as I understand it, expressing what may be negative views. It has been said that Child C has been told by school staff that he should not be living with his father. I understand that that critical feeling has been conveyed to the residential unit too, which of course has provided excellent care for Child C for many months and worked very effectively with the father to facilitate that happy transition which actually has gone better than expected to their great credit.

This is a deeply unsatisfactory and unsettling situation, given that a new school for Child C has not yet been identified, but there are still several weeks of this academic term left and such negative comments could be very undermining of his placement. The deputy headmaster, Mr. Q, had given evidence of extreme behaviours and language used by Child C in the substantive Fact Finding last year, the like of which had not been seen at the residential unit or, it was said, at the parents' home. The school, of course, only know what they have experienced about Child C at school and do not have the whole picture. The expression of their viewpoint therefore could be said to be both inappropriate and disrespectful.

The Court obtained as complete a picture as could be achieved during many, many days of searching evidence as to what had been going on in Child C's and his siblings' lives. The school staff are not privy to any of that, nor to much of the voluminous documentation that the Court has read, nor to the submissions of all the parties, including of course that of the very experienced Guardian charged with being the children's protector and mouthpiece in these hearings, nor will the school have read the comprehensive 54 page Judgment.

Given that the father will have to work with the school for the remainder of this term and the school's views may well be influential in Child C transferring to his new school, I am disheartened by the school seeking to go behind the Judgment. In fact, somebody from the proposed school in Ashford, which had been considered for Child C, apparently had very recently visited Child C's school and spoken to Mr. Q. It is to be hoped that Child C's chances of having a well-managed move have not been spoiled in any way.

(ii) The other troubling aspect about which the Court was informed on Day 1 of this hearing is that Child C was allowed to visit a teacher's home, with others present there, her partner and a stepson, age not known, nor whether they had been, as it used to be called, CRB checked, on New Year's Day this year and, in April 2014, at his birthday time, he was taken out for a few hours. All of this occurred without his mother or father, or his Guardian, or the court for that matter, being informed when he was subject to an Interim Court Order and when, in relation to the April event, the Court had not yet conducted the Fact Finding and ruled about why Child C might have made allegations of sexually inappropriate behaviour against all sorts of people, including school staff.

Searching enquiries then had to be made during this final hearing as to who had authorised these outings and why. The Court received further information on Day 4, the last day of the hearing, about this. Statements had to be obtained from the previous social workers, Yvonne Kapungu and Victor Mukolo, and Mr. Brian Amos, Deputy Head of Service, also had to produce a statement and has tendered an unreserved apology to the family, acknowledging that the local authority has a duty to consult with and inform parents of contact arrangements pertaining to Child C, which clearly did not happen here. Having been checked, these were not overnight visits and nor, it would appear, were there any earlier in time visits, in 2012 or 2013, which the Court was concerned might have impacted on the evidence received from the school during the Fact Finding Hearing.

While all of this may have been done with the best possible intentions by one of the teaching assistants at Child C's school, who appears particularly interested in Child C and his welfare, it left her and others exposed, potentially, to allegations and really should have been made known to Child C's parents, to the Court and to the Guardian. This has not occurred in a vacuum and there was certainly time to share this information. The New Year visit had been scheduled for Christmas Day, the motivation being that Child C would not be with any other children that day. The local authority or the Court might have been able to make special contact arrangements to obviate that but, instead, Mr. Victor Mukolo, the then social worker, contacted the manager of the care home and copied the staff members at Child C's school into the conversation, according to Mr. Q's email of 19^th May when he had been asked recently about these matters.

In his own statement, dated 15^th May this year, Mr. Mukolo accepted that he had authorised that contact with the teaching assistant and should have scrutinised this request more thoroughly, observed the local authority's procedures and consulted with Child C's parents about this request for contact. He simply assumed they were aware, in some unexplained way. The deputy head of Child C's school told him that Child C had been having contact with one of the teaching assistants at the school in the past and Mr. Mukolo blithely accepted that without checking the records and/or consulting with his manager.

Ms. Kapungu, the original social worker, about whom the Court had made highly critical comments in the October Judgment, had granted permission for school staff to visit Child C on his birthday as they were very concerned that he may not see anyone he knew on the day to celebrate his birthday because he was in care at that time in one of his two short-lived foster placements. When he was moved to his residential care home, prior to his birthday, Ms. Kapungu had then made arrangements for school staff to visit, as they had promised to do. It was apparently a one and a half hour visit to the seafront for fish and chips near his care home.

Ms. Kapungu had very negative views about the paternal family, feeling them to be sexually dysfunctional. However, the local authority was sharing parental responsibility with the parents at that time and, again, they should have been consulted about this visit and the Court also should have been informed. In her statement of 15^th May, Ms. Kapungu states that she would routinely seek guidance from her manager about this emotive issue of contact, just as she would consult those with parental responsibility for the children in agreeing and arranging contact, but apologises for the fact that she completely failed to do so in this particular instance. All of this was inappropriate, as the Guardian commented, and very much at odds with best practice.

The Guardian's manager at CAFCASS has raised this with the local authority and it is to be hoped, plainly, that a lesson has been learned. It is very plain that, since Ms. James-Cooke took over the case, nothing like this has happened again. She has a well-balanced, positive and professional working relationship with the family members and mutual respect there, which has benefited everybody, including the children. Things are now much more on an even keel.

While these visits no doubt were done with a child-focused best possible intention approach, they left exposed the people involved to allegations from Child C, the like of which had already been extensively investigated, including within a police ABE interview in the original hearing. The visits might have confused Child C, should have been discussed with his Guardian and the children's solicitors input also should have been sought, and certainly they should have been shared with his family.

The Court notes the steps that Mr. Amos has now taken to ensure that the risk of such happening again is minimised, including explicit consultations and recordings. This was not an impressive situation on the part of the previous local authority social workers.

OUTCOME

137. These children, and indeed the adults too, have been through a lot. The Court is particularly pleased that the local authority will manage contact for the first six months and then review it. After that, the family will be fully in charge and will have to contact the mother by phone or Facebook to remind her about her next visit. Some trust and respect has to be rebuilt here.
138. Dealing with the publication of the Judgment. I will hear any further submissions about the publication of the now three judgments that the court has given in this lengthy case. The expectation is now well-known within the 2014 Practice Guidance and transparency approach, that judgments arising from a substantial contested fact-finding hearing at which serious allegations of physical, emotional or sexual harm have been determined must ordinarily be published if it would be in the public interest, unless there are compelling reasons why the Judgment should not be published.
139. Finally, as ever, the Court is enormously grateful to all the advocates for their most careful and conscientious handling of this case. That includes this Judgment and this case. I relinquish this matter once and for all and wish all the parties good luck in the future.