Child Custody - reasons for findings of fact following allegations of sexual abuse.
Before : |
J. A. Clyde-Smith, Esq., Commissioner, and Jurats Morgan and Crill. |
Between |
The Minister for Health and Social Services |
Applicant |
And |
(1) D ("the mother") |
|
|
(2) E ("the father") |
|
|
(3) C and (4) B (acting through their Guardian, Monash Kessler |
Respondents |
IN THE MATTER OF V (CHILD CUSTODY)
Advocate C. R. G. Davies for the Minister.
Advocate S. E. Fitz for the Mother.
Advocate B. J. C. Corbett for the Father.
Advocate M. J. Haines for the children, C and B, acting through their guardian Monash Kessler.
FACT FINDING HEARING
judgment
the commissioner:
1. On 15th June 2012, the Court made certain findings of fact following a four day hearing and indicated that it would set out its reasons in a written judgment which we now do.
2. The mother met the father in 1997 and they have three children, namely A (now aged 14) and twins, B and C, who are now aged 11. The mother has two older children by a previous partner, namely F, who is now aged 26 and G, who is now aged 25. The mother, who has a history of serious alcohol abuse, has a full-scale IQ of 64, which places her within the "extremely low" range. Dr Ruth Emsley, a registered chartered forensic psychologist, in her report of 11th November 2010, could not rule out a diagnosis of learning disability.
3. The father has a history of substance abuse. He was addicted to dihydrocodeine for some seven or eight years undergoing detoxification in 2008 and again in 2009. Dr Emsley, in her report of 11th November 2010, regards drug misuse as a risk factor in his case. He has also been addicted to gambling.
4. The Children's Service has been involved with the mother and her family since 1987, some ten years before she met the father, as there were concerns about her ability to cope with F and G, who were received into care on some four occasions.
5. The twins were born prematurely, with a diagnosis of cerebral palsy. B's cerebral palsy is more serious than that of C. She is dependent on the use of a wheel chair and needs assistance with her personal care. Whilst C's motor skills are weak, she is able to walk and run and does not need any assistance with her personal care. She attends mainstream school, with additional support to assist her to access all there is of the curriculum.
6. During the course of 2009 and 2010, the Children's Service and other agencies became increasingly concerned about the standard of care being given by the mother and father to the three children, including in particular, concerns over the feeding and weight of C and B (the latter being fed by a peg), the poor school attendance of B, the excessive use of Phenergan by the father as a sedative for all three children, the limited understanding of the mother and father of the needs of the children and difficulties the Children's Service was experiencing in engaging with the mother and father.
7. The father moved out of the family home on 7th July 2010 and interim care orders were granted in respect of all three children on 29th July 2010. A was placed with her half-sister, F, and was made the subject of a final care order on 14th April 2011. C has been placed with her maternal aunt, H and B has been placed at a respite centre. Since the interim care orders were made the twins have shown considerable improvement in their general well-being.
8. The Children's Service was aware in 2003 that the mother, described by Dr Emsley as an unreliable historian, had made allegations that the father had sexually abused the children, but no complaint had been made by the children and having investigated the matter, no action was taken by the police. However, in February 2011, C made a disclosure to her maternal aunt, H, which suggested that she had been the subject of sexual abuse by the father. The weekly supervised contact which the father had been enjoying with the twins was suspended by the Minister and subsequently by the Court on 21st February 2011. The application was not opposed by the father. Contact was considered again by the Court on 23rd June 2011, when on expert advice, contact was suspended until the final hearing. The Court expressed itself as being troubled by the position of B, who, (unlike C), had expressed a wish to see her father.
9. After a number of delays brought about by the renewed police investigation, it was decided to proceed with a final hearing in respect of the twins on the basis of an agreed threshold document that set aside the allegations of sexual abuse, which were denied by the father. Those allegations would be considered by the Court at a fact finding hearing held subsequently for the purpose of dealing with the issue of contact between the father and (at least) B.
10. Final care orders in respect of the twins were made on 27th January 2012. Perhaps unusually, therefore, this fact finding hearing took place after final care orders had been made.
11. The allegations of sexual abuse have arisen in this way:-
(i) In 2001/2, the mother complained to H (her sister-in-law) that the father had, on numerous occasions, insisted that she go out in the evening not to return before 11.00 p.m. so that he could have quality time with the children, and that he would lock the door to bath A and take an unusually long time in the bathroom. Putting the twins to bed, he would not put a duvet on them until he went into the room at midnight or thereabouts. She said that B had intermittent urinary tract infections and a sore vagina.
(ii) She complained that on one occasion she had found the father masturbating on the side of the bed when he was feeding one of the twins with a bottle. She took H up to the bedroom to show her where the father had been sitting.
(iii) Further allegations were made by the mother in July 2010, both to H and to Sabrina Charpentier, the social worker, including an allegation that A had said the father locked the door when bathing her and "she didn't like it when Daddy played the shark game in the bath" and "sometimes Daddy fell into the bath".
(iv) On 4th July 2010, when C was an in-patient at the hospital for the purpose of carrying out medical tests and an assessment arising out of concerns over her eating and lack of any weight gain, the father did not inform anyone that he had taken C with him to the out of hours doctor (Dr Overton) for an appointment due to her allegedly suffering from an itchy vagina. Whilst he was allowed to take her out during the day, the father had apparently been told not to take C to the doctor while she was an in-patient as the hospital doctor would deal with any issues that may arise. The father had not mentioned to Dr Overton that C was an in-patient at the hospital.
(v) On 2nd February 2011, after an incident when C had dropped one of H's puppies, she burst into tears and said to H "I'm not going to hide anything from you". She then took some paper as she felt that writing it down would be better. H described the whole disclosure as chaotic and confusing as C was running and jumping around with her statements. There was no continuity of thought and she knew that she could not ask questions to clarify. The first picture showed three figures which C labelled as herself on the left, A on the right and the father in the centre, described as "naughty". She had drawn a line linking their mouths and wrote "kisses him" along the line. She also drew a picture of herself on her knees. According to the notes made by H, C made the following statements:-
"- She has a 'good Dad' and a 'naughty Dad'
- C said she would be on her knees and play a game with her tongue out
- C said she put toothpaste on her tongue at night which made dad angry because he didn't like it
- Dad kissed her on the lips and hugged her. She said it was like older people
- Dad put liquid in her mouth in the bath, it was like custard, cream, water, milk
- She put toothpaste on her tongue before the bath and Daddy got angry and splashed water in her face
- At night when she was asleep dad put something in her mouth - when H queried how she knew if she was asleep, C replied that she wasn't asleep she was 'up a tree' She said she did this when she didn't want to see what was going on.
- C told J (H's daughter) she needed to tell her the secret of the 'naughty tongue'
- C talked about and wrote C & dad in the bath
- C spoke of 'posting' and 'postman' and said this is when she 'went up the tree'
- C said dad had put his and then said you know
- She was in the bath on her knees and her Dad was outside the bath, and that it was all her fault"
(vi) C then took H up to the bathroom and described an incident where it would seem that the father had allegedly exposed himself accidentally to her as she was walking past. She started to discuss toothpaste on her tongue and being on her knees in the bath. She tried to get H to guess what was in her mouth and when told she couldn't guess, C listed some things she said it was not on the paper. She said she "did it so Mum didn't have to".
(vii) H described further disclosures in May 2011 which appear to relate in the main to a visit to a doctor with her father. On this occasion she drew a picture of a circle and the words "fingers into bum" with a picture of a sad face. According to further notes made by H she made a number of statements including:-
"- Dad would lie to Mum and tell her that C was sick, he would then not take her to school
- Dad took her to a Doctor that wasn't her Doctor. He would ask to listen to her chest but she didn't know why she was there and her Dad had injections in his bum
- It wasn't her fault and she felt stupid
- When she got home she would go straight to bed
- She would head butt the wall and the floor
- Sometimes A would take a knife and cut her own wrist in front of C
- She stopped A from cutting her wrists
- She stopped A from jumping out of the window once when she was threatened by Dad
- She hated her own life then and wanted to get out of the house
- Dad made her feel stupid
- Dad threatened me, he told me 'Do not tell anyone about this"."
(viii) A attended an ABE interview on 25th May 2011. She described physical abuse by the father in some detail, in particular an incident in which the father had allegedly been violent towards her in the presence of C and the mother:-
"He grabbed me up against the wall by my throat and started choking me"
However the transcript shows her as going on to say this:-
"192 Okay. What's the, what's the worst abuse you've ever suffered from your dad?
A When I was little and that, my dad, like, my dad, my, my mum and my sister used to suspect something was going on and that. And there was, my dad used to like interfere with us [indistinct] and he used to just do horrible stuff to me and my little sisters when we were younger.
192 Okay, can you tell me about that?
A He used to, like, he used touch us where, where any older man should never touch us."
(ix) When pressed for further details, she said this:-
"A Whenever we used to go for baths and that, I used to have a bath, my dad used to jump into the baths and that with us. And he used to lock the door.
192. So you said 'us', so who is 'us?
A He used to do it to my little sisters as well.
192 Okay
A And they used to be in the bath, so he used to just lock and he wouldn't let any of us in when he was in there with, with my little sisters or me.
A I was, well, he done it to me as well.
192 Okay, so tell us about a time when that happened to you.
A When I was little and that, and I used to take, I used to take baths and that. And my dad used to jump into the baths a lot with me. And my dad used to - I don't want to say.
192 Okay. You said earlier that he used to touch you ...
A Yeah
192 In ways he shouldn't, that's what you said, something like that. Again it's important if we can, you can try and explain what that was exactly.
A I don't want to.
192 Okay. How old were you when this happened, do you think?
A About five or six
192 Okay. Which, which, which area are we talking about, that he touched you?
A [pause] He used to touch us, like, down below.
192 I know it's difficult for you to come out with what's happened, but, as I say, it's quite important for me to know exactly happened if we can, yeah?
A Yeah
192 Do you know what I mean? So he touched you down below ...
A Yeah
192 ...okay? Can you be, can you explain more about where that might be?
A [no response]
192 Do you know a name for it?
A [indistinct] he used to, like, touch our vagina ...
192 Okay
A and [indistinct] and all that, and ..
192 And can you, can you explain how he used to touch you on your vagina?
A [shakes head] I don't want to.
192 Okay
A It's pretty much what [indistinct] I don't want to. [cries]
192 Okay, and how many times do you think this happened?
A Once or twice.
192 Once or twice? Okay. And what did he say? Do you remember that he said to you?
A He used to say "This is what all dads do. There's nothing wrong with it".
192 [pause] And where were you living at the time?
A [deleted].
192 Okay. Right. Okay, it's difficult for you, I know, to come out with that. Do you want to tell me more about that at the moment, that particular thing happening?
A No."
(x) On 17th and 18th November 2011, C attended an assessment at Triangle in Brighton over some two days which was videoed. Ruth Marchant, a director of Triangle, in a very child centred process in which C was given as much control as possible, developed a system of communicating with C by written notes. Eventually, in response to the written question "What happened in your old house?" C responded "It was my Dad?" From me, C". In response to "What happened with your Dad?" C wrote "He sexaul aboards me? From me ☺".
The main conclusion of the Triangle assessment was that C was able to understand and respond appropriately to non-complex questions and was therefore competent to undertake an ABE interview.
(xi) On 2nd December 2011, C wrote a card to Ruth Marchant at Triangle in which she said "I have some stuff to talk about what my father did with B? My Dad did some sexual stuff. He put his privates in my sister's mouth?"
(xii) At her ABE interview on 12th December 2011, C said that she wanted her father to go to prison and then:-
"C (indistinct) you know his, you know his private bits
192 Yuh
C He put, he put his private bits in my sister's mouth and he did the same with me too".
12. The Court was presented with a schedule of findings sought by the Minister in relation to the conduct of the father with the written responses of the mother and the father respectively. The mother accepted all of the findings against the father and we were concerned with those which the father denied which we set out below, by reference to the numbers used in the schedule:-
"1.b Forcibly medicating A by holding her nose and pouring it down her throat.
1.c. On several occasions adding it to the mother's drinks for the purposes of inducing sleep
1.d On one occasion adding it, or another substance to the mother's drink for the purpose of inducing sleep to sexually assault her.
3.a On several occasions by requiring the mother to stay out of the house in the evening and early hours of the morning in order for him to have 'quality time' with the children.
5.a On more than one occasion, indecently assaulting A from the age of about 5 or 6 by touching her vaginal area whilst in the bath.
5.b On more than one occasion indecently assaulting C and B by touching their vaginal area whilst they were in the bath.
5.c Frequently locking the bathroom door when bathing A, C and B
5.d On one occasion procuring an act of gross indecency in the bath with A by asking her to play with his penis
5.e On one occasion between 2001 and 2002 masturbating whilst holding either C or B in his arms to bottle feed the child
5.f At various times prior to July 2010 indecently assaulting C
5.g Prior to July 2010 putting his 'private bits' in both C and B's mouths."
13. The Court heard evidence from Professor Helen Dent, Ruth Marchant, H, the mother, Sabrina Charpentier and the father. Prior to the hearing at the request of Mrs Corbett the Court watched the entirety of the ABE interviews and the video of the Triangle assessment, agreed excerpts from which were played during the hearing.
14. Hearsay notices under the Civil Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003 had been filed in respect of the evidence of A, C and G and parts of the evidence of H.
15. We will summarise the evidence given to us in broad terms.
16. Professor Dent is a registered clinical and forensic psychologist who specialises in the field of research into child witness evidence, having been trained by Professor Undeutch, a pioneering figure in this field. Her research was quoted in the Devlin Report on Identification Evidence, (1976) and contributed substantially to the Home Office Guidance on the interviewing of child and vulnerable witnesses (Memorandum of Good Practice 1992; Achieving Best Evidence 2002). She was jointly instructed by the parties to advise on the allegations made by A and C. Her report concentrates very much on an analysis of the ABE interviews and the extent to which they may have been led or influenced by the interviewer. In carrying out that analysis, she seeks to identify indicators of authenticity in what the children are saying.
17. She first analysed C's drawings and writings made in February and May 2011. She observed that most of the drawings are unclear and do not provide clear evidence that sexual abuse has been experienced. In her view the notes provided by H have to be treated with caution in the absence of detailed and independent information about the manner in which H carried out the interview. However, notwithstanding these reservations, there were, in her opinion, five indications that the information contained authentic allegations of sexual abuse. Firstly, C spoke of being "up a tree" which suggests that she was using dissociation to avoid having to think about what was happening to her. This is a known psychological process in children who suffer trauma or abuse. It is unlikely that either C or H would be aware of the significance of such a phenomenon and deliberately fabricate it in order to deceive. It is alternatively possible that "being up a tree" may have some particular meaning, known only to C or the family. Secondly, C spoke of the "secret of the naughty tongue". It is common for perpetrators of sexual abuse to encourage their victims to keep secrets. It is unlikely that C would know this. It is possible that H would know this, and may have added "the secret" in order to make C's account more plausible, but if so, it is curious that she added "of the naughty tongue". Thirdly, C said that it was all her fault, which is an indication that she was trying to remove blame from her father. Pardoning the perpetrator is one of the indications of a truthful account in Criteria Based Content Analysis and is unlikely to be known as such by either C or H. It is therefore unlikely to have been deliberately fabricated by either of them. Fourthly, C is recorded as saying that her father threatened her and said "Do not tell anyone about this". Reporting direct speech and being told not to tell anyone are both independently considered indications of a truthful account in Criteria Based Content Analysis. Fifthly, C's account conveys some indications of coercion and many indications of unhappiness and unwillingness to take part in the activities described.
18. Professor Dent undertook an extensive analysis of A's ABE interview and concluded overall that there was good interviewer adherence to ABE guidance during the interview and DC Barker was skilful in facilitating free recall from A. The interview was therefore conducted in a manner which, in her view, facilitated reliable recall.
19. A gave lengthy free reports of her allegations of physical abuse and, in Professor Dent's view, these contain many of the criteria associated with an authentic account. Her account of her father's alleged behaviour in the bathroom was, however, very brief and was given largely as responses to specific closed questions. In her view, it is better to have more information on which to conduct an analysis, but it was possible to see a number of the criteria that are considered indicative of an authentic report in this part of A's interview. Her recall, she said, is contextually embedded in everyday life, taking place when she was having baths. A's inclusion of her memory of her mother and sister's suspicions as part of her account of these events can also be considered to be evidence of contextual embedding since there is evidence in the court papers that F and the mother had expressed suspicions at the time of the events that A was alleging. In her opinion, A added an unusual detail, "he used to lock the door" and "he wouldn't let anyone in when he was in there with my little sisters and me". This could be interpreted as taking steps to ensure secrecy, which is characteristic of the offence of sexual abuse. It is unlikely that A would have been sufficiently sophisticated in deception to deliberately include the element of secrecy into a fabricated account. Her reproduction of direct speech, "he used to say 'That is what all Dads do, there's nothing wrong with it'" is another indication of an authentic memory, in her opinion. The unusual content of the words she attributed to her father is a further indication that this element of her memory is authentic. It is not a detail, she said, that a child or an adult is likely to create in a deliberate attempt to deceive.
20. In summary, despite the brevity of A's allegations of sexual abuse, in Professor Dent's opinion they did contain indications of authenticity. One indication, A's recall of her father saying "That is what all Dads do, there's nothing wrong with it" was, she said particularly compelling. It is unlikely that A would have heard this phrase used by her mother or her sister when they were discussing their suspicions. It was clearly linked to A's statement that her father "used to, like touch our vagina" and again, in her view, it was unlikely that A or anyone who might have coached her would know that such a detail would be considered an indication of authenticity.
21. Professor Dent went on to say that A's non-verbal behaviour, being in tears, was congruent with allegations of sexual abuse. It is possible that she could deliberately have made herself cry in order to enhance her account, but this was difficult to achieve convincingly. In her view, A gave a compelling explanation to DC Barker for her reticence in talking about these matter "because it's something to be ashamed of and I don't really exactly want everyone knowing about what happened to me..."
22. Professor Dent pointed out that the allegations made independently by C and A contain similarities, in that both refer to sexual abuse taking place in the bathroom. This could be considered, in her view, to be evidence of corroboration but she said caution must be exercised since, if the allegations were deliberately fabricated, this similarity may have arisen from the same unsafe source, for example, through coaching or overheard conversations.
23. Professor Dent described the Triangle assessment of C as very child centred, where the assessors adhered to the ABE guidance as much as possible. C showed herself to be both determined and not very suggestible. Taking into account her subsequent ABE interview, it was unlikely, in her view, that C was somebody who could be pushed into saying something she did not want to say. The expression "sexual aboards", which Triangle had advised meant "sexually abused" was not a child's phrase and not much, in her opinion, could be inferred from it in terms of authenticity. The card written to Triangle subsequently, if it had been written without prompting, was more significant, because it gave detail.
24. In her opinion, there was good adherence to ABE guidance in her interview on 12th December 2011. DC Barker had a difficult task. C was very anxious and made it clear both verbally and non-verbally that it was extremely difficult for her to participate in the interview. Notwithstanding these difficulties, the interview was conducted in a manner that she considered would facilitate reliable recall.
25. C's allegations of sexual abuse were very brief. It is clearly better, she said, to have more information on which to conduct an analysis but it was possible in her view to see criteria that she considered indicative of an authentic report. C had given an internally coherent account. Her statement "I want my Dad in prison" followed by her allegation "He put his private bits in my sister's mouth and he did the same with me too" and her statement "I don't want anything to do with my Dad any more" comprises a brief, clear and unambiguous narrative. C's spontaneous gesture, pointing between her legs as she spoke about her Dad's "private bits" is a further indication that this element of her memory is authentic. It was not, in her view, a detail that a child of her age and ability is likely to be able to create in a deliberate attempt to deceive.
26. In cross-examination by Mrs Corbett, Professor Dent acknowledged the discord between H and the father and said that that was one of the reasons for carrying out her analysis carefully. She agreed that it was possible that H, as a school counsellor, may have received training on sexual abuse issues, but doubted whether she would be aware of the "fault" indicator of authenticity. She accepted that both C and A could have overheard conversations amongst adults about sexual abuse, but in her view they would not then report direct speech by the father. She accepted it was possible that both could have been prompted into making these allegations.
27. When told that A may have been angry with her father for his failure to give her money promised for her birthday, Professor Dent agreed that this could have been a motivation for her making the allegations. Research into delay on disclosure showed that many factors could trigger a disclosure. She thought it would be a very extreme way of getting her father into trouble by putting herself through an ABE interview just because of a birthday present, but it could have been the trigger for her putting herself through such a process.
28. The card written by C to Triangle was, she accepted, very brief and was not written under ABE conditions. In her view, C may have been in the frame of mind of needing to protect B. It was always easier to talk about someone else on such intimate matters.
29. Professor Dent agreed that it was not possible to tell whether a person was lying from their facial expression and it was therefore unsafe to rely on such an indicator. She accepted that C's allegation about her father putting his private bits in her mouth was not contextually embedded. In all, Professor Dent stood by her advice on the indicators of authenticity contained in the allegations made by C and A.
30. Ruth Marchant gave brief evidence by video link (with the consent of all the parties). She confirmed that C had not been asked to clarify what she meant by "sexual aboards" but she was confident that she meant "sexually abused", but was simply unable to spell it. She would be wary of the use of such a generally descriptive term such as this. She confirmed that during the assessment, C showed an ability to contradict adults and had the confidence to tell them that they were wrong.
H
31. H is married to the mother's younger brother, and works as a school counsellor. She has been an approved foster carer for some five to six years and has fostered some six children. At the time of making her statement, she was living with her husband, her daughter J (16 years old), her foster daughter K (18 years old) and C, who she had fostered since August 2010.
32. She had been involved with the mother's family from the outset, when they were living in the same estate and assisted often in looking after G and F. After she and her husband moved from the estate to start their own family, contact was sporadic, depending on when the mother needed assistance regarding child care.
33. The mother's life, which she described as chaotic, improved when in 1997 she met the father, but they became concerned as to his misuse of family money through his addiction to gambling and his misuse of prescription drugs. Sometime between 1999 and 2001, she and her husband made a referral to the Children's Service because of their concern over the father's misuse of dihydrocodeine.
34. The first occasion that allegations of sexual abuse were made by the mother to her was in 2001, when the twins were approximately 12 months old. Those allegations are as set out above. At about the same time, F told her that A had talked to her about playing bath time games with the father and although A had never made any direct allegations to her, she would say vague words which, in her view, alluded to something.
35. H advised the mother to tell the Children's Service about these allegations, which she agreed to do and she took the mother for her appointment, although she was not involved in the discussions. Following this appointment, the mother threw the father out of the house, but eventually took him back.
36. In late 2009 and early 2010, H and her husband became aware of the Children's Service intervention in relation to the twins, specifically in relation to their weight and feeding regime. They became more involved by way of support and assistance.
37. When the time came for C to leave the hospital following her assessment, H volunteered for her care, as she could not return home. She also asked to be considered for B, but the Occupational Therapist had not deemed her house suitable for her. C moved into her care on 22nd August 2010. When told by the social workers that she did not have to have contact with her father, H saw visible relief on her face. She went on to tell H that she felt "safe" and that this was a "fresh start" for her. At the beginning, she questioned whether her father knew where she lived and it seemed to H that she wished to distance herself from all of her family.
38. H then described the way the disclosures were made on 2nd February and also May 2011, again as described above. In her view, there was an element of jealousy on the part of C about B for whom the father was the main carer and who he looked after during the night. She too wanted to be special.
39. On Friday 2nd December 2011 following the Triangle assessment, C asked if she could send a card to Ruth Marchant. H suggested that she should do that privately and seal it, which she did. H did not see the content. However, H kept a note of disclosures made by C at that time, which included the following:-
"C said Dad put his "you know what" into B's mouth.
I said "I don't know what a "you know what" is and C said his private parts"
Although not referred to in the notes, she told us in evidence that C had said on one occasion she had crept downstairs to see the father doing something sexual with B.
40. H said that from her own direct experience she had never seen the father being abusive towards the mother or the children and her own observations of him were that he was placid and a slight person. She was therefore surprised at the accusations of violence made about him. She was aware that the father did not like her and her husband because of family dynamics and their involvement in referrals to the Children's Service.
41. She said that on the day the father finally left the family home, he asked her "What allegations are you saying about me now?" She did respond and tell him about her concerns in relation to money and gambling and that she did not trust him. While C has been in her care she had always tried however to be positive about the father, who she said to C was a "good Daddy" who picked her up from school and who H acknowledged did a lot of practical things for the family, such as the cleaning and cooking.
42. H confirmed that she had received child protection training, in particular on sexual abuse, and had dealt with allegations made by other children in her role as school counsellor. She felt a great sense of duty in relation to the disclosures made by C to say nothing and simply record what C had said. With few exceptions, she never questioned what C had said or sought to validate her opinions or to fill in the gaps. She described C as both fragile and suggestible.
43. One exception was during the May disclosure, when she did question how C knew that her father had put something in her mouth if she was asleep, and she replied "I wasn't asleep. I was 'up the tree'". H regarded this as a coping strategy. Another exception was on 2nd December 2011, when she had, on the advice of the Children's Service, asked C what she expected to happen to the father to which C had replied "Going to prison".
44. During the May disclosure, C had asked to speak to the mother because she had something important to say. Although it was late at night, H thought it was important and so she picked up the mother. When the mother arrived, C broke down in tears and said "I hate my body and my knees". In her statement, the mother gave a different account. She said that C wouldn't talk to her but got on her hands and knees, in a position like a dog, and when asked why she was doing this, said it was "Daddy's secret". H informed us that this was completely untrue; she was careful to be there all the time that the mother was with C and this never happened.
45. H informed us that C had referred to "naughty knees" before. Apparently, she and B would walk on their knees when they were younger as that was the only way in which B could move. At a previous contact session at Millbrook paddling pool, B had said that her knees hurt. C apparently went over to her sister and said that the "magic cream" would help and started to rub her thighs and tops of her lags manically.
46. In cross-examination by Mrs Corbett, H described the mother as someone who was consumed by her own needs and who made bad decisions. She could embellish and exaggerate her accounts and in recording incidents could be consumed by her personal view rather than being factual. She described the mother not as angry with the father but as vulnerable, subdued and sad.
47. She described the family activities in which C was involved, such as swimming, walking the dogs, going to the park or to fêtes and how C spends her time, which included attending art therapy, contact with the mother once a week and the school club. She described C as needy and immature, much more like a seven to eight year old. She had recently asked for less contact with the mother as she wanted space to start a new life. She had come a long way since being taken out of her parents' care and that had been assisted very much by the permanence of her placement. She is very adamant that she does not want to see her father. H and her husband have challenged that. She apparently has recurring dreams of the father coming into the estate and of wanting to stab him. She told B on one occasion "I killed him - don't worry". Three months ago she was convinced that he was not her father and is now convinced that she has no father - referring to him instead by his Christian name.
48. The mother had been given permission to give her evidence screened from the father and the Commissioner confirmed to the Court that he had given the Jurats the usual warning given in a criminal trial namely that this was designed to enable the mother to be more at ease when giving evidence and must not in any way be considered by them as prejudicial to the father.
49. She described the father as a controlling and domineering person and feared if she said anything about his behaviour towards the children he would kill her. He would tell her to go out for the evening and not return until very late or even the next morning. He would be alone in the house with the girls, saying that he wanted to spend quality time with them which she found strange, as they would have been in bed by the time she was asked to leave the house.
50. She confirmed his misuse of prescription drugs and his excessive use of Phenergan to make the children sleep. She said he tried to force A to drink the Phenergan by holding her nose and trying to pour it down her throat but she pulled his hand away from her nose and poured the Phenergan down the sink.
51. He had also put Phenergan in her own drink. On one occasion she had fallen asleep after he had done this and he carried her upstairs. She was in her pyjamas but she said he must have pulled down her trousers because he then raped her anally.
52. She described his gambling problem and how he would steal money from her purse to fund his habit. On one occasion when asked to cash cheques from Social Security, he took the proceeds and gambled away the money.
53. She described incidents of violence against her on his part, and said that she was very scared of him. He could occasionally be vicious. She witnessed the incident recited by A when he had held A against the wall by her neck.
54. She was suspicious of the time he spent with the children and how he used to bath the children and lock the door, which she thought was strange. He would get into the bath with the children, saying that he had his boxer shorts on and would take a long time in the bath - about an hour. He would then get out and dry one of the twins and ask her to come upstairs and collect one of the twins while he stayed in the bathroom with the other one. He would not allow her to bath the twins. On one occasion, when he had not locked the bathroom door, she walked in and he was in the bath with his boxer shorts on. She saw his penis dangling out. A told her after the bath that there was a worm in the bath and Daddy had asked her if she wanted to play with it.
55. She recited the incident referred to above when she said she saw the father masturbating on the bed while feeding one of the twins and how she had told H and the Children's Service about the incident.
56. She described the father as possessive over the care of B, not wanting the mother to learn how to handle her feeding through the use of a peg. He would sleep in the same room as B and would not allow the mother in to say good night to her. He would administer the Phenergan every night, which would make the children drowsy. She denied the "finger in the bum" game.
57. Mrs Corbett felt it necessary to curtail her cross-examination of the mother at an early stage because of the very negative way she was responding to being questioned.
58. Sabrina Charpentier had been the social worker for C and B since November 2009. She did not witness any sexual abuse herself nor have disclosures made to her. Her evidence covered the involvement of the Children's Service with the family but a number of discrete points arose which are relevant to note:-
(i) She had obtained advice from Dr Malpas, the consultant paediatrician, that Phenergan could be administered in doses of 5 ml if needed, but not every day over a long period. Some 38 200ml bottles had been prescribed by the family doctor (whose monitoring he admitted had been less than vigilant) in 2009.
(ii) The mother had expressed concern that the father had arranged to pick up A from her school at 10.30 am on 1st July 2010 for a GP appointment which he had subsequently stated he had cancelled. The mother was away from the Island with C in Southampton Hospital at the time and C spent the day with the father in the family home.
(iii) She had obtained confirmation from the senior nurse on the Robin Ward at the hospital that they had found a cream (Daktrain) in C's locker dispensed from Lloyd's Pharmacy in the Parade, which they were not aware of. They had informed the father that C should not be taken to a GP whilst an in-patient on Robin Ward as their doctors would see her regarding any complaints she might have.
(iv) Until 27th January 2010, the father had been B's sole carer. He had been advised and accepted that it was not appropriate for him to continue in this role given her age and growing maturity, but he did not implement that advice.
(v) On 18th May 2011, another social worker, Laura Starck, had been informed by A that "Sabrina needs to believe C" in regard to the allegations she made about the father and that if C was not believed, she would come forward and disclose things about what had happened to her when she was younger.
(vi) At a direct work session on 6th July 2011, C had been able to put in writing the reason why she felt angry at times. The question "Who do you feel angry at and why?" she answered "Dad because he did something to me". When pressed as to why, she became agitated and said she didn't want to talk about it.
(vii) She confirmed that there had been unsupervised contact between C, F and A.
59. The father addressed each of the facts alleged against him in turn, but before setting out his response, it is helpful to set out the facts he had formally admitted in his response to the schedule of findings. He admitted excessively medicating the children between 2009 and 2010, using Phenergan, for the purpose of inducing sleep in the children. He admitted failing deliberately or otherwise to adequately provide for the feeding needs of C and B and failing deliberately or otherwise to consistently follow professional advice in relation to their dietary and medical needs. He admitted that on 4th July 2010, whilst C was an in-patient on the Robin Ward at the hospital, he took her to the out-of-hours doctor's service, even though he had been expressly told not to by the Robin Ward staff and acquired a prescription for Daktrain cream from Dr Overton, placing the cream on C's locker in the Robin Ward and not informing the Robin Ward's staff that he had acquired the prescription.
60. He admitted assaulting A when she was aged five or six by hitting her and pinning her up against a wall but it was clear from his evidence to us that what he accepted doing was grabbing her forcibly by the lapels causing her distress. He told us in evidence that she would have been scared and shocked by the assault. He admitted physically assaulting C and B by hitting them in the presence of A, as alleged by A in her ABE interview.
61. The father accepted in evidence that with the benefit of hindsight his parenting had been inadequate. He would shout at the children and they would be frightened. He had never punched them but his physical punishments were excessive at times. He admitted his gambling addiction and stealing family money to fund it and that he had been addicted to prescription drugs, on one occasion forging a prescription. He denied ever being violent towards the mother, saying that he was the only partner she had had who had never hit her. Indeed, he said he was scared of her and remained with her only for the sake of the children.
62. We now take his response to the facts alleged against him which he denied:-
1b. Forcibly medicating A by holding her nose and pouring it down her throat.
In the schedule of findings, the father had accepted this fact, but it was clear from his evidence that he held her nose because she did not like the smell of the medicine, but he did not force her to drink it. We therefore treated this allegation as being denied.
1c. and 1d. On several occasions adding it to the mother's drinks for the purpose of inducing sleep.
The father denied ever giving Phenergan to the mother. The medicine was not flavoured and would be readily discernible both by smell and taste. He had no reason to wish to sedate her. It was she that wanted more sex than he did.
3a. On several occasions by requiring the mother to stay out of the house in the evening and early hours of the morning in order for him to have "quality time" with the children.
The father said that the mother only went out at nights on Wednesday night for bingo. He did lock the door, but she had her own keys and was therefore able to come and go as she pleased. He never required her to be out of the family home as alleged. In his view, she only phoned H after they had been rowing.
5a. On more than one occasion indecently assaulting A from the age of about five or six by touching her vaginal area whilst in the bath.
The father denied this allegation. He had never touched A indecently in any way. Up to two to three years, he would have washed her in this area or applied cream when necessary. When older, he would give her the flannel so that she could wash herself down below. At that age she would bath herself. He pointed out that the allegations made by A emerged for the first time in her ABE interview and that prior to that there had been an incident in which he had not given A money which he promised her for her Christmas and birthday.
5b. On more than one occasion indecently assaulting C and B by touching their vaginal areas whilst they were in the bath.
Similarly, this was denied by the father.
5c. Frequently locking the bathroom door when bathing A, C and B.
The father denied this allegation. He said the door was locked on rare occasions when he was, for example, changing a child's nappy on the floor, but the door was not generally locked when the children were being bathed. He told us that the bathroom was small with barely enough room for two adults to stand. He would only lock the door when a child was being dried or changed on the bathroom floor to stop them being injured should someone open the door.
5d. On one occasion, procuring an act of gross indecency in the bath with A by asking her to play with his penis.
This was denied by the father. A would bath with him only when she was very young and he would always be wearing his boxer shorts. He never bathed with the twins as they were bathed together; a special seat was put in the bath for B. There was an occasion when he was in the bath and the mother came in with A asking if he would bath her. He got out of the bath to put on his boxer shorts and then got back into the bath when the mother handed A to him. The buttons to his boxer shorts were open and inadvertently his penis came out. The mother allegedly said to A "There is the worm - grab it". He told the mother off for making this remark.
5e. On one occasion between 2001 and 2002 masturbating whilst holding either C or B in his arms to bottle feed the child.
The father denied this allegation. He had no explanation for such an allegation and had no recollection of any such incident. He pointed out that his back would have been to the door where the mother alleges she saw this happening and that in any event it would be impossible in his view to both hold and feed a child whilst engaging in such an act.
5f. At various times prior to July 2010 indecently assaulting C
and
5g. Prior to July 2010 putting his "private bits" in both C's and B's mouths.
The father denied these allegations. In his view, the mother, who had often spoken inappropriately in front of the children, had indoctrinated all three children by constant repetition of allegations of this kind. Before C went to live with H, she had a good relationship with the father - she could not wait to see him. Suddenly, it all changed. In his view, the allegations made by A and C can only be put down to the influence of the mother and the family. He told us of a game the mother would play. If anyone was bending over, the mother would sometimes put her finger to their bottom and go "Whoo". It was her game, which she encouraged B to do to C; the father reprimanded her for this. This could explain her "finger in the bum" drawing. When faced with C's card to Ruth Marchant, he questioned why C mentioned B only, but in any event, said it was a deliberate lie which C was perfectly capable of.
63. Moving away from the schedule of findings, the father responded in evidence to other matters which the Children's Service had regarded as suspicious. He denied using the duvets as an excuse to get access into the twins' room. Both mother and father shared their care, going in and out of their rooms; in B's case, every two or three hours for feeds. The visit to the doctor when C was in the Robin Ward had a perfectly innocent explanation. By mutual arrangement with the mother, it was the father who stayed with her overnight and it was normal for her to be taken out of the hospital during the day. He did not recall being told not to take C to another doctor during this period (although he had formally admitted being told this) but in any event it was he who was attending upon the doctor out of hours and C happened to be with him. She complained that morning of an itchy vagina and he therefore raised it with the doctor whilst he was there. He agreed that it was probably inappropriate for him to leave the prescribed cream on her hospital trolley without explanation.
64. As for the school incident, A got up late that morning and said she was not well. He suggested that she should go to school and that he would make an appointment with the doctor during the day. This he was unable to do and he therefore picked her up at about 10.00 am and took her home. She did not want him to try to make another appointment with the doctor and simply asked to go to bed, as she was tired. She then slept through, going to school the next day.
65. A had told Dr Bryn Williams, the Child Psychologist, that there were secrets in the family that no one would ever know about. This "secrecy" gave Dr Williams considerable concern, exemplified he said by the secret visit to the GP and the removal of A from the school. The father has given his explanation for those incidents. The mother in her statement said that C had told her that there were things she could not say as it was "Daddy's secret". The father informed us that the only secret shared between him and C was the use of the lift in the Robin Ward against the advice of the nurses. On one occasion, C had run into the lift and the doors had closed behind her. The father followed the lift to the next floor by using the stairs and told her that the incident would be their secret, but that if she did it again, he would have to tell the nurses.
66. In the summer of 2011, after A's ABE interview, he met her by chance with her friends and started talking to her. She said that she had received nothing for her birthday and so he arranged to meet her two days later and gave her £40. He accepted at that stage that he was not supposed to be in contact with her, but he felt obliged to give her something. He did not know that she had done her ABE interview, although he was aware of the police investigation.
67. The Minister filed a statement taken by the police from G, who is currently in New Zealand. Over the years he said he had always got on with the father, who had been great but then you would see a different side to him. This would include the taking of things of his from his room and selling them off, such as his Play Station. There would often follow an apology and a making up to him. Although he was not his biological father, he treated him as such and had seen him being good with each of A, B and C. He had also seen him being harsh with them and at times he thought a little over the top. He thought that maybe this was what a parent does.
68. Having been away from him and being older, there were a few things that he could now see were not right. He could not be specific, but he gave an example. The father used to go to the bathroom to bath A and would lock the door once inside. A would have been four or five and he G would have been around thirteen years old. This was done most of the time the father went to the bathroom. On one occasion, he went to the bathroom and tried the door, which was open. As he went in, he saw the father in the bath with A, and they were both naked. A was happily splashing and the father was sat facing her. As he went in, the father jumped and seemed nervous.
69. In relation to hearsay evidence and the notices served by the Minister under the Civil Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003, the Court had regard to the provisions of Article 6 in estimating the weight to be given to that evidence. Both A and C were children at the time of their interviews, but the Court was satisfied that they were competent as witnesses for the purposes of Article 7 in that it was clear from the processes followed in those interviews that they understood that it was their duty to speak the truth and that they had sufficient understanding to justify their evidence being admitted.
70. It was important that the Court looked at the evidence in the round and did not consider parts of the evidence in isolation. Quoting from the judgment of Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss in the case of Re T (Abuse: Standard of Proof) [2004] EWCA Civ 558 at paragraph 33:-
"The final point upon which I agree with Mr Baker is the failure of the judge to tackle the likely cause of the two separate groups of 'injuries' to the child. There was an explanation for the perineal tear - the straddling of the potty. The judge only dealt peripherally with that explanation without comment. He did not comment other than in general terms about the second set of 'injuries', the anal fissuring. It seems to me that the judge, having rejected the medical evidence in isolation from the non-medical evidence, found himself in the difficulty that evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases has to have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof. This, in my view, the judge in this case failed to do."
71. The case of Kent CC v A Mother, F, X, Y, Z (Minors) [2011] EWHC 402 provides useful insight into a complex fact finding hearing which involved hearsay evidence from which the following principles can be drawn:-
"(1) In family proceedings there is only one standard of proof, namely the simple balance of probabilities: Re B [2008] UKHL 35.
(2) "If a legal rule requires a fact to be proved (a 'fact in issue') a judge or jury must decide whether or not it happened. There is no room for a finding that it might have happened. The law operates a binary system in which the only values are 0 and 1" (per Lord Hoffman in Re B, supra, at paragraph 2).
(3) A court weighing up hearsay evidence has to take into account the fact that it was not subject to cross-examination.
(4) "If a court concludes that a witness has lied about one matter, it does not follow that he has lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons, for example, out of shame, humiliation, misplaced ,loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure" - R v Lucas [1981] QB 720.
(5) "Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof". (Per Butler-Sloss P in Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558 [2004] 2 FLR 838 at para. 33."
72. The allegations against the father are very serious, but it is important to stress that that does not affect the standard of proof. Quoting from the judgment of Baroness Hale in Re B at paragraph 70:-
"My Lords, for that reason I would go further and announce loud and clear that the standard of proof in finding the facts necessary to establish threshold under s 31(2) or the welfare considerations in s 1 of the 1989 Act is the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less. Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. The inherent probabilities are simply something to take into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies."
73. It follows that there is no requirement for the evidence of A and C to be corroborated.
74. In accordance with the guidance set out in Kent, the Court did not evaluate and assess the evidence in separate compartments but had regard to the relevance of the evidence and exercised an overview of the totality of the evidence in reaching its conclusions. We can, however, summarise some of the issues that informed the Court's discussion.
75. The Court had concerns about the evidence of the mother. The fact that a witness is assessed as having an extremely low range of intellectual functioning does not, of course, mean that he or she cannot be believed, but we were cautious in our approach to her evidence and took into account the fact that she had not been subjected to the degree of cross-examination that would otherwise have been desirable.
76. We were impressed by the evidence of H which was not challenged. We were satisfied that she had not allowed personal feelings in relation to the father to interfere with or affect the way that she handled the disclosures made to her by C. In our view she had not sought to embellish or to influence what C had told her and had not encouraged or prompted C in making these disclosures in any way. We concluded that she was a reliable conduit through which C had been able to express herself.
77. We had the advantage of seeing as well as hearing A and C in their ABE interviews and had watched C over the many hours she was being assessed at Triangle. We also heard the evidence of the father, both in chief and under cross-examination.
78. As Professor Dent said, most of the drawings made by C taken on their own are unclear, although they could be suggestive of sexual abuse. There is the reference to "kisses" on the line connecting the mouths of C, the father and A and the father did tell us in evidence that it was his habit to kiss the children goodnight on the mouth. It could be that this was the extent of what C was trying to communicate in the picture. The drawing "fingers into the bum", by which H told us C meant "my bum", could be a reference to the game that the father asserts the mother would play in the house rather than anything more serious.
79. H's notes of what C said to her do contain material that might be regarded as allegations of sexual abuse and we accepted the five indicators of authenticity put forward by Professor Dent. She put these forward with caution, because she had been unable to analyse the manner in which C had been interviewed by H, but in our view, H's account of what C said was untainted in any way by her influence or prompting.
80. We were conscious that with C we were dealing with a ten year old, whose development had been delayed and who may not have had the necessary vocabulary to properly express what may have happened to her. It could be that much of what she said related to kissing as opposed to anything more serious. The toothpaste she put into her mouth might have been to discourage the father from kissing her. The reference to knees could simply be a reference to a habit of the twins of moving about on their knees, that being the only way that B could move herself.
81. It was not until C's ABE interview, by which time she was apparently having sex education lessons, that she talked explicitly of her father putting his "private bits" into her mouth but that account was very brief and as Professor Dent conceded was not contextually embedded. Professor Dent advised that it would have been better to have had more information on which to conduct an analysis, but even so, she advised it was possible to see the indications of authenticity referred to above, which we accepted. C's reference to her father sexually abusing her (accepting as we did that is what "aboards" means) is adult language she may have picked up from overhearing her mother as opposed to something she would use to describe what had happened to her.
82. A gave a detailed account of the father's physical abuse but the account of his alleged sexual abuse was much less detailed. Nevertheless we accepted the indications of authenticity that Professor Dent had identified.
83. It could be that the sexual element had been added in order to punish the father for failing to give her the cash he had promised for her birthday. Professor Dent accepted that this might have been the trigger for the disclosure, but we agree with her view that to fabricate such an allegation would be a very extreme way of getting the father into trouble. The brevity could well have been as a result of her embarrassment and distress about talking of such matters. We could see the distress it caused her, distress which we did not think was feigned.
84. We were conscious that the original allegations of sexual abuse had come from the mother and that she was someone who spoke inappropriately in front of the children. There was a possibility therefore, as the father alleged, that the repetition of these allegations in front of the children might have indoctrinated them into believing that this is what had happened. That could account for the fact that when it came to describing these incidents which they had come to believe had taken place, the accounts were of necessity very brief because they were not relying on an actual memory.
85. How was the Court to interpret the allegations in respect of bath time? Locking the door would, in our view, be unusual in a family home when young children were being bathed but we could see that in a small bathroom it might be necessary to protect a young child being changed on the floor. We thought that many parents would have had very young children in the bath with them on occasions, but it would seem strange to us if it was a regular occurrence, especially with a child as old as four or five, which is the age G says A was when he found her in the bath with her father. This evidence of his directly contradicted that of the father that he only bathed with A when she was very young.
86. If this is what happened to A in the bath, then what were the circumstances in which A witnessed it happening to her sisters? She makes no reference to their being in the bath with the father. The reference to "us" in her interview might give the impression of a collective memory, perhaps induced by the mother's repetition that this is what happened to all three of them. In C's account of the abuse allegedly inflicted on her and B, no reference is made to the presence of A, and indeed there is no indication of where this took place and the context in which it took place.
87. Was it more likely than not that sexual abuse had occurred? Miss Davies referred us to the evidence of Professor Dent, to H's notes and to the fact that H's evidence had not been challenged, to the allegations made in A's ABE interview, to the unsolicited card written by C, which was very clear, and to the allegations made in her subsequent ABE interview. Why else would C want her father to be in prison?
88. Mr Haines said there were two elements to sexual abuse - firstly, opportunity and secondly, a domineering and controlling personality and both were present here. The mother with her low intellectual ability was no match for the father. Against the father's straightforward denial there were a number of strands of evidence which were summarised by Miss Davies and which when drawn together would lead the Court to the conclusion that sexual abuse was more likely to have occurred.
89. Mrs Corbett pointed out that G had not been available for cross-examination and she questioned whether any weight should be placed on his evidence. It was clear that he had lived with the mother for a period of time before moving to New Zealand and that the mother would have made these allegations in his presence. That may have led him to place an interpretation on events which were otherwise innocent. She rightly pointed out the lack of any physical evidence of sexual abuse. The evidence of A and C had not been tested in a common cross-examination and B had made no allegations at all.
90. Everything was based Mrs Corbett said upon what the mother had said and reported and she was not a reliable witness. Her account, for example, of how C had behaved when she went over following the May 2011 disclosure had been described by H as wholly untrue.
91. The drawings of C did not provide evidence of sexual abuse and the notes of what she had said were unclear. What, for example, asked Mrs Corbett was C saying was her fault? She pointed out the reference to "the secret of the naughty knees" had actually emanated from something said by C to J, H's daughter and therefore this constituted double hearsay.
92. It was clear Mrs Corbett submitted that much of the May disclosure related to her account of the visit with her father to the out-of-hours doctor, showing how a perfectly innocent event could be given the air of suspicion. In all, she said there was no cogent evidence of sexual abuse.
93. In the end, having considered all of the evidence and the submissions of counsel, the Jurats were unanimous on the allegations which were dependent on the evidence of the mother. In their view such allegations were less likely than not to be true. The Jurats were divided on the allegations of sexual abuse made by A and C. To one Jurat, the voices of these children came through independently and untainted by the mother and were to be believed. To the other Jurat, it was not that they were lying but that they had heard the mother make these allegations and over time had come to believe that they had been sexually abused, when in fact, no such abuse had taken place. The Commissioner concluded that it was more likely than not that sexual abuse had occurred. The Court's findings were, in relation to the numbered paragraphs of the schedule of findings, as follows:-
1b. Forcibly medicating A by holding her nose and pouring it down her throat.
Not proved.
1c. and 1d. On several occasions adding it to the mother's drinks for the purpose of inducing sleep.
Not proved.
3a. On several occasions by requiring the mother to stay out of the house in the evening and early hours of the morning in order for him to have "quality time" with the children.
Not proved.
5a. On more than one occasion indecently assaulting A from the age of about five or six by touching her vaginal area whilst in the bath.
By a majority proved.
5b. On more than one occasion indecently assaulting C and B by touching their vaginal areas whilst they were in the bath.
By a majority proved.
5c. Frequently locking the bathroom door when bathing A, C and B.
By a majority proved.
5d. On one occasion, procuring an act of gross indecency in the bath with A by asking her to play with his penis.
Not proved.
5e. On one occasion between 2001 and 2002 masturbating whilst holding either C or B in his arms to bottle feed the child.
Not proved.
5f. At various times prior to July 2010 indecently assaulting C
and
5g. Prior to July 2010 putting his "private bits" in both C's and B's mouths.
By a majority proved.
Authorities
Civil Evidence (Jersey) Law 2003.
Memorandum of Good Practice 1992.
Achieving Best Evidence 2002.
Re T (Abuse: Standard of Proof) [2004] EWCA Civ 558.