[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales High Court (Family Division) Decisions >> Glamorgan v ABC (Fact Finding) [2016] EWHC 4238 (Fam) (21 October 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/4238.html Cite as: [2016] EWHC 4238 (Fam)

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
FAMILY DIVISION

		Cardiff Civil Justice Centre
		21/10/2015

MR JUSTICE MOOR:-

1. I have been conducting a fact finding hearing in public law care proceedings involving four children, Child A, Child B, Child C and Child D.

2. The Mother of all four relevant children is the First Respondent, who I will refer to as "the Mother". She was born in 1987 and is therefore aged 28. She lives in the Vale of Glamorgan.

3. In fact, she has five children. The oldest is TQ, who was born in 2004 and is therefore aged 11. She has lived with her maternal grandmother, MQ for many years. She does not feature in this case. Her father is TC.

4. I have already indicated that I am concerned with four children. The eldest is Child A, who was born in 2007 and is therefore aged 7. He is currently in foster care pursuant to an interim care order. He is living with a Mr and Mrs T. His father is Father A, the Fifth Respondent, who was born in 1987 and is therefore aged 28.

5. The second child is Child B, who was born in 2011 and is therefore aged 4. It is now known that her father is Father B, the Sixth Respondent although the Mother denied this until it was proved by a DNA test. Father B was born in 1988 and is therefore aged 26. He is currently in HMP Parc, serving a twenty-month sentence for affray following an assault on the Mother that the Mother had secretly filmed.

6. The third child is Child C, who was born in 2012 and so is aged 3. His father is Father C, the Seventh Respondent. He was born in 1986 and is therefore aged 29. His paternity of Child C was confirmed by a DNA test very recently. As with Child B, the Mother had asserted that his father was a KX, who I am told died of cancer. It was thought that Child C's father might be Father B until that was disproved by a DNA test.

7. Child B and Child C are also in foster care, pursuant to an interim care order and are living close to Child A with KI.

8. The final child is Child D who was born in August 2015 and is therefore aged two months. Although subject to an interim care order he has been placed in a mother and baby foster placement with the Mother. The Father of Child D has recently been confirmed as Father B.

The family history

9. At this stage, I will deal only with matters that are not in dispute. Child A was first placed on the child protection register in November 2010 but home circumstances improved and he was removed from the register in July 2011.

10. In May 2012, the Mother's home flooded. The Mother had to move out with the children. At the time, she had fallen out with her mother so could not go to her home. For one or possibly two nights, she stayed with Father B's mother, DD. Thereafter, the Mother went to stay at Father B's shared home. She was there for about a month before returning to her home. Another resident of the shared home was the Mother's friend, ME. Mr Aaron Hughes lived up the road with his partner, IN.

11. In June 2012, Child C was admitted to hospital for about a week as a result of an insect getting into his ear and his ear becoming infected. The Mother placed the other children in the care of ME. There is a dispute as to what extent she obtained the help of Mr Aaron Hughes and a Ms DT in looking after the children.

12. In December 2012, the Mother filmed Father B assaulting her in the presence of Child B, who was then aged only one and a half. He held a corkscrew against the Mother's throat and threatened to cut her up. He threatened to kill her. He pinned her on the sofa by her throat and then placed a pair of scissors to her throat. He grabbed her hair violently and there was an unpleasant struggle. The Mother did not report this to the authorities but used it as a weapon against Father B to control his worst excesses.

13. In January 2013, all three children were placed on the child protection register on the grounds of neglect but the Mother worked with the Local Authority and in October 2014, the children's names were removed from the register following an acknowledgment of positive progress.

14. In February 2015, the Police informed the Local Authority that Child A might have been the victim of sexual abuse. It later transpired that the alleged perpetrator was Aaron Hughes. He is a predatory paedophile who was found guilty of serious sexual offences against children in both 2000 (when he was sentenced to five years in prison) and 2014 when he was given a life sentence with a minimum term of twelve years. He had written a book in prison called "Monsters Do Exist" in which he alleged that he had sexually abused Child A. The allegations were that he had drugged and raped Child A with the consent and knowledge of the Mother and Father B.

15. Nothing that I say in this judgment as to the book is intended to influence the Police in their continuing investigations as to the activities of Mr Hughes. It is Mr Hughes' position that the book is entirely fabricated. It does appear that there is, at the very least, a significant element of extremely dark and unpleasant fantasy in the book. The Local Authority does not seek to prove that the central allegation that Mr Hughes sexually abused Child A is true.

16. The law in this regard is clear. I make it absolutely plain that I proceed on the basis that Child A was not drugged and abused by Mr Hughes. It follows that the Mother and Father B could not have consented or known about such abuse. Nevertheless, there had to be a thorough investigation by both the Police and the Local Authority.

17. Arrangements were made for the children to be looked after at home overnight by the Maternal Grandmother, MQ with the Mother leaving. The following day, the Mother very sensibly and to her credit agreed that the children should be accommodated voluntarily pursuant to section 20 of the 1989 Act. They were placed with foster carers. As already noted, Child A was placed separately from Child B and Child C but in the same street. Supervised contact took place, initially three times per week for one and a half hours per session.

18. Later in February 2015, the Local Authority applied for care orders. A significant number of serious allegations were raised against the Mother. They are mostly in dispute and I will have to make findings but they included that she has repeatedly engaged in violent relationships. It is said that this is explained by the fact that her father was a violent alcoholic. She missed substantial amounts of schooling as a child and self-harmed at the age of 18. She has suffered from depression over a long period. It was alleged that she has neglected the children's needs such that they regularly presented as dirty and unkempt. She has had disputes with her neighbours. She was 12 weeks' pregnant but had not identified the father but said she had been raped. It was noted that she had previously alleged rape against a partner but had withdrawn the allegation and subsequently been cautioned for perverting the course of justice/wasting police time.

19. The case came before HH Deputy Judge John at the end of February 2015. A recital to the court order notes that the Mother said she did not know anyone serving a sentence of imprisonment. In early March 2015, the same judge re-allocated the case to a Family Division Judge. Directions were made in relation to various PII issues arising out of the Police investigation and a fear that disclosure might well prejudice ongoing criminal investigations.

20. There have since been a significant number of hearings. I do not propose to recite them all but merely to record those aspects that are relevant to the fact finding exercise that I have been conducting.

21. On 19th March 2015, the Mother signed her first statement. She said that she believed the father of Child B and Child C to be a Mr KX, who died when Child B was about four months old. She said that Child C was the "spitting image" of Mr KX. She added that she knew that Father B has said he is the father but she did not believe that he was correct. In fairness to her, she did agree to DNA testing.

22. The Social Worker, Mr W filed his first statement on the same day. He drew attention to the fact that Father B's Facebook page said "all I need is the love of my little girl, Child B dad love you." In a statement the following day, he said that the Mother has had a long history of difficulty with working openly and honestly with the Local Authority and had breached previous written agreements. He alleged that this was in relation to both Father B and another boyfriend, EN but it is now clear that she did not do so in relation to Mr EN.

23. Father A, the father of Child A, filed his first statement on 13th April 2015. He said he had enjoyed contact with Child A since his birth and had a close relationship with him. He did say that he was not fully aware of the Local Authorities' concerns about the Mother. He asked for parental responsibility.

24. The Mother filed another statement on 14th April 2015. Although disturbed by the length of separation between her and the children, she agreed to the children remaining in foster care until the evidence was much clearer. She further agreed to give 21 days' notice of withdrawing her consent. She said she did know Mr Hughes but under a different name, Aza McKillan. She did not know he was on the Sex Offenders' Register. She confirmed that both herself and Child A did have contact to Mr Hughes as he used to live next door to Father B. On one occasion, at Child A's request, Child A had a "sleepover" at Mr Hughes' home. She understood that Mr Hughes' partner, IN was also in the house. By then, a transcript of a telephone conversation between her and Mr Hughes when he was in prison had been disclosed. She made the point that the conversation showed her asking Mr Hughes if he had abused Child A, which, she said, showed that she did not know about any abuse. I make it clear at this stage that this is a very good point. She criticised Father A's involvement with Child A, alleging that she had to insist on him having contact and eventually gave up. Although she was content for him to have parental responsibility, she said she did not want Father A to let Child A down.

25. Hair strand testing was conducted by Lextox. On 2nd June 2015, the Mother tested positive for two constituents of cannabis. She accepts cannabis use. The report says the use was high from November 2014 to January 2015 and then medium use from February to May of this year. On 5th June 2015, Father A tested positive for cocaine from January to May 2015 but the use was medium at first reducing to low.

26. On 14th July 2015, Mr W completed the Local Authority's parenting assessment of the Mother. The Local Authority was sufficiently concerned about her parenting skills and her ability to work openly and honestly that it was unable to support a return of the children to the Mother.

27. The PII applications were heard substantively by Hayden J on 15th July 2015. He took a firm view of the allegations in "Monsters Do Exist". He said in his judgment on costs that he considered the Local Authority had evidential difficulties if they were to pursue findings that Mr Hughes had abused Child A. He noted that Child A had made no complaint of abuse. There were no physical signs of sexual abuse when he was medically examined. He considered there was inherent incredibility/obvious fantasy in some of the matters described within "Monsters Do Exist". He reminded the Local Authority that it would have general credibility difficulties in trying to rely on Mr Hughes. He noted the telephone call from the Mother to Mr Hughes in prison which strongly suggested she had no knowledge of any abuse. He concluded that the Local Authority would not be able to prove abuse by Mr Hughes and should, therefore, concentrate on failure to protect. The Local Authority accepted this strong indication and agreed to amend its threshold criteria.

28. In the course of searching the Mother's home, the Police had discovered the video of Father B's serious assault on the Mother in 2012 on a memory stick. A prosecution was brought. On 17th July 2015, Father B pleaded guilty to affray and was sentenced to prison for 20 months. I am told his earliest release date on a tag is 11th December 2015. If he was not suitable for tagging, it will be 23rd April 2016.

29. On 24th July 2015, the Local Authority filed its Amended Threshold document, making it clear that it no longer relied on "Monsters Do Exist" and that it does not pursue allegations of actual sexual abuse on Child A. The document does, however, allege that the Mother put Child A at risk of sexual abuse by exposing him to Mr Hughes and that she had actual or constructive notice of the risks posed by Mr Hughes. She failed to appreciate those risks when it would have been reasonable to do so. She did not make adequate enquiries to ensure Child A's safety.

30. The document goes on to deal with numerous assaults perpetrated by Father B on the Mother but not reported by her. It alleges neglect, in relation to the children's dental health, diet, clothing, toileting, eating, personal hygiene, home conditions, stimulation, socialisation and financial management. It refers to the Mother's long history of depression which, it is said, at times, compromised her ability to meet the children's needs. Her cannabis use is relied on as is the fact that she has not been open and honest in relation to both Father B and her knowledge of Mr Hughes.

31. Father A responded to the threshold document on 5th August 2015. He accepted low level misuse of cannabis and having used cocaine twice during the relevant period but said he had never done so when Child A was in his care.

32. The Mother's response is dated 6th August 2015. She accepts that she allowed Child A to stay overnight at Mr Hughes' home on one occasion in or about 2012 and that Mr Hughes visited her home after flood damage the same year but says she was unaware of the risk he posed at the time. She denies the threshold is crossed but accepts emotional harm to the children by their witnessing domestic violence. She accepts the occasional use of cannabis and that Father B assaulted her in the presence of Child B but says she had no alternative other than to let him in. The video recording was to prevent him doing it again. She accepts there were other assaults and that she retracted the rape allegation. She denies neglect and points out that she successfully addressed these matters such that the children's names were removed from the child protection register in October 2014.

33. She further accepts that she has had a long history of depression but says she has sought appropriate medical advice and this did not lead to her neglecting the children's needs. She says she was not, initially, told that the allegations of abuse came from Mr Hughes but accepts she should have thought of him as someone who was in prison. She says she genuinely believed Mr KX was the father of Child B and Child C. She ends by saying that she believed she could maintain contact with Mr EN. This latter point has since been conceded by the Local Authority.

34. Father B replied to threshold on 6th August 2015. He accepts that the threshold has been crossed. He accepts that he had a volatile relationship with the Mother. He denies injuring her but confirms that there was physical confrontation. He denies the use of weapons or threatening to kill the Mother. He says the Mother was not in fear of him and that he only ever entered the home if he was allowed in or invited in. He did not have any keys to the property. He was aware of the USB stick and states that the Mother threatened to disclose it to the authorities.

35. In his statement dated the same day, he says that Mr Hughes refused to tell him why he had been sent to prison. The Mother would visit the home he originally shared with Mr Hughes on a regular basis. If he had known about Mr Hughes, he would not have allowed Child A in the house. He says that the Mother alleged that she had been raped and that was how Child C was conceived. He confirms that there were a number of occasions on which he argued with her. The December 2012 assault was a terrible incident. He very much regrets that Child B was present throughout. He denies assaulting the Mother with a bottle or a knife. The Mother has attacked and bitten him. There had been no physical argument after December 2012 but their sexual relationship had continued until December 2014, so the Mother cannot have been constantly in fear of her life.

36. The Mother conceded that the threshold criteria had been established before me on 7th August 2015 on the basis of the domestic violence and misleading the Local Authority as to her relationship with Father B.

37. On 19th August 2015, the Local Authority filed its viability assessment of DD, the paternal grandmother of Child B and Child D. It was prepared by the Team Manager, IT and was negative. I do not propose to detail the reasons at this stage. It was, however, noted that DD cares for her adult daughter, D, who has learning difficulties and her grandson, B, aged one. Her partner, QU, had committed serious domestic violence against her.

38. The Mother gave birth to Child D in August 2015 by caesarean section. It was agreed that the Mother and Child D would be placed in a mother and baby foster placement pursuant to an interim care order. The order was made by HHJ Parry on 28th August 2015 and the agreement was carried into effect when the Mother and Child D were discharged from hospital on 1st September 2015.

39. On 26th August 2015, the DNA test results showed that Father C is the father of Child C.

40. Lextox undertook further hair strand testing and reported on 10th September 2015. The Mother was positive for two constituents of cannabis from May to August signifying medium use. The tests were inconclusive so far as Father A was concerned.

41. Mr W undertook a parenting assessment of Father A which is dated 10th September 2015. The outcome was positive. Father A was assessed as a suitable carer for Child A. There were, however, some vulnerabilities, which require further monitoring and Father A would benefit from parenting support. Placement with Father A on a long term basis was recommended but subject to a care order given that he was untested.

42. The final care plans for Child A and Child B are dated 10th September 2015. As this is a fact finding judgment and I have decided that I cannot decide Child B's future at this hearing in any event, I propose to say no more about the plans at this stage.

43. On 14th September 2015, the paternal grandmother of Child B and Child D, DD, applied to be joined as a party, for a special guardianship order in relation to her grandchildren and for an Independent Social Worker to do an assessment of her.

44. The Mother filed her third statement on 5th October 2015. She accepted that she had made many mistakes in the past but said she has a strong relationship with the children. She referred to their wishes to live with her and talked of her strong motivation and ability to change. In relation to Mr Hughes, she said he visited the family home three or four times but never stayed overnight or babysat. Child A had one sleepover at Mr Hughes' home but IN was there. She accepted that she concealed her relationship with Father B from professionals. She said she did not believe Father C was the father of Child C and she was horrified to discover the truth as he had told her he had sex with her whilst she was asleep.

45. She accepted that there were occasions when the standards of cleanliness in the home were not good but the position improved significantly such that the children's names were removed from the child protection register in October 2014. She had reduced her cannabis consumption dramatically and has stopped completely since she has been in the mother and baby placement. Whilst she has had depressions she has always accepted treatment prescribed by professionals.

46. There is a supporting statement from NH, the Deacon of a local chapel. This statement really goes to welfare issues so I will deal with it at that point.

47. On 2nd October 2015, TS, the Independent Social Worker reported on the Mother. Again, this goes primarily to welfare rather than fact finding. Suffice it to say at this stage that the report does not support the Mother's case. In relation to Father B, Ms TS was concerned that the Mother still talks positively about him. It is clearly a matter for me as to whether or not I am satisfied that the relationship is over as the Mother says. So far as Father C is concerned, the report refers to the Mother saying it was part- relationship and part sex-buddies. Ms TS does say that she believes that the Mother has spent many years telling professionals what they want to hear, such as in relation to taking the children to the dentist. Again, this is a matter for me.

48. In recent days, the Local Authority has filed a number of statements from neighbours and parents. The first is dated 5th October 2015 from ME, a close friend of Mr Hughes. She said that she knew Mr Hughes had been to prison for sexual offences but he said it was for having sex with a sixteen year old who he thought was over age, as the boy had shown him a driving licence. She said that Child A had been to Mr Hughes' home when he was only a few months old and she had babysat with Mr Hughes once at the Mother's house. Mr Hughes was already there alone with the children when she arrived.

49. A neighbour, LH filed a statement dated 12th October 2015. She described the Mother as "the neighbour from hell." She referred to the Mother shouting and swearing at the children. Father B made a threatening remark to her. He was causing trouble at the hospital. Another man was there with high heeled boots, holding Child B. She saw him at the house once. She described a couple of incidents of Child B playing in the road unsupervised, one of which was at 7 am. The Mother did not appear for fifteen minutes. On another occasion, she heard the Mother telling Child A to "get the fuck out of my house." The front door slammed and she saw Child A walking away, presumably to the maternal grandmother, who lived just round the corner.

50. OU, another parent at the children's Primary School filed a statement dated 13th October 2015. She said that the Mother had told her that Father B had forced her to hide heroin for him in the airing cupboard. After the Mother's home flooded in 2012, the Mother told Ms OU that she and the children ended up staying one night in a crack house. She believed that the Mother said she was living temporarily next to a "f…ing paedophile" at the time of the flooding. She recalled seeing a man dressed as a woman with Child A and Child B heading towards the shops and twice with the Mother and the children. The Mother was always asking her for money. She once succumbed and went round to the house to give the Mother £5. She was shocked at the state of the house, which was very dirty. The Mother was always smoking. She was shouting at Child A and she "whacked" Child B. She also said she saw a man in a suit come to collect Child A from school. She believed it was the same man as the one who was dressed as a woman but she could not be sure. From his photos online, she believed the man dressed as a woman was Mr Hughes.

51. On the second day of the trial, after a reading day, I decided to conduct a discrete fact finding hearing before turning to welfare issues. At that stage, it was clear that I could not deal with the three younger children until a welfare hearing fixed for 7th December 2015 but I left open whether or not I could deal with Child A at the conclusion of this fact finding hearing.

52. I discharged a witness summons I had previously made in relation to Mr Hughes. He has on a number of occasions indicated that he will not cooperate in answering questions. He has refused to provide a witness statement. It is, of course, absolutely no defence to a witness summons simply to say that you will not cooperate although it does make it more difficult for the court when the person concerned is already serving a life sentence and therefore not really susceptible to committal proceedings. I would, however, still have proceeded to hear from Mr Hughes if I thought it possible that his evidence would assist me in deciding the factual disputes in this case. I do not, however, see how that could be the case. It would be virtually impossible and potentially dangerous and unfair to rely on anything he said. I considered it fanciful to think that anything would be gained by the exercise other than considerable upset to many of those in court.

The Law

53. Before turning to my findings of fact, I will deal with the law I must apply. To establish the threshold criteria, I need to be satisfied that each child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm and that the harm or likelihood of harm is attributable to the care given to the child, or likely to be given if the order is not made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give [Children Act 1989, section 31(2)]. Assuming I am so satisfied, it does not automatically lead to a care order. I will then have to go on to consider the children's welfare subsequently.

The burden and standard of proof

54. The burden of proof is on the Local Authority. It is for the Local Authority to satisfy me that it has made out its case in relation to disputed facts. The parents, and primarily the Mother, do not have to prove anything.

55. The standard of proof is the civil standard, namely the balance of probabilities (see Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35; [2008] 2 FLR 141 and Re S-B (Children) [2010] 1 FLR 1161).

56. The seriousness of an allegation makes no difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the truth of the allegation. The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies (Re B (Children)(FC) [2008] UKHL 35; [2008] 2 FLR 141).

57. If the evidence in respect of a particular finding sought by the Local Authority is equivocal then the court cannot make a finding on the balance of probabilities as the party seeking the finding has not discharged either the burden or standard of proof (Re B (Threshold Criteria: Fabricated Illness) [2002] EWHC 20; [2004] 2 FLR 200).

58. In Paragraph 2 of Re B, Lord Hoffman explained that sometimes the decision will be made by reference to the failure to discharge the burden of proof. In Paragraph 32, Baroness Hale made the same point thus:-

"In our legal system, if a judge finds it more likely than not that something did take place, then it is treated as having taken place. If he finds it more likely than not that it did not take place, then it is treated as not having taken place. He is not allowed to sit on the fence. He has to find for one side or the other. Sometimes the burden of proof will come to his rescue: the party with the burden of showing that something took place will not have satisfied him that it did. But generally speaking a judge is able to make up his mind where the truth lies without needing to rely on the burden of proof."

Darlington Borough Council v A

59. Mr Furness QC, who appears with Mr Allen on behalf of the Mother has quite properly drawn to my attention the decision of the President in Darlington Borough Council v A [2015] EWFC 11 in which he makes three fundamentally important points:-

(a) First, findings of fact must be based on evidence (including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence) and not on suspicion or speculation.

(b) Second, it is necessary to demonstrate why the facts found justify the conclusion that a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm. In particular, in a case, as here, where it is asserted that a parent has lied, it is necessary to analyse why the particular lies created the likelihood of significant harm to the child and what weight should reasonably be afforded to the fact of her deceit in the overall balance.

(c) Third, he refers to the wise and powerful words of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [207] 1 FLR 2050 at Paragraph [50] where he said that "society must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done".

60. I do, however, remind myself that the Mother concedes that the threshold criteria are satisfied in this case, albeit it on much more narrow grounds than those asserted by the Local Authority.

Lies

61. There are issues in the case as to the extent to which a number of witnesses may have lied about various issues. First, I must decide whether or not a witness has deliberately told lies. If I find that they have, I have to ask myself why they lied. The mere fact that a person tells a lie in relation to one matter does not in itself mean that the person concerned has lied about another matter. An individual may lie for many reasons. Some of them may be "innocent" ones. For example, they may be lies to bolster a true case; or to protect someone else; or to conceal some other disreputable conduct or out of shame, panic, distress or confusion.

62. It follows that, if I find that an individual has lied, I must assess whether or not there is an "innocent" explanation for those lies. However, if I am satisfied that there is no such explanation, I can take the lies into account in my assessment of the overall truthfulness of the individual and the relevance to the main allegations made in the case.

My assessment of the witnesses

63. I heard oral evidence from five Local Authority witnesses, namely Child A's Head Teacher, Mrs KU; the Local Authority Social Worker, Mr W; another parent at the school, OU; the Mother's friend, ME, who is a close associate of Mr Aaron Hughes; and a neighbour of the Mother's, Ms LH.

64. In addition, I heard oral evidence from the Mother and the three fathers, Father A, Father B and Father C.

65. I accept unreservedly the evidence of Mrs KU, the Head Teacher at the children's Primary School. She was a very impressive lady. Equally, I accept Mr Furness' submission to me that she was a witness who did not damage the Mother's case materially. She told me there were some issues with Child A smelling of urine but he had excellent school reports and was described as a clever boy. He had no unauthorised absences and the Mother engaged with the school. Child B had also made a good start.

66. Mr W is clearly a committed and diligent social worker. Mr Furness took him through the Amended Threshold Criteria and Mr W made appropriate concessions. For example, he confirmed that it was wrong to allege that the Mother had broken an agreement that she would not bring the children into contact with Mr EN because there was no such agreement. Equally, he accepted that it was wrong to criticise the Mother for failing to stimulate the children or ensure they socialised with other children when, for example, the Mother took Child C to a child-minder for that very reason.

67. OU, another parent at the Primary School, is clearly a parent who is at the opposite end of the spectrum to those described by Hedley J in Re L. On occasions, the Mother asked to borrow small amounts of money from Ms OU and, once, Ms OU went round to her home. She was not impressed with what she saw and said to me that it was not how she would choose to live. When the Mother's home flooded, she offered to take the children but, for understandable reasons, was not prepared to have the Mother and Father B in her home. All memory is fallible but subject to issues of inaccurate recollection, I accept her evidence as being truthful and designed to help me. She gave evidence of sightings of Mr Hughes with the children in the summer of 2012. I find that these sightings are accurate. One of them may well have been whilst the Mother was in hospital looking after Child C. Some of the detail may be wrong due to the time that has passed but I accept the broad thrust of the evidence. I am also satisfied that, when the Mother was staying with the children and Father B whilst her home was flooded, the Mother did say that there was a paedophile in the house next door. Although Ms OU's recollection is now hazy, she went to the school immediately to report this and I am quite satisfied it is what the Mother said. I am not, however, satisfied that this was a reference by the Mother to Mr Hughes, who was not then living next door to Father B. I will obviously return to my detailed findings in due course. Finally, the Mother did say something to Ms OU about being asked to look after drugs for Father B which were kept in the airing cupboard at her home. Ms OU referred to heroin. I am not asked to make a finding of fact in this regard as there is no other corroborating evidence of such behaviour by the Mother and Father B. I do not therefore do so.

68. ME was the least impressive witness for the Local Authority by a very wide margin. I remind myself that I am not determining any issues as to Ms ME's culpability in relation to Mr Hughes and I do not do so. Her state of knowledge may, however, be relevant to the Mother's state of knowledge. It was immediately clear that Ms ME's, as she presented in court, was not someone who should be looking after young children. Both the Mother and Father B, however, said that her presentation had deteriorated significantly since the Mother asked her to look after the children in 2012 when the Mother was in hospital with Child C. I am inclined to accept this and therefore do so, although I doubt she was ever other than towards the opposite spectrum from Ms OU when it comes to child-caring skills. I do not know the extent to which her current presentation is caused by the medication she is taking. She told me that it was and that she can be confused about things and forget things as a result. She has clearly been very close to Mr Hughes, being inaccurately described by Hughes himself as his sister.

69. I am quite sure that she involved both Hughes and his co-accused, Ms DT, in the care of the children whilst the Mother was in hospital with Child C. She denied to me that it was because she was unable to cope but I find that this would have been an important contributory factor. Her recollection of many incidents was either non-existent or very poor. I cannot rely on her evidence. It is noteworthy that the Mother has remained friendly with her notwithstanding the conviction of Hughes and DT, although Ms ME does not appear to have cared for the children to any significant extent recently.

70. The final Local Authority witness was LH, a neighbour of the Mother, who has described the Mother as "the neighbour from hell". They clearly do not get on at all and it does appear that Ms LH has descended into the fray with the Mother. She accepted that the Police had warned both of them as to their conduct. She gave evidence, however, of sightings of Mr Hughes both at the Mother's home and in the hospital when Child C was taken there at the same time as her daughter. Despite some minor inconsistencies, I accept the broad thrust of her evidence, namely that Mr Hughes, wearing high heels, was seen by her both at the Mother's home and the hospital in 2012.

The Mother

71. At one point in her evidence, the Mother said to me that she realised that it would be difficult for me to accept what she was saying on a particular matter due to the many lies that she has told prior to and during the course of these proceedings. I considered that to be a frank and realistic assessment by her. She admitted many of the lies. Whilst that goes to her credit, it was clear that she had no alternative other than to do so in respect of many of them. I regret to have to find, however, that she continued to lie to me in a number of important and material matters.

72. At this point, I will give one example, namely the pregnancy with Child D. She knew she was not supposed to have contact with Father B. She had kept her relationship with him hidden from the Local Authority for months and months. Yet, in December 2014, she became pregnant by him. On 19th December 2014, the then Social Worker, MI spoke to her about reports that she was in a relationship with Father B. She said she was definitely not in a relationship with him. She had been in a relationship with him many years ago but he was very violent. She said that she was shaking just talking about him. She accepts that it was an outright lie that she was not in a relationship with him. On 9th January 2015, Child A said, at school, that the Mother was pregnant. Ms MI telephoned the Mother who said she was "definitely not pregnant and there is no chance I could be". I am satisfied this was a lie. By then, she knew full well she was pregnant. Yet she told me in court that she really believed she was not pregnant and put Child A's belief down to her having gastroenteritis. On 16th January 2015, the Head Teacher told Ms MI that the Mother was telling other people at the school that she was pregnant. Again, the Mother denied this to Ms MI saying she was "100% not pregnant and there is no way I could be." This was clearly a lie yet in evidence to me she denied telling people she was pregnant and said that, at this time, she really believed she was not pregnant. I reject this evidence.

73. On 3rd February 2015, she told Ms MI she had found out she was pregnant the previous week. She said she could not remember having sex with anyone. That was a clear lie. She then said she had been raped on a night out at the end of November/beginning of December and she must have been drugged. These were all serious lies that do her no credit. In fairness, she accepted these were lies in her evidence to me but, in reality, she had no alternative.

74. Perhaps more importantly, ME telephoned Mr Hughes in prison on 16th December 2014. The telephone was handed over to the Mother who asked Hughes whether he "did anything to Child A" the night Hughes had Child A overnight. Hughes replies "no; definitely not". The Mother says "good; ever since I found out…I spoke to IN (Mr Hughes' partner)… IN was like, every time I was round he didn't, but I don't know what he done when he wasn't around…so…it was either me come and see you...or…which wasn't a very good idea…or…when you next rung her, I speak to you".

75. At the start of these proceedings, the Mother denied knowing any serving prisoner. This was recited in the court order dated 27th February 2015. It was a lie. The Mother accepts that now. However, she had also said that, at no time was Child A ever alone with Hughes. She explained that by saying she could not remember the sleepover. It was put to her by me that she must have remembered at some point prior to the call to Hughes. She denied that and said she only remembered it when on the telephone to Hughes. I cannot and do not accept that. It is completely inconsistent with "ever since I found out". She described that as a "figure of speech" whatever that may mean. Indeed, why would she have spoken to IN if she had not remembered? The importance of this is that she was still lying in court on important matters.

76. The final aspect relates to the time when she had to leave her home due to the flooding. She told the Local Authority that she was going to stay with DU when she was actually going to stay with DD. I accept that this was designed to hide from the Local Authority her relationship with Father B. Later, she said she was on holiday with the children in England. In fact, she went to Father B's home, although even then she claimed at one point to be sleeping rough in a field and/or in a refuge. Indeed, during the core assessment she told Mr W that she had only stayed at Father B's home on one occasion.

77. Having said that, it is abundantly clear that she loves her children very much and has done as much as she can for them. However, I am clear that she has regularly let them down badly by her choice of violent partners and by exposing them to serious violence by failing to prevent these men assaulting her. The recorded incident in December 2012 is but one of many such incidents. I make it clear that I exclude Father A from my remarks in this regard and I have not heard any allegations against Father C. I have heard from Father B and will, in due course, make findings in relation to him. I have not heard from Mr EN so merely note that, at times, the Mother accuses Mr EN of being worse than Father B, particularly in her Facebook messages to Father C.

Father A

78. I heard brief evidence from Father A. Although I remind myself that I was dealing with fact finding not welfare, I have to say that he impressed me as a witness. I accept his evidence. It is right that he has taken illegal drugs, namely cannabis and cocaine. His use appears to have been moderate to low and historical. Moreover, I am quite satisfied that he has not abused drugs whilst caring for Child A and would not do so. He is susceptible to criticism for periods when he has not played a prominent part in Child A's life. He accepted this to me and I gained the clear impression he was embarrassed and felt that he had let Child A down.

79. He had seen Mr Hughes at the Mother's home in high heels at a barbecue. He had rightly asked the Mother within a week of Hughes' conviction if Hughes had had any opportunity to have "done something" to Child A. The Mother told him that there was no instance when Hughes could have had the opportunity. This was, of course, incorrect. Moreover, I find that the Mother knew that at the time and was, yet again, attempting to cover herself with further lies.

Father B

80. In some respects, Father B was frank and truthful to me. In others, however, he was not. Moreover, as with the Mother, he really had no alternative other than to admit many of the matters put to him. He told me that he was "deeply ashamed" of what happened in the video on 18th December 2012. He told me he was "out of order" and he "deserved" to be in prison. I do not find that he was nearly so deeply ashamed prior to the Police finding the video. I remind myself that he had been arrested in 2009 for a similar incident of domestic violence against the Mother and bailed. That did not seem to have changed his behaviour at all. He told me he was under the influence of alcohol alone on the evening of 18th December. Having seen his demeanour in the video, I do not accept that. I find that he had taken illegal drugs as well. I will come to my specific findings in due course but it was noteworthy that Child B was present virtually throughout the incident. The assault on the Mother was unforgivable but so was doing it in the presence of a very young child.

81. He told me that, in effect, this was the worst incident he had perpetrated on the Mother. I do not accept that. It was merely the one which was recorded. I am quite satisfied that he has been physically violent to her on many occasions. He told me that all he would do was "push her out the way; drag her down to the floor; and grip her by the top". He implied this was her fault as she would not "get out of the way". He specifically said that he was only half to blame for the violence, implying that the Mother was equally to blame. I reject this evidence in its entirety. I do not accept that his conduct was limited to this. I find that he has hit her repeatedly. I reject that the Mother is to blame. He is entirely to blame. I am prepared to accept that he has not used weapons on the Mother other than when he once hit her with a baby's bottle. He denies this. I reject his denial. Whilst I accept that a baby's bottle could do damage to an adult, I also accept that it is by no means the worst weapon that he could have used. Nevertheless, he has threatened her with weapons. I find that this included threats with knives, even though he denies this. I also accept that other serious incidents have been in the presence and/or hearing of the children, which will undoubtedly have caused them significant harm.

82. I am satisfied that Father B has also been on the wrong end of the Mother's lies, although she has also told him the truth at other times. I accept that she told him that he was the Father of Child B from the outset although she denied it when they would argue. She told him that they would have to say it was Mr KX's due to her not being allowed to have contact to Father B. Foolishly, he went along with this but his Facebook page told the truth, although the Mother may have been in part responsible for this. I accept he was present at Child B's birth. Turning to Child C, I am satisfied that he did, wrongly, think he was the father although he had his doubts. He questioned her about both Father A and Father C. She told him that Father C had raped her and said that he must have given her a drug. This has echoes of her story as to the alleged rape in November 2014.

83. Clearly his relationship to the Mother is a complex one. They are very much attracted to each other both physically and emotionally despite their respective flaws. I reject the suggestion that Father B cannot have been seriously violent to her because she has put up him for so long. That would be to ignore the clear evidence of dependency that exists in many abusive relationships. I will have to make findings when I come to deal with threshold as to the current status of the relationship. All I will say at this moment is that I do not accept that Father B is a reformed man simply because of his prison sentence. I find that he remains a danger to women and, particularly, the Mother and that this danger is magnified considerably when he uses alcohol and drugs.

Father C

84. Father C has known the Mother for around ten years. They have been described as "sex buddies". My understanding of this is, in essence, that they have a physical but not an emotional relationship. The Mother's case is that, although Father C is the father of Child C, she was not aware that she had had sexual intercourse with him at the relevant time. She has therefore come to the conclusion that he had sexual intercourse with her whilst she was asleep. She says that he confirmed this to her in a Facebook post but she deleted it although, she says, it is possible that the Police will be able to retrieve it. A request was made to the Police during the hearing but nothing has been heard as yet.

85. It is, of course, possible that this Facebook post will, in due course, emerge. I accept, however, that I must make findings now on the balance of probabilities. If the findings that I make later turn out to be wrong, it could well be said that the Mother will only have herself to blame given the number of lies she has told over the years. Moreover, it seems to me to be rather too convenient that the Facebook message has been deleted. At one point, the Mother definitely told me that Father C made the admission in the October/December 2014 exchanges between them but I am satisfied that we have a full run of those exchanges from Father C and that such a message is not there. I reject any suggestion he has deleted just that message. When the Mother realised this, she changed her story and said the message was sent earlier but I reject that as well.

86. Father C struck me as a straightforward witness. I believed his denials of having sex with the Mother without her knowledge. It is inherently implausible. She accepts they had had sexual intercourse before this conception and had done so for a number of years. Moreover, they have had sexual intercourse since. Why would she do that if Father C had behaved so badly to her? Indeed, in her Facebook messages to him, the Mother says that he is "the only bloke I ever felt safe around and trusted with my life". There is absolutely no evidence that he would drug her. He would not need to do so as it seems tolerably clear that all he would have to do was ask and she would be quite happy to oblige. I find that she invented this story initially to Father B to explain why he might not be the father of Child C.

87. I find Father C's account of the evening concerned is cogent and believable. Indeed, the Mother does not dispute much of it. They had a water fight in front of the washing machine. I am slightly surprised that the water fight did not lead to sexual intercourse itself but they both accept that it did not. I accept Father C's account that they fell asleep together on the sofa in nothing but towels. He was then woken up by the Mother playing with his penis. The Mother does not seem to deny that either, merely saying that she must have done so whilst asleep. I consider that inherently implausible. They then had sexual intercourse and Child C was conceived. I suppose it is just possible that the Mother might sleep through sexual intercourse if she had been smoking cannabis or was very drunk but neither said that she was in such a state. I reject as absurd the suggestion that she has been known to remove her pyjamas in her sleep without realising. I find she was wearing a towel as Father C says.

88. I accept Father C's evidence that they kissed. It is difficult to see how they would do that if she was asleep. I am quite satisfied that Father C believed she was consenting to sexual intercourse. I am equally satisfied that the Mother was not asleep, although she might have been sleepy. It is just possible that she might have forgotten later although it seems pretty implausible. Given the Mother's repeated lies and her motive for coming up with such a story to stop Father B assaulting her, I reject her case. On balance, I consider the Facebook messages support Father C's account not hers. When she accused him of rape, he reacted furiously. When she set out her case, she said "I started to touch you" which is what he says. Moreover, she got pregnant again by Father C in the autumn of 2014 but, unfortunately, suffered a miscarriage. On 18th October 2014, she wrote to him "It's always the same with us; sleep with each other; create a life (and) neva see each other. I can't keep doing that". This was before the DNA tests had been done, although the Mother lied shortly thereafter by telling Father C that she had already done the tests (presumably with Father B) and could prove Father C wasn't the father. Yet despite no DNA tests, she seemed pretty sure Father C was the father, writing on 18th October "he (Father B) knows Child C's urs". It follows that I find that the sexual intercourse was consensual.

My specific findings as to threshold

89. I will now turn to the specific matters raised in the Amended Threshold document and make my findings as to them. I will deal with each relevant paragraph in turn.

Paragraph 2

90. I have already noted that the Local Authority has abandoned its case as to the allegations Mr Hughes made in "Monsters Do Exist". I consider the Local Authority was right to do so. I do not propose to say anything more in that regard other than to make a specific finding as to the allegation made that the Mother and Father B were aware of sexual abuse of Child A. I consider it is only right that I should do so, given that I have formed a clear view of this allegation following the evidence that I did hear.

91. Whatever the faults of the Mother and Father B, I am absolutely satisfied that they would never ever be involved in any sexual abuse of any child. Father B was clear that, had Mr Hughes abused Child A, he, Father B would have killed him. While the court does not condone threats to kill, I am quite satisfied that this reflects Father B's abhorrence and disgust at paedophilia in general and the actions of Mr Hughes in particular. It is right to say that the Mother was not nearly so condemnatory of Mr Hughes in the telephone conversation. It is, however, clear from that conversation that she had absolutely no knowledge whatsoever of any abuse of Child A. I am equally clear that she would not tolerate any sexual or physical abuse of her children and has not done so. I so find.

Paragraphs 3 to 5

92. It is to the Mother's credit that she agreed with the request of the Local Authority that she vacate the family home as soon as the existence of the allegations made by Mr Hughes came to light. It is also to her credit that she gave her consent to the children being voluntarily accommodated in foster care.

Paragraph 7

93. Although the Mother denies that, at the material date, namely 11th February 2015, the children were suffering and/or likely to suffer significant harm attributable to the care given to them and likely to be given to them were no order made, not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give them, she accepts that they suffered significant emotional harm by being present in the home during incidents of domestic violence caused by Father B. This is to her credit. I will return to the main contention at the conclusion of this fact finding judgment.

Paragraphs 8 and 9

94. These paragraphs set out the offences of which Mr Hughes was convicted and that he posed, at all material times, a significant risk of serious harm to children. On 28th February 2000, he was sentenced for three offences of raping a male child to a total term of five years' detention in a young offenders' institution. We know that this was a young child. On 27th May 2014, he was sentenced for an offence of raping a male child aged three, together with other sexual offences involving children, to a term of life imprisonment with a recommendation that he serve a minimum of twelve years.

95. It is accepted that he posed a significant risk of sexual harm to children. The Mother, however, says that she was unaware of the risk at the time she allowed contact to her children.

96. I am satisfied that the Mother was unaware of the risk Mr Hughes posed to young children. The issue, however, is whether she ought to have taken steps to make herself aware of the risk he posed. I accept Mr Furness' argument that Mr Hughes would not have told everybody about his offending history. It is agreed, however, that he asked Father B if he had been in prison. At the time, Father B had not. Mr Hughes then disclosed to Father B that he had been in prison. I accept that he refused to tell Father B the reason despite Father B asking him on a number of occasions. I am not surprised he did not tell Father B and consider it would be unreasonable to have expected Father B to do anything further to ascertain the truth.

97. ME, however, did know that Mr Hughes had been to prison for five years for the rape of a child. She says Mr Hughes told her that it was a young man, who had shown him identification, namely a driving licence, which showed him to be an adult, but actually he was under age, namely sixteen. If I was told such a story, I would not have believed it and would have pressed further. I do, however, accept that ME might have been taken in by this story.

98. I accept entirely that the fact that Mr Hughes was homosexual is completely irrelevant to the question of whether or not he is a paedophile. I further accept that the fact that he was a cross-dresser was also irrelevant to paedophilia. ME says she did not tell the Mother he had been to prison. Whilst I find this difficult to accept, it matters not as Father B says he did tell the Mother and I believe him.

99. I am prepared just to accept that it was not unreasonable for the Mother to have contact with Mr Hughes and to allow her children to have contact with him. I do however consider that, given her knowledge that he had been to prison, she should only have done so under supervision. Moreover, I find there was more contact than the Mother is prepared to admit. Mr Hughes was a member of the group that formed the Mother's friendship circle.

100. I do not believe that she allowed Mr Hughes unrestricted access to the children. I accept Ms OU's evidence of the three sightings of him with the children probably during the summer of 2012. Once she saw him heading towards the shops with Child B in the buggy and Child A walking beside them. The Mother was not there. I will give the Mother the benefit of the doubt on this one and find that it was while she was with Child C at the hospital and, therefore, possibly not aware. I do however find that Ms OU is correct to say that she saw the Mother with Mr Hughes and the children at the local chip shop in and, on another occasion, at the bus stop opposite the school. I further find that he was present at the hospital as confirmed by both Ms LH and Father B. Moreover, he attended at the Mother's home on at least three occasions for Sunday lunch/barbecues.

Paragraph 11

101. I do not accept that it was remotely reasonable to allow Child A, then aged four coming up five, to have a sleepover with an adult man that, on the Mother's case, he hardly knew. At the very least, she should have made far more enquiries. I have found that she was told that he had a criminal record. But, if she really did not know he had a criminal record, she should have made sure he did not. If she did know, she should have ensured she knew what he had done. It is now clear that Mr Hughes had been "grooming" Child A by making gifts to him, such as toy cars. I find that he also allowed him to use his play station. It appears he gave more presents to Child A than the other children. Sleepovers with school friends and their parents are one thing, even if unusual at the age of four. Sleepovers with strange men are entirely different. It was unreasonable to allow it in any event. It was reckless given what she ought to have discovered. It was extremely dangerous given what we now know. I am, however, prepared to accept that there was only one such occasion. I recognise that Child A says he was scared of Mr Hughes in his Police interview. I take the view that I should place very limited reliance on that. I do not believe that the Mother had any reason to believe he was scared of Mr Hughes. That, however, does not excuse her behaviour in allowing the visit.

Paragraph 12

102. I have already found that the Mother lied when she said she did not remember the sleepover. Mr Hughes had been a friend of hers and I reject any suggestion she was not aware, at least immediately after he was sentenced, of the facts behind his conviction. She accepted that Facebook was full of the story. She should immediately have raised the issue with the Local Authority. Her son might have needed significant help at once. As it was, she lied to the Police when they contacted her in 2013, saying she had not had contact with Mr Hughes or Ms DT for two years. She further lied in saying that neither Hughes nor DT had been alone with the children. She also lied in saying she never took the children to Father B's home. I really cannot see the reason for these lies unless she was fully aware that she was wrong to have allowed the sleepover and other contact. I have concluded that she did place Child A at risk and she failed to put it right when given the chance.

Paragraph 13

103. This paragraph alleges that the Mother was misusing cannabis and was likely to be less able to meet the physical and emotional needs of the children as a result. I find this allegation made out. I accept that Mr W said that there is no evidence that such use actually affected her care of the children but that is not the point. Unlike Father A, the Mother does not have the defence that she only took cannabis when the children were not with her. Even if they were asleep, this could have impaired her ability to look after them if there was a crisis during the night. I do accept that, of itself, this would not be sufficient to take children away from a parent but it is part of the picture and the allegation is made out.

104. I should make it clear that I do accept entirely Mr Furness' submission that the Mother's depression is irrelevant to threshold. This has not impaired her care for the children and I am satisfied that she has taken proper medical advice when necessary.

Paragraph 15

105. This is the same allegation as to the use of cannabis in relation to Father A. For the reasons I have already given, I do not find it made out. He was not taking cannabis when he had contact to Child A.

Paragraph 16

106. This allegation concerns the assault on the Mother by Father B on 18th December 2012. It is accepted by the Mother but it is right that I should set out the full extent of what occurred. I consider it to be a bad and very distressing assault. Father B accused the Mother of sleeping with other men. He placed a corkscrew against her throat. He threatened to cut her up. He threatened to kill her. He pinned her down to a sofa by her throat. He placed a pair of scissors to her throat. Her gripped her hair violently and threw her to the floor. I do accept that the Mother had set up the camera in advance but I do not accept that this is relevant.

107. The Mother invited Father B over but I do not find that she did so just to trap him. I am unable to make a finding as to whether she made sexual noises over the phone to make him think she was with another man. If she did so, this was incredibly dangerous, particularly as she had been assaulted by him on many previous occasions and could not say for sure how far he would go. When he arrived, she realised he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol. She knew what to expect and she was right. It was fortunate that she had the sense to record it so that justice could be done. I was troubled by her mouthing to the camera "help me" but, on balance, I accept her account and therefore reject the submission that she set this up in a way that was reckless and very dangerous.

Paragraph 17

108. The assault was carried out in the presence of Child B who was naked throughout. Nevertheless, I accept that there was nothing the Mother could do about this other than plead with Father B to stop given that Child B was there. He did not do so and showed no regard whatsoever for her.

Paragraphs 18 and 19

109. These paragraphs allege that the Mother, believing that Father B would kill her that night, allowed him into the family home or failed to prevent him from entering. It is true that she allowed him in. I accept Mr Furness' submission that she did not really have any choice as I am sure he would have forced his way in even if she had tried to prevent him. This does not excuse the Mother however. She continued a relationship with him even though she knew what he was like. She lied to the Local Authority about it. On this evening, she had invited him round. When he arrived and she realised the state he was in, she did not call 999. Apart from early in the relationship in 2009, she never called the Police. I accept the allegation that she placed the children at risk of significant harm as a result and she is culpable given her agreement not to allow him in and her lies to the Local Authority. Indeed, in June 2015, after meeting with her solicitors, she telephoned Father B and met him in Sophia Gardens. Whilst I appreciate the children were not there, this meeting shows the difficulty she has in separating from him. I do consider that she has unresolved feelings for him. Her case is that he is not all bad and has shown her tenderness and love at times. Whilst no doubt true, it does not lead me to be sure that the relationship is over for ever. Only time will tell and that is very difficult when children need to be protected.

Paragraph 20

110. This allegation is that the Mother failed to report the assault to the Police or the Local Authority notwithstanding the video recording she had made so as to enable proper steps to be taken to protect her and the children in the future. This allegation is made out. I accept that she used the recording to attempt to keep Father B "in order" thereafter. In part, it worked although I have already found that there were further incidents of violence, albeit it less serious. I am not sure that you can ever have "good" blackmail. The real point is that she should have stopped the relationship and been honest to the Local Authority. By failing to do so, she let her children down.

Paragraph 21

111. This paragraph concerns the other assaults perpetrated on the Mother by Father B. I have already found these to be made out. I do accept that there is a reference in her medical notes to an early assault but she accepts that she kept the true position hidden from professionals throughout the period with which I am primarily concerned.

Paragraph 22

112. This paragraph pleads that Father B used weapons, namely a knife and a bottle. I have already found that the only weapon actually used on the Mother was a baby's bottle. I am sure, however, that he would have threatened her with a knife at times, without actually using it. The fact that he was prepared to threaten her with scissors and a corkscrew demonstrates the likelihood of a knife being threatened as well. This is what the Mother says in her response to threshold and I accept it.

Paragraph 23

113. It is said that Father B threatened to kill the Mother and Child C whilst she was pregnant with Child C. I accept this occurred. After all, we know for a fact that he threatened to kill her in December 2012.

Paragraph 24

114. This paragraph asserts that, despite the Mother alleging to the Police in 2009 that Father B had raped her, she retracted her complaint. This is admitted. She was cautioned by the Police for this. I am not asked to find that Father B raped her and I do not do so. I remind myself that the Mother admits a false rape allegation in relation to the pregnancy with Child D and I have found her account of the conception of Child C to be wrong. Moreover, I could not possibly make such a serious finding without hearing from Father B's friend, Mr KB who accompanied Father B to the Mother's property on the afternoon in question. There is no doubt that the Mother was found by the Police in a distressed state. There is also no doubt that Father B was on Police bail at the time with a condition not to contact the Mother. The Police requested the Mother's telephone records, at which point she retracted her complaint. On the balance of probabilities, I find that she telephoned Father B and invited him to the property. He went in breach of his bail conditions. Regardless of what happened at the property once he arrived, this incident does no credit to either of them. She should not have invited him and he should not have gone. Moreover, either the Mother's rape allegation was false or her retraction was false. I cannot see, however, that any of this bears on the threshold findings given what I have already found about the Mother's relationship with Father B.

Paragraphs 25 to 28

115. Whilst I accept that these paragraphs are made out, they add little to what I have already found. I accept that, on 11th February 2015, the Mother remained in fear of Father B whom she believed would be violent to her. I do not believe she ever thought he would kill her, despite his occasional threats to do so. He would continue to call at her property and she would let him in rather than face the consequences of refusing him entry. The Mother's response to threshold is to place all the blame on Father B but I consider them both to be culpable in different ways. For example, the Mother says that he would simply turn up and demand entry, including kicking the door to gain entry. She says the last occasion was December 2014. This implies that she was completely against his being there but that is quite untrue. I am satisfied that, on occasions, she contacted him and invited him over. She was rightly against his violence, but not always against his presence. After all, in December 2014, they had sexual intercourse and she became pregnant with Child D, only two months after she had become pregnant with Father C. Quite why she did not take precautions against pregnancy, I do not know. In any event, she cannot place all the blame on Father B.

116. I do find the allegations at Paragraphs 27 and 28 proved. At the material time, the children had suffered and were likely to suffer significant emotional harm as a result of Father B's presence. It is only necessary to watch Child B's reaction in the video to see the harm done to her by the violence between the adults. Moreover, the Mother has consistently failed to protect the children from the consequences of the domestic violence within her relationship with Father B. I do not accept blackmailing him with the video to be a reasonable response. I will leave to the welfare stage the issue of whether or not she has gained insight since the institution of these proceedings and the prosecution of Father B.

Paragraph 29

117. Paragraph 29 contains a significant number of neglect allegations against the Mother. They include neglect of the children's dental health, their diet, clothing, toileting, eating, personal hygiene, home conditions, stimulation, socialisation and financial management. Although there seems to be force in the dental health neglect allegation, overall these contentions cannot stand. In fairness, the Local Authority did not press them to cross-examination. In the light of the improvement in the home conditions that led to the children being removed from the Child Protection Register in October 2014, it is impossible to find these allegations proved in February 2015. The matter falls squarely within Hedley J's definition of what society must accept in Re L. Moreover, some of the allegations such as lack of stimulation and socialisation appear simply to be wrong. This paragraph must therefore be removed from the threshold document.

Paragraph 30

118. This paragraph falls into exactly the same category as Paragraph 29. It alleges that the Mother has a long history of depression which has from time to time compromised her ability to meet the children's needs. I have already dealt with this. The Mother accepts that she has had a long history of depression but she has sought appropriate help and treatment. There is no evidence that her depression has resulted in her neglecting the children's needs. This paragraph must be removed from the threshold document as well.

Paragraph 31

119. This paragraph concentrates on the Mother not being open and honest with the Local Authority. The Mother does not accept that such matters are allegations of significant harm. I will return to this but it is absolutely clear that the majority of the allegations raised are made out, namely:-

(a) When given an outline of the allegations Mr Hughes had made, she failed to disclose that she knew him; that she knew him to be in prison; that she knew he was in prison as a result of sexual offences concerning children and that she had spoken with him since he was in prison. Her defence is her shock and distress that her children had been removed from her care and a belief that the suggestion was that the unnamed suspect was one of her former partners. I do not accept this evidence. If it was true, she would not have lied in the way that she did.

(b) The Mother stated that she did not know anyone who was in prison. She admits this but says that it happened after 11th February 2015, which is correct. I reject, however, her contention that she "should have thought of Mr Hughes". She knew all about him and it is impossible to suggest otherwise.

(c) She deceived the Local Authority about the paternity of Child B. The reply denies this and says that the Mother genuinely believed that Mr KX was the father of Child B. This reply would have been drafted on instructions on 6th August 2015, less than three months ago. It is a blatant lie and does her no credit at all.

(d) The Mother has not disclosed the abuse she had suffered at Father B's hands. She accepts this, saying she regrets that she did not do so but it was due to a fear she would lose the children.

(e) The Mother did not disclose that she remained in fear of Father B.

(f) The Mother told the Local Authority that EN was a foster carer from Andover when he was neither. It is accepted that Mr EN was not a foster carer. The Mother says that he told her this and she passed it on. I have not heard from Mr EN and cannot make findings of fact about him but I have read the Mother's Facebook messages to Father C when she said, in relation to Mr EN, that she never thought she could have anyone worse than Father B. Later she says that he threatened to come down and batter the living shit out of her. He was the "fucking problem" as opposed to Father B, adding "seriously, help". He does not sound like a foster carer from Andover. I am quite satisfied that the Mother knew this and misled the Local Authority.

120. There are a few of the allegations that are not made out, namely:-

(a) She did not disclose that she was using cannabis. She denies this, saying it was discussed at a number of meetings. This denial has not been challenged by the Local Authority and the allegation must be removed.

(b) She stated that Child A suffered from Irritable Bowel Syndrome when he did not. This allegation has not been investigated. It is said by the Mother that it occurred after 11th February. In any event, I do not consider this a serious matter and reject it.

(c) She told the Local Authority that Father A lived in England when he did not. She says that Father A told her he was in England and she corrected it when she discovered he was living in Barry. Again, this has not been investigated. It is not serious and should be removed from the threshold document.

(d) She continued a relationship with Mr EN after she had signed a written agreement with the Local Authority in which she agreed she would not do so. Surprisingly, the response to threshold admits this in part but Mr Furness has satisfied me that she did not sign such a document. Perhaps there should have been an agreement, but, as there was not, this allegation must go as well.

Paragraph 32

121. The final paragraph of the threshold document is that, at the material time, the Mother was likely to continue to deceive the Local Authority if no order was made and, as a result, there was little the Local Authority could do to protect the children whilst in the Mother's day to day care from the harm identified.

122. Mr Furness disputes the validity of this argument. He says that the lies told by the Mother do not go to threshold as they do not establish facts that lead to a conclusion that the children were suffering or at risk of suffering significant harm. I do not agree. There are two consequences of the lies. First, it is impossible for the Local Authority to trust what the Mother is saying to its staff. Second, as a result, it is impossible for the Local Authority to know that the children are safe.

123. This can best be illustrated by the position of Father B. I am certainly unable to find at present that the relationship is definitely over. Father B still has strong feelings for the Mother. The Mother denies that she has strong feelings for him, although she says that he is not all bad. I have found that the children have been at risk of significant harm from Father B's violence to the Mother. Whilst the Mother denies that he is any part of her life anymore, she was saying that on 11th February as well. The Local Authority simply does not know whether this is the case or not. Short of placing a twenty four hour watch on the Mother's home, there is little it can do to protect the children.

124. Of course, the Mother may be able to prove at the welfare stage of the case that she has indeed changed and learned from her past mistakes. But, as at the 11th February, that was not the case. The lies were an integral part of the problem. Indeed, it is in effect accepted that, if the Local Authority had known the true position in October 2014, they would not have agreed to remove the children from the Child Protection Register.

125. Equally, I accept the submissions that her lies in relation to her knowledge and contact with Aaron Hughes were wholly unacceptable and did not involve putting Child A first.

Conclusion

126. It follows that I find the threshold document proved, as amended by this judgment.