Cheshire East Council v The Father & Anor

1. K is 13 years old. He has suffered significant trauma in his life. He lost his mother in [redated] and prior to this, he had been subject to care proceedings where he was removed from his mother’s care. He spent time in foster care (placed together with his sister) and then he was placed with his father in 2019. On 26 June 2025, K reported physical abuse from the father and it is agreed that he sustained injuries documented in the child protection medical report. His father denies inflicting any of the injuries and regards K as being unable to distinguish truth from lies.

2. K was placed in a small residential care home setting where there was one other child. He was placed there from 22 August 2025. On 23 December 2025, he moved to a new placement called RP for these purposes. They will undertake a psychological assessment within the first 12 weeks [C118] (commencing week of 5 January 2026). That is regarded by the Local Authority as the priority given K’s conduct within his previous placement although they recognise that an AIM3 assessment may be required too. The psychologist forming part of the clinical team “is aware of the background issues in respect of K around early attachment issues, family history of diagnosed mental health illness (Hyper Mania) in the extended maternal family, queries around ADHD, ASD and some concerns around sleep disorder. Dr Y is also aware of the concerns around K’s sexual behaviour” [C119]. The psychological assessment will inform the appropriate therapeutic plan. This placement will allow K to remain in his current school.

3. Within these proceedings, K's interests are represented by his solicitor, Tony Dimelow, who takes his instructions from K’s children’s guardian, Pamela Leech. He is represented by counsel, Jonathan Taylor within this final hearing.

4. Ms Leech has recently spoken to the Home Manager of RP, who stated that “K has settled in the placement and he sleeps well during the week which is when he is in school but he doesn’t sleep well at the weekends. K has been doing activities with the other boys such as fishing and going out for meals which is positive. He plays a lot of computer games with the other 14 year old. However, [the Home Manager] also confirmed that there were 2 missing from home incidents; the first occasion was in December 2025 when K and the 14 year old went out and were found late at night in [redacted]; then a 2nd incident this January 2026 when K and the same peer went to [redacted]. K is also alleged to have broken his X-box controller, believed to have damaged a tv in the placement’s cinema room; damaged his bedroom door handle and slapped a member of the waking night staff” [Position Statement, dated 16 January 2026].

5. The Guardian has opined that she agreed with the original plan of the local authority to seek a solo therapeutic placement for K. She notes the advantages of K’s placement at RP but suggests that it is kept under review to ascertain whether it is meeting K’s needs. She remains of the opinion that after the 12 -week assessment (a) K should promptly receive “any recommended therapy without delay” and (b) in the event of placement breakdown, “a solo therapeutic placement must be strongly considered.” THE PARTIES

6. The Applicant is Cheshire East Council represented by counsel, Nick McCall. The allocated social worker is SW (she has been allocated since 26 June 2025).

7. K’s father was born in 1979 [46] (“the father”). He is represented by his counsel, Carol Micah. He lives in [redacted] in a property with his partner, Z and her daughter. THE BACKGROUND

8. K’s mother is deceased.

9. The family were known to [redacted] Children’s Services from 2015. In January 2019 K and his sister were accommodated under section 20 Children Act 1989. Care proceedings concluded in 2019 with K placed to live with his father under a child arrangements order.

10. In terms of his education, K attended [redacted] school until he moved to [redacted] on in 2022. He moved to [redacted] in 2023. It is relevant to note that CPOMS entries held by [redacted] prior to 10 October 2022 relate to information from [the previous] school.

11. On 25 June 2025 K did not return home overnight. On the morning of 26 June 2025, he attended [redacted] and alleged to school welfare staff that he had been physically assaulted by his father.

12. The Police attended school on 26 June 2025 and spoke with K. A strategy discussion was held and section 47 enquiries commenced. K was taken the same day to a General Hospital where a child protection medical was undertaken by Dr CP.

13. On 26 June 2025 the father was arrested and released on police bail with conditions prohibiting contact with K. K was made subject to police powers of protection and remained in hospital overnight.

14. On 27 June 2025 K was accommodated under section 20 Children Act 1989 with the agreement of his father and placed with local authority foster carers.

15. Cheshire East Council issued care proceedings on 25 July 2025. An Interim Care Order was made on 15 August 2025. K has remained in local authority care since that date.

16. K was placed in a small residential care home on 22 August 2025 however due to concerns about his behaviour with the other young person, he was moved on 23 December 2025 to his current placement. THE ISSUES

17. There is no dispute that it is in K’s best interests for a Care Order to be made based on the only realistic placement plan being in a residential or possibly a therapeutic foster placement. There are no family carers able and willing to offer a suitable home to him.

18. K does not wish to have contact with his father and his father does not pursue the issue of contact with K at this stage.

19. I accept the evidence of the allocated social worker, SW and the children’s guardian, Ms Leech in adopting the plan of the local authority.

20. In my judgment, K requires a therapeutic placement to seek to stabilise his development and avoid what I see as a significant risk of a deterioration in his behaviour which could expose him to criminality, the impact of harmful sexual behaviour to or from third parties and potentially a descent into more significant restrictions on his liberty.

21. In my judgment, it is essential that the product of his psychological assessment within his current placement is used to develop a therapeutic and care plan to address the multiple sources of trauma within his life. No opportunity must be lost to develop a plan to steer him on a path away from his negative behaviours.

22. I suggest that an AIM3 assessment may be an important tool once more is known about K.

23. The gravamen of this case and the issue in dispute is whether the father is responsible for a pattern of abusive behaviour toward K.

24. There is no dispute about the medical evidence. K sustained a number of injuries which medically are consistent with abusive causes. The critical issue for the purposes of this judgment is whether threshold is met on the basis that the father was the perpetrator of those injuries or at least some of them. He denies ever using physical harm to K. K alleges a pattern of physical abuse by his father over a period of years.

25. The remainder of this judgment will address (a) whether the local authority have proved on a balance of probabilities that the father did perpetrate the abusive injuries as identified by the expert medical evidence and (b) K’s needs going forward. TIMETABLE

26. The proceedings were listed for final hearing on 20 – 21 January 2026.

27. The 26 week statutory long stop expires on 23 January 2026. THRESHOLD

28. The revised schedule of findings sought by the local authority are set out as a schedule to the order made on 12 December 2025 [B81]: – “Physical and Emotional Abuse.

1. The father was abusive to K, both physically and emotionally. The abuse included: a. When K was nine years old, K was slapped about the head by his father which caused K’s head to strike into metal railings (or a stair banister). b. From being nine years old, K was slapped about his face and his bottom by his father. This would occur on a frequent and weekly basis. In this, the father would use his open hand to deliver the slaps to K. c. From a date in 2022 onwards, K would, on a frequent, and sometimes daily basis, be punched by the father using his fist, and would be struck by the father with a cricket bat and a belt. Such episodes of physical abuse escalated in frequency and intensity. d. On an unknown date, during episodes of physical abuse being perpetrated upon K, which included slapping, punching and kicking, and being hit with a belt and cricket bat, the father placed K into a “chokehold” which caused K to lose consciousness. e. On unknown dates, during episodes of perpetration of physical abuse to K, the father hit K with a metal wire, in addition to hitting K with his fists, a cricket bat and a belt. f. On unknown dates, during episodes of perpetration of physical abuse upon K, the father forcefully grabbed K by the hair with his fist, pulling K’s head back before continuing to hit K with his fists, a cricket bat and a belt. g. On 23rd June 2025, the father threatened K that he, the father would stab K with a dart. h. On dates unknown and on multiple occasions, during episodes of perpetration of physical abuse to K, the father would make threats to K, that he, the father would kill K or would “break” K’s bones. The father informed K that he, the father, had “strategies” to inflict pain in different ways. i. On dates unknown, the father would inform K that he, K would be sent to boarding school, or placed in care, which caused K to feel rejected and further isolated. j. On dates unknown, but on a frequent basis, meals and food would be withheld from K. At times K was forbidden from seeking to get food from within the house and would be threatened with violence by his father, if K did take such food. k. K’s possessions, such as his playstation and books and items K needed for his school work were taken from him by his father and not returned to him. l. The father frequently shouted at, and was aggressive and hostile to K, causing K to feel frightened, distressed and isolated. Events of 23rd and 24th June 2025

2. On either, 23 or 24 June 2025, K sustained the following injuries. Such injuries were inflicted to K by the father using a belt to hit K. E99-E100, E2 to E28 a. “Injury 11” – a 5cm linear purple bruise on the upper outer aspect of K’s left thigh. b. “Injury 16” – a 5.5cm bluish bruise wrapped below K’s left buttock. d. “Injury 18”- a 3cm blue bruise with purple pin pricks, diagonal linear, on the right upper-outer aspect of K’s thigh. e. “Injury 19” – a 4cm by 0.5cm , horizontal blue bruise on K’s left upper thigh. f. “Injury 22”- a 2cm horizontal bluish purple bruise on the left outer aspect of K’s back, above his waistline. 1 cm below is a further 2cm horizontal purple bluish bruise. g. “Injury 23” – a 2.5cm, vertical, purple bruise in the middle of K’s right buttock. h. “Injury 24”- a 3cm by 1 cm blue bruise to K’s upper left buttock. i. “Injury 25”- linear purple pin pricks with bruising extending diagonally from K’s left upper buttock through to his right lower buttock.

3. On either the 23rd or 24th June 2025, K sustained the following injuries. Such injuries were inflicted upon K, by the father using a cricket bat or being kicked by the father: a. “Injury 12” -immediately below “injury 11” a purple bruise.

4. On either the 23rd or 24th June 2025, K sustained the following injuries. Such injuries were inflicted upon K, by the father using a cricket bat or alternatively a belt to hit K: E100 a. “injury 21” an extensive, blue bruise with purple pin pricks throughout, wrapping around the entire of K’s waist, directly above his waistline. It has straight edges and is 2.5 cm in width vertically.

5. On either the 23rd or 24th June 2025, K sustained the following injury. Such an injury was inflicted upon K, by the father using a cricket bat to hit K. E100- E101 E99-E100, E2 to E28 a. “injury 26”- a 5cm by 2cm bluish purple bruise with purple pin pricks and linear extension to the left of K’s right lower buttock. The infliction of those injuries caused significant physical and emotional harm to K”.

29. It is recorded on the schedule [B81] that the “father accepts the expert medical evidence as to the injuries and the likely mechanism of injury. He denies that he caused the injuries and asserts that he has no knowledge as to how K came to have such injuries.”

30. In his position statement, dated 16 January 2026, the father’s case is that he disputes the injuries in question were caused by him. He asserts that he does not know how K came to suffer those injuries. He accepts that it is likely that such injuries caused K to suffer significant emotional and physical harm.

31. The father’s case is that confronted by K’s behaviour, he was a “rigid dad”: “I would not be lazy or ignore the behaviour, I took away privileges, which was my default position such as his bike, gave him lines, gave him a lecture, CBT worksheets with him, sent him to his room, extra chores or asked him to exercise. I deny harming my child” [C95/ 2].

32. He denies ever physically chastising K. He asserts that he has never hit him, with or without, any instrument, belt, a bat or a dart.

33. Given the expert evidence and the contents of the ABE interview of K, I found it surprising that the father, through his recent position statement, stated that he did not seek to give oral evidence and was content for the matter to be dealt with on submissions. Given the nature of the proposed findings, in my judgment, it is necessary to evaluate the father’s reliability and credibility having considered his oral evidence. Thus, I required him to give oral evidence as the default position.

34. The father filed a response to threshold, dated 8 January 2026 [C106]. He denied all of the allegations but agreed “that there were times when K’s behaviour at home became increasingly difficult and on some occasions it was necessary to discipline him, by telling him off. Sometimes K was unhappy and angry about being told off but on no occasion however did the father ever resort to physical chastisement” [C110].

35. His final narrative statement dated 8 January 2026 [C111] sets out his case as to his interactions with K in the days preceding the first allegation being made. In summary: – 35.1. on Monday 23 June 2025, the father states that K returned after school “later in the afternoon” and he thinks that K “was in his room for most of the evening from memory other than eating his dinner”; 35.2. on Tuesday 24 June 2025, it is noted that K did not arrive home until 20.00 – 21.00. When he got home, K told him that “he had been pursued on the way home by an old man for 5 hours and that the man had had his hands in his own pants. K began describing the man and stating that he thought he was going to do something to him. I didn’t know what to believe but when I questioned K about it, he became angry. K then told me that in fact he had been at his friend [redacted] house. I had never heard K mention another child named [redacted] before and I was not convinced he was still telling me the truth. I told him it wasn’t acceptable for him not to tell us where he had been and to have stayed out late like this, but at no point did I physically chastise K over this, and nor have ever I physically chastised him. After this conversation K had his dinner and then went to his room where he remained until the following morning when he went to school”; 35.3. the father did not believe K’s account. There is no reference in his account to discipline or punishment other than stating that K’s behaviour was unacceptable notwithstanding the father is a self-acknowledged “rigid” parent; 35.4. on Wednesday 25 June 2025, the father notes that K did not return home. He states that he “contacted the police and went out to search for him, myself. I drove around the area to see where he might be, but I couldn’t find him. I took my bike to check for him as I had initially checked all the places where I thought he could be. I couldn’t find him anywhere and so I returned home and stayed awake all night worrying about him. The police arrived in the early hours around 1-2am and informed me to attend school tomorrow morning in case he turned up there”; 35.5. on Thursday 26 June 2025, K arrived at school and made his first allegation of abuse against his father. The father states that he “arrived at K’s school, I was told that he was there. I was relieved he was safe and asked to see him. The teachers then told me that he had made allegations against me, and that I could not see him. The teacher informed me that the police were on their way.”

36. At this stage I pose some relevant questions: – 36.1. What, if anything, happened in the period 23 – 25 June 2025, to cause K to stay out overnight and sleep rough? 36.2. Why did he make an allegation against his father when he first got to school? 36.3. Did his father act in any way as alleged to cause this sudden change in K? 36.4. In particular, has the father, confronted with the behaviour of K, utilised physical abuse as a form of behaviour management; and if so, did he become desensitised to the cruelty and ineffectiveness of it for K? THE LAW Finding of Facts

37. I have not received any submissions as to the law. The conventional principles must apply.

38. The local authority has the burden of proving the facts upon which it relies.

39. The standard of proof is the balance of probability. I have kept those matters at the forefront of my mind in weighing the evidence in this case.

40. I adopt the helpful summary of Baker, J (as he then was) in Re JS [2012] EWHC (Fam) 1370 at paras 38-45; in Devon County Council v EB & Ors (Minors) [2013] EWHC 968 (Fam) at paras 53-64; and A Local Authority v (1) A Mother (2) A Father (3) L & M (Children, by their Children's Guardian) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam).

41. In Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41, Peter Jackson, J (as he then was) summarised the relevant general principles with his customary brevity. The fundamental elements may be expressed thus For present purposes, I have excluded his references to the approach to disputed medical findings. : – 41.1. The court acts on evidence, not speculation or assumption. It acts on facts, not worries or concerns.  41.2. Evidence comes in many forms. It can be live, written, direct, hearsay, electronic, photographic, circumstantial, factual, or by way of expert opinion. It can concern major topics and small details, things that are important and things that are trivial. 41.3. The burden of proving a fact rests on the person who asserts it. 41.4. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities: Is it more likely than not that the event occurred? Neither the seriousness of the allegation, nor the seriousness of the consequences, nor the inherent probabilities alters this.  41.5. Where an allegation is a serious one, there is no requirement that the evidence must be of a special quality. The court will consider grave allegations with proper care, but evidence is evidence and the approach to analysing it remains the same in every case. 41.6. Nor does the seriousness of the consequences of a finding of fact affect the   standard to which it must be proved. Whether a man was in a London street at a particular time might be of no great consequence if the issue is whether he was rightly issued with a parking ticket, but it might be of huge consequence if he has been charged with a murder that occurred that day in Paris. The evidential standard to which his presence in the street must be proved is nonetheless the same. 41.7. The court takes account of any inherent probability or improbability of an event having occurred as part of a natural process of reasoning. But the fact that an event is a very common one does not lower the standard of probability to which it must be proved. Nor does the fact that an event is very uncommon raise the standard of proof that must be satisfied before it can be said to have occurred.  41.8. Similarly, the frequency or infrequency with which an event generally occurs cannot divert attention from the question of whether it actually occurred. 41.9. In every case, the answer is not to be found in the inherent probabilities but in the evidence, and it is when analysing the evidence that the court takes account of the probabilities.  41.10. Each piece of evidence must be considered in the context of the whole. The medical evidence is important, and the court must assess it carefully, but it is not the only evidence. The evidence of the parents is of the utmost importance and the court must form a clear view of their reliability and credibility.”

42. When evaluating the witnesses, I have considered their demeanour in the witness box or within the ABE interview.  I have sought to take account of the contemporary documentation, the written evidence and the ordinary process of reasoning including consistency or inconsistency informing an holistic assessment of their evidence and ultimately of its reliability. Many honest witnesses may provide inconsistent evidence and the contrary may be true of a witness intent on deception. Ultimately, the Court must evaluate the evidence and establish its assessment of the reliability of the witness and the quality of the evidence given within the compass of the body of evidence put before it. Assessing the existence or not of past facts is a forensic autopsy with material from the past and the present guiding the search for truth. I have compared and contrasted a range of evidence intellectually. It would be unreal to seek to display that in the form of a linear judgment but what I have sought to do is to present the areas which I have found most instructive in reaching the conclusions that I have. What I will not do is to recite each and every facet of the evidence or submission made to me even if it has formed part of my journey to the conclusion reached. I will however chart my path to my conclusion necessary to serve the interests of justice.

43. In undertaking this task, I would gratefully adopt the analysis of Peter Jackson, LJ in Re B-M (Children: Findings of Fact) [2021] EWCA Civ 1371 at paragraphs 25-30: – “25. No judge would consider it proper to reach a conclusion about a witness’s credibility based solely on the way that he or she gives evidence, at least in any normal circumstances. The ordinary process of reasoning will draw the judge to consider a number of other matters, such as the consistency of the account with known facts, with previous accounts given by the witness, with other evidence, and with the overall probabilities. However, in a case where the facts are not likely to be primarily found in contemporaneous documents the assessment of credibility can quite properly include the impression made upon the court by the witness, with due allowance being made for the pressures that may arise from the process of giving evidence. Indeed in family cases, where the question is not only ‘what happened in the past?’ but also ‘what may happen in the future?’, a witness’s demeanour may offer important information to the court about what sort of a person the witness truly is, and consequently whether an account of past events or future intentions is likely to be reliable.

26. I therefore respectfully agree with what Macur LJ said in Re M (Children)at [12], with emphasis on the word ‘solely’: “It is obviously a counsel of perfection but seems to me advisable that any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so.” That was a case where the trial judge’s decision to refuse even supervised contact was based unduly on a father’s manner of giving evidence.

27. The same approach was taken by this court in a family case: Re A [2020] EWCA Civ 1230, where a finding of unlawful killing by poisoning was based upon recollection of a very brief event years earlier. At [36], King LJ noted that in Kogan, the court had emphasised the need for a balanced approach to the significance of oral evidence regardless of jurisdiction and that, although it was a copyright dispute between former partners, the judgment had wider implications. She added: “40. I do not seek in any way to undermine the importance of oral evidence in family cases, or the long-held view that judges at first instance have a significant advantage over the judges on appeal in having seen and heard the witnesses give evidence and be subjected to cross-examination (Piglowska v Piglowski [1999] WL 477307, [1999] 2 FLR 763 at 784). As Baker J said in in Gloucestershire CC v RH and others at [42], it is essential that the judge forms a view as to the credibility of each of the witnesses, to which end oral evidence will be of great importance in enabling the court to discover what occurred, and in assessing the reliability of the witness.

41. The court must, however, be mindful of the fallibility of memory and the pressures of giving evidence. The relative significance of oral and contemporaneous evidence will vary from case to case. What is important, as was highlighted in Kogan, is that the court assesses all the evidence in a manner suited to the case before it and does not inappropriately elevate one kind of evidence over another.

43. In the present case, the mother was giving evidence about an incident which had lasted only a few seconds seven years before, in circumstances where her recollection was taking place in the aftermath of unimaginably traumatic events. Those features alone would highlight the need for this critical evidence to be assessed in its proper place, alongside contemporaneous documentary evidence, and any evidence upon which undoubted, or probable, reliance could be placed.”

28. Of course in the present case, the issue concerned an alleged course of conduct spread across years. I do not accept that the Judge should have been driven by the dicta in the cases cited by the Appellants to exclude the impressions created by the manner in which B and C gave their evidence. In family cases at least, that would not only be unrealistic but, as I have said, may deprive a judge of valuable insights. There will be cases where the manner in which evidence is given about such personal matters will properly assume prominence. As Munby LJ said in Re A (A Child) (No. 2) [2011] EWCA Civ. 12 said at [104] in a passage described by the Judge as of considerable assistance in the present case: “Any judge who has had to conduct a fact-finding hearing such as this is likely to have had experience of a witness – as here a woman deposing to serious domestic violence and grave sexual abuse – whose evidence, although shot through with unreliability as to details, with gross exaggeration and even with lies, is nonetheless compelling and convincing as to the central core… Yet through all the lies, as experience teaches, one may nonetheless be left with a powerful conviction that on the essentials the witness is telling the truth, perhaps because of the way in which she gives her evidence, perhaps because of a number of small points which, although trivial in themselves, nonetheless suddenly illuminate the underlying realities.”

29. Still further, demeanour is likely to be of real importance when the court is assessing the recorded interviews or live evidence of children. Here, it is not only entitled but expected to consider the child’s demeanour as part of the process of assessing credibility, and the accumulated experience of listening to children’s accounts sensitises the decision-maker to the many indicators of sound and unsound allegations.

30. None of this will be news to specialist family judges and in future I would hope that in conventional family cases any submissions that unduly labour arguments based upon the dicta that I have been considering will receive appropriately short shrift.”

44. Hearsay evidence is admissible in civil proceedings but the Court must be astute to consider the weight to be attached to it.  In Westminster City Council v M, F and H [2017] EWHC 518 (Fam), Hayden, J put the matter in this way: – “23. Perhaps most importantly, sight must not be lost of the fact that these are public law care proceedings, where the guiding philosophy of the Court is investigative, non adversarial, sui generis.  Driven by its obligation to regard the welfare of the subject child as the paramount consideration, the Family Court will instinctively permit a broad range of evidence in order ultimately to weigh and assess its quality and worth in the context of the evidence as a whole.

24. A Local Authority faced with allegations of this kind is simply not going to be in a position to call as a witness every nurse, doctor or teacher who makes a note (usually recorded contemporaneously) in order to provide what Ms Bazley identifies as ‘the best quality of evidence on each individual point’.  The material being considered here, spans a number of years and is qualitatively of a different complexion to witness statements taken on key issues.  These are largely clinical and nursing notes which provide contextual material by which the central evidential conflicts may be resolved.

25. The Local Authority must, ultimately, assess the manner in which it considers it can most efficiently, fairly and proportionately establish its case.  The weight to be given to records, which may be disputed by the parents, will depend, along with other factors, on the Court’s assessment of their credibility generally.  Here, the reliability of the hearsay material may be tested in many ways e.g. do similar issues arise in the records of a variety of unconnected individuals?  If so, that will plainly enhance their reliability.  Is it likely that a particular professional e.g. nurse or doctor would not merely have inaccurately recorded what a parent said but noted the exact opposite of what it is contended was said?  The reaction of witnesses (not just the parents), during the course of oral evidence, to recorded material which conflicts with their own account will also form a crucial aspect of this multifaceted evaluative exercise.  At the conclusion of this forensic process, evidence can emerge and frequently does, which readily complies with the qualitative criterion emphasised in Re A [(A Child) (Fact finding hearing: speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12].”

45. During his helpful summary of the law relating to the admissibility and weight to be accorded to hearsay evidence in children cases, Hayden, J made the following observation at paragraph 18: – “18. The Court will aKays want to analyse the cogency and weight of hearsay evidence. Section 4 [Civil Evidence Act 1995] provides guidance as to the considerations relevant in weighing hearsay evidence. (1) In estimating the weight (if any) to be given to hearsay evidence in civil proceedings the court shall have regard to any circumstances from which any inference can reasonably be drawn as to the reliability or otherwise of the evidence. Regard may be had, in particular, to the following— (a) whether it would have been reasonable and practicable for the party by whom the evidence was adduced to have produced the maker of the original statement as a witness; (b) whether the original statement was made contemporaneously with the occurrence or existence of the matters stated; (c) whether the evidence involves multiple hearsay; (d) whether any person involved had any motive to conceal or misrepresent matters; (e) whether the original statement was an edited account, or was made in collaboration with another or for a particular purpose; (f) whether the circumstances in which the evidence is adduced as hearsay are such as to suggest an attempt to prevent proper evaluation of its weight."

46. I have borne those matters in mind when assessing the weight to be given to the hearsay evidence.

47. I have steadfastly avoided the assumption that because I did not believe a witness on one fact means that they must have lied on another.  I have sought to evaluate why they may have lied in accordance with the approach adopted in Re H-C [2016] AC

746. ABE Interviews

48. The current form of the ABE Guidance dates back to January 2022 (“Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings: Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Guidance on Using Special Measures”).

49. In Re JB (A Child) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2021] EWCA Civ 46 (adopted by Peter Jackson, LJ in Re S (A Child: Findings of Fact) [2023] EWCA Civ 346 at paragraph 37), Baker, LJ gave important guidance in understanding and evaluating the ABE guidance: – “11. The importance of complying with the ABE guidance, which is directed at both criminal and family proceedings, has been reiterated by this Court in a series of cases including TW v A City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 17, Re W, Re F [2015] EWCA Civ 1300, Re E (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 473, Re Y and F (Children) Sexual Abuse Allegations)[2019] EWCA Civ 206 and in the judgments of MacDonald J in AS v TH and others [2016] EWHC 532 (Fam) and Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC

27. It is unnecessary to repeat at any length the extensive comments set out in some of those judgments. For the purposes of this appeal, the following points are of particular relevance. (Save where indicated, the paragraphs cited are from the ABE guidance.) (1) "The ABE guidance is advisory rather than a legally enforceable code. However, significant departures from the good practice advocated in it will likely result in reduced (or in extreme cases no) weight being attached to the interview by the courts." (Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing), supra, paragraph 856). (2) Any initial questioning of the child prior to the interview should be intended to elicit a brief account of what is alleged to have taken place; a more detailed account should not be pursued at this stage but should be left until the formal interview takes place (paragraph 2.5). (3) In these circumstances, any early discussions with the witness should, as far as possible, adhere to the following guidelines. (a) Listen to the witness. (b) Do not stop a witness who is freely recalling significant events. (c) Where it is necessary to ask questions, they should, as far as possible in the circumstances, be open-ended or specific-closed rather than forced-choice, leading or multiple. (d) Ask no more questions than are necessary in the circumstances to take immediate action. (e) Make a comprehensive note of the discussion, taking care to record the timing, setting and people present as well as what was said by the witness and anybody else present (particularly the actual questions asked of the witness). (f) Make a note of the demeanour of the witness and anything else that might be relevant to any subsequent formal interview or the wider investigation. (g) Fully record any comments made by the witness or events that might be relevant to the legal process up to the time of the interview (paragraph 2.6, see also AS v TH, supra, paragraph 42). (4) For all witnesses, interviews should normally consist of the following four main phases: establishing rapport; initiating and supporting a free narrative account; questioning; and closure (paragraph 3.3). (5) The rapport phase includes explaining to the child the "ground rules" for the interview (paragraphs 3.12-14) and advising the child to give a truthful and accurate account and establishing that the child understands the difference between truth and lies (paragraphs 3.18-19). The rapport phase must be part of the recorded interview, even if there is no suggestion that the child did not know the difference between truth and lies, because "it is, or may be, important for the court to know everything that was said between an interviewing officer and a child in any case" (per McFarlane LJ in Re E, supra, paragraph 38). (6) In the free narrative phase of the interview, the interviewer should "initiate an uninterrupted free narrative account of the incident/event(s) from the witness by means of an open-ended invitation" (paragraph 3.24). (7) When asking questions following the free narrative phase, "interviewers need fully to appreciate that there are various types of question which vary in how directive they are. Questioning should, wherever possible, commence with open-ended questions and then proceed, if necessary, to specific-closed questions. Forced-choice questions and leading questions should only be used as a last resort" (paragraph 3.44). (8) Drawings, pictures and other props may be used for different reasons – to assess a child's language or understanding, to keep the child calm and settled, to support the child's recall of events or to enable the child to give an account. Younger children with communication difficulties may be able to provide clearer accounts when props are used but interviewers need to be aware of the risks and pitfalls of using such props. They should be used with caution and "never combined with leading questions". Any props used should be preserved for production at court (paragraphs 3.103 to 3.112). (9) "The fact that the phased approach may not be appropriate for interviewing some witnesses with the most challenging communication skills (e.g. those only able to respond "yes" or "no" to a question) should not mean that the most vulnerable of witnesses are denied access to justice". It should not be "regarded as a checklist to be rigidly worked through. Flexibility is the key to successful interviewing. Nevertheless, the sound legal framework it provides should not be departed from by interviewers unless they have discussed and agreed the reasons for doing so with their senior managers or an interview advisor" (paragraph 3.2). (10) Underpinning the guidance is a recognition "that the interviewer has to keep an open mind and that the object of the exercise is not simply to get the child to repeat on camera what she has said earlier to somebody else" (per Sir Nicholas Wall P in TW v A City Council, supra, at paragraph 53).”

50. Peter Jackson, LJ in Re S (supra) noted that it would have assisted the trial judge if he had identified and focused on the chapters of time covered by the evidence, which might conveniently have been arranged under the headings: the background, the first accounts, the ABE process and subsequent statements. I have endeavoured to have regard to that approach within this judgment. The careful preparation and consideration of the Journey to ABE document is intended to achieve that objective.

51. In Re H (Children) (Findings of Fact) [2025] EWCA Civ 993, Cobb, LJ made the following important observations at paragraphs 65 – 66: – “65. In a case in which there are multiple allegations, a Judge must aKays guard against the temptation to approach the evidence on the basis that something must have happened; the temptation in this case must have been all the greater given the reports of H’s sexually disinhibited behaviour and language, particularly once in foster care. In this case, the Judge had rightly been invited by counsel to consider the comments of Lord Hewart CJ in Bailey [1924] 2 KB 300 at 305, regarding the judicial approach required in cases in which the court is faced with determining a very large number of allegations: “The risk, the danger, the logical fallacy is indeed quite manifest to those who are in the habit of thinking about such matters. It is so easy to derive from a series of unsatisfactory accusations, if there are enough of them, an accusation which at least appears satisfactory. It is so easy to collect from a mass of ingredients, not one of which is sufficient, a totality which will appear to contain what is missing. That of course is only another way of saying that when a person is dealing with a considerable mass of facts, in particular if those facts are of such a nature as to invite reprobation, nothing is easier than confusion of mind; and, therefore, if such charges are to be brought in a mass, it becomes essential that the method upon which guilt is to be ascertained should be stated with punctilious exactness” (Emphasis by underlining added). The Judge was further taken to Macdonald J’s comments in Re P [2019] EWFC 27 at [272] where he said (having quoted the extract from Bailey above): “The totalising approach must be avoided if the court is to steer safely clear of capitulating to suspicion and the beguiling adage that there is ‘no smoke without fire’” (Emphasis by underlining added). The judicial advice from Bailey and Re P set out above was particularly apt to this case.

66. Notwithstanding the conscientious efforts of this judge in preparing his detailed judgment, this is a case in which the crucial analysis on the key facts would I suggest have been easier for him to undertake, and would altogether have been more coherent in its organisation and presentation, if he had adopted the approach advocated by Peter Jackson LJ in Re S [2023] EWCA Civ 346 at [33]; that is to say he could or should have identified and focussed on the “chapters of time” covered by the evidence, rather than structuring the judgment by reference to the sequence of witnesses and the individual allegations in isolation from each other. On the facts of this case, these ‘chapters’ might conveniently have been arranged under headings including: July 2023 (H’s report of being smacked); the first account of sexual abuse (December 2023: father); the second account of sexual abuse (January 2024: mother); other accounts of physical and sexual abuse (January – March 2024); the first ABE interview (5 April 2024); the allegations against CH on 21 April 2024; the second ABE interview. The Judge could then have concentrated on the first point in time at which H had ever given an account of alleged sexual abuse, the precise circumstances in which the account or accounts arose, whether and if so how they fitted into a context of lies, and how those were treated by those to whom they were made (Re P (Sexual Abuse – Finding of Fact hearing) [2019] EWFC 27). There was, thus, much force in Ground 1 of this appeal.”

52. In Re P (supra), MacDonald, J made the following observations about the impact of non-compliance with the ABE Guidelines: – “601. It is important to emphasise that in evaluating the extent to which those charged with, or finding themselves receiving allegations from children, have complied with these principles the court does not expect perfection and it would be unrealistic to do so.  As Mr Vater and Mr Watson remind the court, complete adherence to ‘guidelines’ does not mean that an allegation is true; wholesale failure to adhere to ‘guidelines’ does not mean that an allegation is false.  In the paper provided to the court by Mr Bagchi and Ms Bains, Children’s Suggestibility Research: Things to know before interviewing a child (Anuario de Psicología Jurídica 25 (2015) 3-12) Ceci and his co-authors make clear that it is important not to discount a child’s testimony merely because that child has been exposed to suggestive questioning. The Court must consider a whole range of factors.

602.  As I made clear in Re AS v TH (False Allegations of Abuse), failures by professionals in the investigation of allegations of abuse, and the fact that those failures must be taken into consideration when considering the weight that can be attached to the various strands of evidence, does not of itself preclude the possibility that those allegations are true.  There will, in any system that relies on human agency, inevitably be occasions on which there are omissions and errors in the application of good practice.  As noted by Baker LJ in Y and E (Children) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) [2019] EWCA Civ 206the ABE Guidance is extremely detailed and often very challenging for police officers and social workers to follow.  Within this context, it is thus important to note that, as the Court of Appeal made clear in Re B (Allegation of Sexual Abuse: Child's evidence) at [40] that: “There is no question of this evidence being inadmissible for failure to comply with the ABE guidelines, and that has not been suggested in argument for either parent. In a family case evidence of this kind falls to be assessed, however unsatisfactory its origin. To hold otherwise would be to invest the guidelines with the status of the law of evidence and it would invite the question: which failures have the consequence of inadmissibility? Clearly some failures to follow the guidelines will reduce, but by no means eliminate, the value of the evidence. Others may reduce the value almost to vanishing point.”

603.  However, the standard expected by the court remains a high one.  As Ms Morgan and Ms Gallacher recognised in their closing submissions, whilst there can be a sense sometimes that lawyers are only too keen to examine the detail of the breach of this rule or that, and that it is in the Court arena that those breaches of guidance, rules and good practice fall to be examined, it is outside the court arena that they have their effect for good if followed and the reverse if not. Within this context, as Baker J (as he then was) noted in Re W, Re F [2015] EWCA Civ 1300 (and recently reiterated in Re SR (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 2738): “I have sympathy for officers and social workers entrusted with the difficult task of speaking to children about allegations of this sort. The ABE Guidance is detailed and complex. But those details and complexities are there for a reason. Experience has demonstrated that very great care is required when interviewing children about allegations of abuse. The Guidance has been formulated and refined over the years by those with particular expertise in the field, including specialists with a deep understanding of how children perceive, recall and articulate their experiences. It would be unrealistic to expect perfection in any investigation. But unless the courts require a high standard, miscarriages of justice will occur and the courts will reach unfair and wrong decisions with profound consequences for children and families.”

604.  The relevant question for the court is whether any omissions or errors made are forensically significant. As Baker LJ further noted in Y and E (Children) (Sexual Abuse Allegations) “the judge (or the jury in criminal cases) has to assess the extent to which those failures undermine the reliability of the evidence”. Do the omissions or errors in good practice undermine the credibility of what is being said?  Did they act, inadvertently or deliberately, to put words into the child’s mouth by suggesting the answer to a given question? Did they inadvertently or deliberately encourage the child to exaggerate for reward? Did they cause the recorded account to be inaccurate or unreliable?  Did they act to assume an outcome?  Did they fail to take account of the needs of the child such as to make what the child has said unreliable?  This is not an exhaustive list.”

53. In other words, “[s]ignificant departures from the Guidance are likely to result in reduced, and in extreme cases no, weight being attached to the interview. It is for the judge to consider the interviews, and the extent to which they comply with or depart from the Guidance, in the context of all the other evidence” (Re C (A Child) (Fact-Finding) [2022] EWCA Civ 584 per Baker, LJ at paragraph 23). THE MEDICAL EVIDENCE

54. The images taken as part of the child protection medical are at E12 – E27. They provide an overview of the marks but I do not regard them as evidentially significant in the form they take in the bundle. The body map is at E10-E11.

55. The child protection medical was carried out by Dr CP, Consultant Paediatrician on 26 June 2026 at 14.30 (report, dated 2 July 2025) [E1].

56. The history recorded by her as to recent events is as follows: – “3.2 K disclosed to me that at 7pm on Monday the 23rd of June 2025, his biological father, [redacted], was in the garage alone with him where he proceeded to punch, kick and beat him. At one point he was pinned into the corner where he scraped his right arm against the brick wall in the garage. K disclosed that his father took a cricket bat from the garage and used it to hit him repeatedly on the bottom and legs. When K fell [to] the floor and couldn't get up his father grabbed him (as K demonstrated to me by grabbing the front of his hair with force) by the front of his hair and pulled him up to stand on his feet to continue beating him. When his father had finished he told K to [go] to his bedroom. K mentioned that his stepmother, Z and her daughter, [redacted] (who all live with him) came back home five minutes later. K said his father shouted to him to come downstairs to have his dinner and was made to eat in a room at the end of the house on his own. He recalls it being painful to sit. He then went back up to his bedroom where he remained overnight and went to bed. The next morning he went to school. He did not disclose to anyone at home or at school what had happened. He feels he is close with [the daughter] and he felt that [her] and Z must have known his father had hit him but he did not feel he could tell them what had happened. 3.3 On Tuesday 24th of June, K came home from school late and his father was angry, cornering him in the garage again and questioning where he had been. His father threatened to stab his hand with a dart but did not do so. Instead he told K to go up to his room where there would be more space to beat him properly and used a leather belt to repeatedly strike him on the bottom and legs. His father then left K in his bedroom where he remained and went to sleep. 3.4 K mentioned that this is not the first time that his father has hit him. The first time he remembers being hit by his father, he was being slapped around the face at the age of 8 or 9 and he remembers banging his head against a radiator. He remembers being shocked by this. He mentioned that by age 12 this was noticeably happening more frequently but on this Monday/Tuesday was the worst he had ever been beaten by his father. 3.5 On the morning of Wednesday 25th June 2025 K went to school as normal and again after school he went to [redacted] with a friend, he then left that friend and went to [redacted], but somewhere became lost and ended up in a field. He did not wish to go home as he was scared to be at home with his father and fell asleep in the field in the rain overnight. He was soaked through but he went to school the next morning on the 26th June 2025 where he disclosed to two student welfare officers, Miss [redacted] and Miss [redacted] who worked together, that his father had repeatedly hit him. He mentioned he had a bruise on his chest and that his ribs felt sore. K later told SW that the top of his head also hurt and when walking to the hospital that his feet also felt sore.”

57. At paragraph 6.2, she describes the condition of K’s arms and feet: – “6.2 K's social worker SW mentioned on arrival to children's outpatient that K was complaining that his foot hurt having walked to the hospital from where they had parked off site. K removed his socks which were damp, wrinkled and covered in mud from having slept overnight in a wet field. There was also mud on his forearms which we cleaned prior to doing an assessment and taking photographs…”

58. She describes the injuries noted and the extensive bruising (the injuries are numbered at paragraphs 7.1 – 7.14 [E5]). At paragraph 8.1 – 8.2, she offers the following opinion: – “8.1 In my opinion the bottom is a protected area. Extensive bruising like this would require a great deal of force and the pattern suggests repeated impacts. The mechanism given in the history consistently by K of being repeatedly struck with a straight edged implement (such as a leather belt and cricket bat) with a significant level of force and this is in keeping with the confluent pattern seen repeatedly on his body, in particular on his bottom – injuries 16, 21-26. The most extensive and clearly well demarcated being injury 21 that wraps around the whole of K's waistline at the back of his body directly above his buttocks and has the width of a standard belt. Injuries 11,12, 18,19 are linear bruises also on the upper aspects of his thighs that K consistently says are from his father repeatedly hitting him with a cricket bat and leather belt. Both implements would create linear injuries consistent with those seen on K. In my opinion these injuries are consistent with non-accidental injury. 8.2 There are numerous other bruises, abrasions listed above, all over bony prominences on his arms, legs, right shoulder and chest. K is an articulate boy who is able to consistently describe in detail where and when and how these injuries have occurred. Not all of them have a direct explanation but could have plausibly been caused as a direct result of being hit or of having been forced against hard objects/surfaces in the course of the above described events. The larger injuries are not consistent with sport injuries such as those sustained in playing rugby due to their size, shape and extent and it is on these that the focus should remain.”

59. The parties jointly instructed Dr Rahman, Consultant Paediatrician to prepare a forensic report. His report is dated 19 October 2025 [E75].

60. In his Executive Summary [E77], he opines that K’s injuries are due to physical trauma. Marks 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 20 are seen in active children quite commonly. He notes that K attributes these injuries to being assaulted by his father. Though he cannot exclude this possibility, these marks are more likely to be the result of K’s own actions and/ or peer interactions and therefore accidental.

61. He states that marks 11, 12, 16, 18, 19, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26 are in keeping with being hit with implements as alleged by K. These marks are in a relatively protected area. The distribution, number and patterns noted are rarely seen in accidental injuries. All these marks are more likely to be non-accidental.

62. He was unable to provide any likely time frame for the causation of the injuries.

63. Dr Rahman was subsequently instructed to consider the content of K’s ABE interview to consider whether it altered any part of his opinion. His addendum report is dated 12 November 2025 [E98]. Having reviewed the video, he clarified his opinion with regard to the mechanism by which the relevant injuries were sustained [E99]: – 63.1. Injury 11: 5cm, linear, purple bruise on the upper outer aspect of K's left thigh is in keeping with being hit with a belt. 63.2. Injury 12: purple, ovoid-shaped bruise just below Injury 11 is in keeping with being hit with a bat or being kicked. 63.3. Injury 16: 5.5cm, bluish bruise wrapped below K's left buttock is in keeping with being hit with a belt. 63.4. Injury 18: 3cm blue bruise with purple pinpricks, diagonal linear on the right upper outer aspect of K's thigh is in keeping with being hit with a belt. 63.5. Injury 19: 4cm x 0.5cm horizontal blue bruise on the left upper outer thigh is in keeping with being hit with a belt. 63.6. Injury 21: an extensive blue bruise with purple pinpricks throughout, wrapping around the entire back of the waist, directly above the waistline. It is well defined with straight edges and is 2.5cm in width vertically. This injury is in keeping with being hit with a bat. It may have also resulted due to being hit multiple times in the same area with a belt. 63.7. Injury 22: 2cm, horizontal, bluish-purple bruise on the left outer aspect of K's back, above his waistline (just above injury 21). 1cm below is a further 2cm, horizontal, purple-bluish bruise. This injury is in keeping with being hit with a belt. 63.8. Injury 23: 2.5cm, vertical, purple bruise in the middle of K's right buttock. This injury is in keeping with being hit with a belt. 63.9. Injury 24: 3cm by 1cm, blue bruise to K's upper left buttock (under injury 21 and meets one end of injury). This injury is in keeping with being hit with a belt. 63.10. Injury 25: linear, purple pin pricks with bruising extending diagonally from K's left upper buttock through to his right lower buttock. This injury is in keeping with being hit with a belt. 63.11. Injury 26: 5cm by 2cm, bluish-purple bruise with purple pin pricks and linear or about on or about 29 June 2019 keeping with being hit with a bat.

64. I accept the opinion evidence of Dr Rahman. THE JOURNEY TO ABE

65. No party has sought for K to give oral evidence. The father observed through his solicitors that by not seeking for K to give evidence, “it is likely that the court may accept some or all of the allegations that he has made. He understands that in these circumstances the court may make findings against him” [A15/6]. He confirmed the accuracy of that position statement in his oral evidence.

66. Therefore, the court is required to weigh the ABE interview which K gave to the police on 9 July 2025 from 16.02 to 17.50.

67. The Local Authority have produced a ‘Journey to ABE’ document [A49], which offers a summary of the accounts given by K about the alleged abuse. There is no dispute that it summarises the evidence before the Court. I have made a few amendments to it in light of other documents available (such comments are underlined and in bold). [JOURNEY TO ABE REMOVED] THE PRE-ABE ACCOUNTS

68. K was found in a school corridor at 08.30 on 26 June 2025. He had stayed out overnight and was upset. He described being taken into the garage on Tuesday 24 June 2025 and being punched in the ribs by the father. The fear of his father’s reaction was the reason he did not go home on Wednesday 25 June 2025. That is the first account. There is no record of questions and answers. The note at E49 records his complaint that “his dad hits him when he has done something wrong.”

69. Within minutes K was taken to see the school nurse/ first aider, [redacted]. There is no note of questions or answers but it is recorded that : “K disclosed (sic.) that dad hits and kicks him frequently. K said that dad has been hitting him for a couple of years and it can happen around twice a week” [E49].

70. Rather than record a list of questions and answers, a statement appears to have been prepared by [redacted] after speaking with K [C47]. The statement at E71 deals with the events from when K left school on Wednesday 25 June 2025 at 15.30 until his arrival the following morning.

71. PC [redacted] spoke to K at about 09.42 [G174]. There is video footage of the interview from the body worn camera, which I have viewed. After being asked what had been happening, K refers immediately to a pattern of behaviour over a “few years” whereby when his father gets “really sensitive”, he hits him. He refers to a slap on the face or being taken to the garage where he is hit. He describes this as a regular thing. He describes his father sometimes punching, kicking or slapping him and the last time this happened was on Tuesday (24 June 2025) because K had “stayed out too late”. K starts to cry when referring to a previous foster carer. K then expresses a worry that his father has said he will get “really, really angry” if he receives a call from “social services”. K begins to cry again when he says, “I do not feel safe around my dad.” In this short account within around one hour of his first contact with school welfare staff, Ks described a pattern of physical abuse by his father ending on Tuesday, 24 June 2025. K did become upset and I believed his comment that he did not feel safe around his father. The only caveat is that the officer lead on the frequency of incidents and gave a fixed choice which was inappropriate.

72. K then spoke to SW. There had been a strategy meeting over the telephone which had concluded at 11.19. SW arrived at school at about 12 noon for the purposes of taking K to the child protection medical. Her handwritten notes, which were subsequently written up are at C57 and in their typed form at C63. The questions and answers are not recorded but she states that K was clearly “frightened of his dad did not want to return to his care.” K spoke about some bruising to his ribs but also about “his head being sore from his dad hitting him.” Some of the conversation took place in the car on the way to the hospital. After the child protection medical he was admitted to hospital. He had “no clean/dry clothes.” K said he was content for his “stepmother” to bring clean clothes to the hospital but he would not feel comfortable seeing her [C65].

73. K then gave an account to Dr CP from about 14.30 that day [E2 – E3]. There is a vivid account of an assault at 19.00 on Monday, 23 June 2025. K being punched, kicked and beaten by his father. There is no attempt to separate question from answer but the summary includes details such as K being pinned into a corner where he scraped his right arm against the brick wall in the garage. There is a reference to the father using a cricket bat from the garage to hit him repeatedly on his bottom and legs. There is the detail of K falling to the floor and being unable to get up with his father grabbing the front of his hair with force and pulling him up to stand on his feet to continue the assault. There is reference to Z and her daughter leaving home for a period of about 5 minutes. The narrative continues with K coming home late on Tuesday, 24 June 2025 with his father angry, cornering him in the garage and threatening to stab his hand with a dart. The report suggests that the father did not actually stab him with a dart, which is a point of difference in other accounts. It is suggested that his father then instructed K to go to his bedroom where he used a leather belt repeatedly to strike him on his bottom and legs. K is recorded to state that the first time he recalls being hit by his father was at the age of 8 or 9 when he was slapped around the face; he recalled banging his head against a radiator and being shocked. The worst incident of physical abuse occurred on the Monday and Tuesday that week.

74. In terms of K’s response to the process of attending the medical, he said that he “felt relieved. He felt listened to that we would be able to do something to protect him and keep him safe, more than his friends would be able to do” [E3/ 3.7]. He said he was “worried about his mental health. He noted that whenever he is in the same room as his father or passes his father, if his father so much as raises his hand, K instinctively flinches. K does not wish to go back home to live with his father.” There is an interesting correlation between this statement and what K said in 2022 to which I will refer later.

75. K spoke to his foster carer at some point on or about 7 July 2025 about the allegations. Surprisingly, there is no written log of what was said or what questions were asked by the foster carer. The best evidence appears to be a text message sent at about 21.29 on that day by the foster carer to the social worker (see Journey to ABE). The text provides some additional detail regarding K been made to stand in front dart board whilst his father threw darts close to his head. There is reference to his father withholding meals and prohibiting him from getting food himself. There is a similar entry regarding information provided by the foster carer summarised at E48.

76. These accounts provide important context for the evaluating the subsequent ABE interview which took place on 9 July 2025 at 16.02. THE ABE INTERVIEW

77. The interview plan is at G59.

78. No party submits that the interview departed meaningfully or substantially from the best practice set out in the statutory guidance. Ms Micah for the father has drawn my attention to some questions which might have been phrased differently (paragraphs 30-36 of her written submissions) but in my judgment this comes nowhere near undermining the quality of the interview. In my judgment, the interview was compelling, granular and replete with experiential detail from K. Overall, I regarded the interview as one of good quality and I intend to weigh it accordingly.

79. I shall highlight some sections of the ABE:- 79.1. After introductions, the issue of truth and lies is covered [G100]; 79.2. Then K deals with the start of the abuse [G101 L13]: – “K: Yeah. Okay, so when I was around nine, the first time my dad ever hit me was when he slapped me.” 79.3. There is detail about him walking downstairs, “near the vending machines and he hit me around the head, slapped me and my head hit the… metal railing…” [G101/ L13-14; see also G112]. K corrects an earlier reference made to a radiator when it is suggested by the officer [G111 L23-24]. 79.4. The place was “near [redacted]”, “I think it was ADW something” [G113 L5-7]. He refers to being on “the last flight of stairs” and “there was some vending machines so we was almost at the ground floor” [G113 L20-23]. 79.5. K said that the abuse “stopped around Covid”, but re-started “around 2022” [G101/ L 28-32], a point of detail I find relevant to my appraisal. 79.6. After 2022, he refers to the father starting to hit him with a belt or cricket bat with the cricket bat being, “a few months ago” [G102/ L5] suggesting an escalation. 79.7. K refers to his father hitting him with a dart in his right palm and in the weeks prior to that, throwing a dart against a dart board “really close to my head” [G102 L13]. 79.8. K said that his father would only hit him on his bottom with the cricket bat. He had severe bruising on his bottom [G102 L22]. This is again a point of detail and differentiation. 79.9. The bat was a “wooden bat, blue handle, erm, and they…it has markings on it, I think, from where he hit me” [G136/ L14]. In the week prior to K leaving his family home for the last time, this form of abuse occurred on multiple occasions. “Erm, so he would hit me 10, 15 times, maybe more. Maybe one or 2 less, but sometimes he would hit me quite a few times more. Erm, that was really painful” [G136/ L17-19]. 79.10. He described being taken to the garage, required to pull down his pants so that his father could hit him repeatedly with a belt over a black box [G102 L35]. The black box was “near where the garage shuts” and “the white drawers” [G129 L8-11]. The father accepted that there were white filing cabinets in the garage. 79.11. K said that if he moved out of position, bent over the black box, his father would slap him and tell him to get back into position. He said the slap “would sting and my head would go to one side quite fast” [G137 L19 – 24]. 79.12. There is a vivid description of what K could see when he was being struck by his father [G138 L13 – 26]. When being struck with the cricket bat, his “body would jerk forward… leave quite a lasting stinging sensation… It would hurt to sit down sometimes or lie down so I would lie down on my side or something so it didn’t hurt” [G140 L5-12]. 79.13. K recalled being made to sit in a toilet at the end of the house for hours reading a book. There was no chair, just a toilet seat. “Erm, and it was cold. Tiles… tile floor so it was cold on my feet” [G103/ L24]. 79.14. At G104, L17-31, the following exchange occurred: – K: —erm, and it’s quite a long walk so I’d have to run down this path to get home, er, or on time. If I was a few minutes’ late or one minute late or something, he would hit me, or… I started coming home late cos I was considering leaving, like, I did one night and then I said, I told a lie and said that some guy was following me— DC J: Mm-hmm? K: —because I didn’t want to get hit— DC J: Yes? K: —and then he… that’s when he stabbed me in the hand with a dart, erm, because he wanted to get the truth out of me. I just… in the end, he took me to my room and started hitting me with the belt until I told him, erm, that I was out with my friends, which was a lie anyway. I was literally just walking round, considering leaving or not. Erm, but the next day, that’s when I left and I went… and I camped out in a field because I didn’t… that was the most unlikely place he would find me. I was really paranoid that he would find me—” 79.15. This appears to relate to 24 June 2025 because K said “the next day, that is when I left and I went… and I camped out in the field…” [see also G106 L22]. 79.16. K returns to the description of the last incident, “the day before I left” [G141 L19- G142 L10 and also G144 15 – 25]: – K: The last incident I can remember with the bat? That was it— DC J: Yes. K: —but the last incidents I can remember was the day before I left. DC J: Okay. So let’s talk about that, the last incident before you left, just describe that to me. K: Erm, I came home quite late— DC J: Yes? K: —a few hours, cos I was really, really considering leaving. DC J: Mm? K: Erm, so eventually I came home, I tried to make an excuse by knocking on my friend’s house and saying some man was following me— DC J: Right. K: —so my friends came back and dropped me off and they explained the situation. They didn’t buy it so he kept on hitting me with the belt, with his fists, kicking me. He digged a dart into my hand, into my palm [indicates right palm] and I still didn’t tell him and then he took me up to my room and hit me with the belt repeatedly until I did tell him. Then I told him and he said, “Get back here,” and then he would hit me and then he hit me with the belt quite a lot. Quite a few times. DC J: Okay. Can you remember what day that was? K: Tuesday or Wednesday.” 79.17. There is the detail (during his description of the assault involving punching, kicking and striking him with a belt) that K “tried to take cover behind my bike and he started kicking me and then he moved the bike, he started kicking me and then he grabbed me by my hair …and pulled me up” [G146 L13-16]. K stated that his father “grabbed a fistful of hair and then he would pull me up”. “Erm, it felt like he was pulling my hair out… I think some hair did come out but it would be, like, he was pulling my scalp, like, upwards and it would be, like, an extreme stinging sensation… so it would be like I would jolt up immediately” [G149 L12 – 23]. 79.18. K gives a detailed description of a dart board which been obtained around Christmas. He reports that the father “said, ‘come over here,’ and he kept on, like, slowly putting it [the dart] back into my hand. Erm, it did not go that deep but it has scarred my hand a little bit here [gestures to the open palm of his right hand]” [G151 L7-14; G152 L8-22]. His hand was held down on a long table which had arcade machines on. This assault lasted for “30 seconds at most” [G153 L12]. 79.19. K states that his father took him to K’s bedroom and started hitting him with the belt to obtain information as to where he had been [G153 L20-28]. 79.20. K describes being bent over against his bed. His father pulled his pants down and struck him 8 times. “I remember, cos I moved, got to the floor and then he said, ‘back’, shouted, ‘back’, and he did that 8 times…” [G154 L21-24]. 79.21. K stated that it appeared “weird” that Z and her daughter left the property 5 minutes before this assault in the bedroom. 79.22. K’s physical description of the movements within the bedroom is revealing [G156 L8- 29]: – DC J: Okay, and how were you reacting to this? K: Erm, crying— DC J: Crying? K: —telling him to stop— DC J: Yes? K: —moving out the way and he would shout, “Get back or I’m gonna hit you how you are there.” DC J: Mm? K: A few times, he did jump on my bed when I moved around my bed— DC J: Okay. K: —to get to the other side where I was out of range and he came back and then hit me across here [gestures across his mid chest area], chest and arms— 20 DC J: Yes? K: —and then— DC J: What with? K: —he told me… the belt. DC J: The belt? Yes? K: And he told me to come back— DC J: Mm? K: —and then I would go back against the bed and then I would go… after every hit, I would go against the floor to try and slow it down, erm, and then I would go back up onto the bed cos he would force me to. Not with… not with physically but he…” 79.23. K described the belt his father had used as a black leather belt with a gold “T” on it [G157 L25-27]. 79.24. K refers to also being hit with a metal wire sometimes and being placed in a chokehold because he “accidentally hurt this little kid when jumping on a bouncy castle” [G105 L28-31; G106 L1- 8]. 79.25. K describes his father threatening him: “I am literally gonna kill you” [G108 L14]; “or he would say, like, ‘if it takes to breaking bones then that will what… That will be what would happen’ or like going to hospital” [G108 L 14, 20]. 79.26. Generally, he describes not being allowed into the kitchen to obtain food because he had stolen food. He describes being forced to miss meals and being at home hungry.

80. I do not regard K’s account as bearing the hallmarks of a manufactured description. On the contrary, having viewed the ABE, his evidence requires substantial weight to be placed upon it when allied to the existence of the injuries in question and the conclusions of the medical experts. MY ASSESSMENT OF THE FATHER

81. The father was not a good witness. In fairness to him, he appears to be a successful businessman who has had an enduring relationship with his partner, Z. He would appear to have successfully raised adult children. At the end of the care proceedings in [redacted], he must have received an appropriate parenting assessment for the court to approve placement with him. So far as is known, there is no background of violence in his life.

82. His case is that he accepts the inevitability that K will need assessment and care within a suitable residential establishment although he is fearful that the freedom he will experience (and already has experienced) will be abused by K to his ultimate detriment. He has no current wish to have contact with K respecting K’s wishes and feelings in that regard. He loves K but remains doubtful whether K loves him or ever did.

83. So far as threshold is concerned, his case is that the perpetrator of the injuries is not him. He is unable to offer any basis to suggest a named individual was responsible. He dismisses K’s evidence as fabrication.

84. In fairness to the father, there is a limit to what evidence he can offer given his case is that K’s account is a fabrication insofar as it relates to a pattern of abusive behaviour by his father. However, there are a number of relevant factors which I have taken into account: – 84.1. His written evidence and his oral evidence around the events of the week commencing 23 June 2025 is generalised and vague. He was pressed to give detailed consideration in particular to the events of 24 June 2025 but his final narrative statement contains very little by way of detail. 84.2. He was slightly more forthcoming within his oral evidence but only marginally. The one exception was a matter which was omitted from any statement, namely that at the time of the events in question he had already started looking for a property to establish a separate household for himself and K whilst maintaining a relationship with Z. He accepted that the issues within the home had reached a point whereby things could not continue as they had been. In my judgment, that is likely to have increased pressure within the household because of the impending change in the family circumstances. 84.3. This was an escalating pattern. For example, the problem is illustrated in the message from Z to the school of 29 March 2023 [E54]. The response to K’s behaviour at school was to remove ‘snack money’ for a week. He was described as “very manipulative”. This did not resolve the issue but probably led to further problems. The blame was centred on K. On 22 March 2023, K is reported to say to a member of school staff, “‘I've been told I will be in big trouble if ever school phones.’ [redacted] reassure K that K couldn't help being ill and parents would understand” [E58, 22 March 2023]. The father was asked about the issues K had been experiencing at school throughout his education and his understanding of the reasons for them. He talked about what he had done in terms of spending time with his son and talking to him but I did not detect any understanding, insight or empathy for K. The father appeared peculiarly unemotional about his son, almost detached or dissociated from events. The latter indication could be a feature of his regret and disappointment at the turn of events or simply a manifestation of his personality and emotional disposition. What I was struck by was the ever-repeating pattern of rigid parenting rules and consequences, which were increasingly ineffective in managing the real difficulties K has experienced. In some ways, the challenge of parenting K has been beyond the parenting ability of his father and with that pattern of ineffectiveness, there is an inherent probability that the father’s frustration, anger and determination to achieve compliance by K spilled over into casual and then regular physical chastisement of his son. The reason for K staying out late was his growing unhappiness at life at home. He was weighing up leaving. The father said in evidence that he saw this pattern and the sequence of lies as another development. Did he react to that by instituting the assault as alleged? 84.4. The father was at times evasive in his evidence. He had to be asked repeatedly on a number of occasions to answer the question. He would deflect the question or sometimes talk over the questioner, including when being asked questions by the Court. 84.5. No party has sought within the proceedings to adduce evidence from Z by witness statement. I have had to consider her involvement from the documents. The father said she was co-parenting K with the father. There are examples of her taking K to medical appointments or engaging with education which, at least within her relationship with the father, he regarded as part of her role. She sought in one apparent message to [redacted] school to defend the use of physical chastisement [E66, CPOMS, dated 22 July 2022]: – “K has been spoken to many times at after school club (currently run by [redacted]) after hurting younger children during boisterous play. Every time [redacted] has warned him that she will have to speak to his dad, he says, "Please don't, I will get punished". He gave examples of writing lines, no snacks as treats, withdrawal of play station. On Wednesday evening after another incident where a child was hurt during a game, K became very upset and made an allegation that his dad had hit him, "he hit me on the chest". Later that evening K's dad's partner Z messaged [redacted] to explain that she knew about K's disclosure (see messages) and confirmed that K had been smacked and that it was their right as parents to discipline their child. The next day K spoke to staff at after school club and said again that he had been smacked "in the van on the way to school" but "[i]t's ok as I was shown on the internet that it's ok to smack children with reasonable force". He explained that his dad had shown him this information at home” (emphasis supplied).

85. It would be implausible to suggest she would say that if the father did not agree to the use of physical chastisement contrary to his protestations in Court. Whilst this is a piece of hearsay, it tends to undermine the father’s assertion as to the absence of any physical chastisement of K.

86. The final matter is the father’s evidence about the black belt with a gold “T” and a cricket bat with a blue handle. He was asked whether he had those items? He said that he had 20 belts, then up to 50 belts and did not know if he had such a belt because “the whole thing is ridiculous. I feel like a fantastic Dad.” As for the cricket bat, again, he did not know. He said he had a “plethora” of sports equipment in a double garage with “hundreds of pieces of sports equipment.” His words chimed with me as a witness distancing themselves from the details even in circumstances where they faced allegations which deserved to be addressed with care. It is a small point seen in the context of my overall assessment of him. ANALYSIS

87. I have considered the written submissions filed by counsel for which I am grateful. I have taken them into account.

88. K is a child who has experienced significant trauma in his life. His behaviour since he came to live with his father on or about 29 June 2019 provides a glimpse into the harm he has sustained. He remains a young person in need of significant support and therapeutic intervention to reduce the risk of further decline.

89. It is apparent from the record of his time in a number of schools that he has struggled with his behaviour, including dishonesty, stealing and hurting other children [E39; H8]. K has expressed worry if his school told him they would contact his “parents” [E65, 13 October 2022].

90. Within 3 months of moving to live with his father following the end of the care proceedings in [redacted], K moved into a home with his father and Z.

91. In about May 2023, she sent a 13-page summary of K’s negative behaviours to CAMHS [H182]. I accept that it was provided in the context of a requested record of negative behaviours but it illuminates the extent to which his existence within the family home was a source of tension or embarrassment.

92. Throughout the period from 2019 to 24 June 2025, the father’s attempts alongside Z to provide a rigid set of rules and consequences failed to achieve any meaningful change. The school noted that food was used as part of a regime of punishment although they showed an understanding of how that tied into K’s early life [H185]: – “Both family and school raised concerns that K has stolen food, or stolen money from step-mum and dad to buy food in school. K will use this money to buy snacks at break time. When K Is asked where the money has come from – he will say he asked his peers for spare change. Family have sent school money for the term and asked them to distribute it every day to K to stop him from stealing it from home. There was an occasion where K stole a chocolate from the classroom as well as stealing food from Tesco. Family has shared with school that they have found over 20 chocolate wrappers down the side of his bed. K will also ask other children for food out of their lunchbox. School shared that family have used food as a discipline. For example – if K steals money or food, they have taken away snacks for a week. When he stole a chocolate out of the classroom, K told school they had sent him to bed with no dinner. School did raise these concerns via their safeguarding procedure, and this was raised with family, who shared he had toast for dinner. School shared that in the safeguarding notes from previous education settings, it outlines that K was low in weight, often left hungry and that food was withheld in the past whilst he was under mum’s care. School have had conversations with family about how this trauma and neglect would be impacting how K sees food now and have sent over resources around the importance of having readily available food.”

93. The CAMHS mental health formulation, dated 7 August 2023 [H43] provides a helpful context for K’s behaviour: – “The behaviours that K has demonstrated that have caused concern for the father and Z are typical for children with attachment difficulties. Based on the information provided to me by the father and Z about K’s early years it appears likely that K would not have had his care needs met on a consistent basis, and he may also have been exposed to episodes that would have caused him significant upset and distress. It seems unlikely that K will have had the opportunity to develop a secure attachment to his mum, and he is also likely to have had behaviours modelled to him that have influenced the way that he has gone on to behave himself. We also have to consider the impact of separation and loss on K. He has been separated from his mum, and then from his foster carer and half-sister. He will also have lost establish relationships with friends and teachers when he moved from [redacted] to [redacted]. The instability, change and uncertainty that K experience during this time will inevitably have affected his behaviour and functioning.”

94. As early as June 2022, K described being worried about “his own mental health – when his dad walks past him or he raises his hand his instinct is to flinch – scared to go home” [H209]. Why would he flinch other than with the knowledge of what his father was capable of doing to him?

95. Following this formulation, K’s mother died. There may well be a component in his behaviour attributable to that sense of loss.

96. The father believed, in my judgment, that providing a regime of actions and consequences alongside what he described as regular conversations in which she sought to understand K’s difficulties would eventually bring about positive change. Those conversations did not appear to develop into understanding because K is likely to have been unable to explain his own behaviour or lack of adherence to the expectations and rules of his family.

97. However, what developed was a pall of negativity which hung over K. Behind photographs or videos which appear to portray a happy family, the situation was deteriorating. Z was finding it increasingly difficult to maintain family life with K within the home. Within his oral evidence – the first time this had been mentioned – the father said that at the time of these events he had already begun looking for a property in which to set up a separate household for himself and K. As he said in his oral evidence, “it wasn’t working” because “K was causing too many issues.” K had been the subject of long discussions between the father and Z. Whilst that did not entail the end of his relationship with Z it was clearly a response to the fracturing of family life within a single household. It is inherently likely to have increased tensions within the home. It was a point of inflexion. The home was less of a home and as much a form of internal containment for K. K could not be trusted to be in the kitchen alone. Cameras were put in the property to monitor his movements in case he transgressed. He was not allowed into an office for fear that he would take papers or otherwise interfere in the work of Z. K paints a picture of being and feeling isolated and times ostracised.

98. As much as the father sought to solve K’s problems and indicated his determination to avoid a consequence by which K would find himself in local authority care, he did not understand his son’s behaviour. The father showed a signal lack of understanding of the futility of his attempts at behaviour management. I have some sympathy for the challenges which the father and Z had. He was not looking after a child who had not suffered significant trauma already. I have sympathy for a parent struggling to find the right techniques to manage a range of difficult behaviour. However, I sense the father as a rigid parent, who was inflexible and lacked empathy and understanding of his son’s needs. He appeared emotionally closed and disassociated from his son.

99. The father appeared to distance himself from the litigation. He determined not to ask K to give evidence. He did not seek to give evidence. He did not adduce any evidence from Z about the home environment. His witness statements lacked detail and even after further prompting from the court to provide a detailed narrative statement, he failed to provide that detail, omitting important information such as the fact that he had been searching for a separate household at the time because of the problems posed by K for Z. He betrayed little emotion about the parlous state of his son but showed significant conviction in describing his merits as a parent and that K would have been far better staying with his father than in local authority care where he is already abusing the freedom he has gained.

100. I have already addressed the issue of the whereabouts of the belt and cricket bat. In my judgment, either the father was dissociating himself from the scene of his abuse and did not wish to consider it or he was so dismissive of the allegations that he saw no benefit in thinking about the evidence against him.

101. The father denied at each and every turn ever physically chastising K. He accepted that at times he would have been frustrated but not angry. He gave the impression of someone self-contained emotionally. However, I have made reference to a message from Z which tends to contradict that assertion. There is also evidence of K reporting that he had been shown a video regarding the use of physical chastisement. The father denied any part in that too.

102. I prefer the evidence of K allied to the expert medical evidence over the denial of the father. The situation within the home was deteriorating by 24 June 2025 to the point that separate households was now the plan in the process of implementation. K came home between 20.00 to 21.00. It is likely that his father was annoyed. He had been out in the car looking for K. K had broken the rules by not coming home promptly from school again. K then proceeded to lie about being pursued by an old man. He lied to his father’s face. His father believed that he also lied about spending time with a friend called [redacted]. As a parent, he wanted the truth. As the father said, he recognised this event to be a development in the pattern of K’s behaviour: he was establishing his freedom by simply coming in late as he weighed his options to leave the family home. It was a new phase. It was the inevitable consequence of K’s behaviour confronting the father’s inflexible parenting rules. What did the father do? On the father’s case, according to his witness statement, there was no consequence at all. In his oral evidence, this “rigid” parent, who firmly applied consequences for actions told K he would not have his bike and there would be a “massive impact” on his forthcoming birthday presents (a present which appears to remain wrapped waiting for K). The father’s evidence about this and the events after K returned home was generally vague and non-specific. In my judgment, the reason for it being so vague is because the father was hiding from the truth of his actions. He did not want to confront the evidence or give a specific account because that would expose him to the greater risk of the details demonstrating his actual behaviour. I find that over the 23 to 24 June 2025, he deployed his anger and frustration by assaulting his son. This was the nadir of a pattern of physical abuse, which had played out over a number of years.

103. In my judgment, I have a history of accounts leading to an ABE interview which is rich in granular and experiential detail which depict a boy, frightened and upset. A boy who had remained outside overnight rather than go home and face another beating. A boy who gave a compelling account of the abuse he had suffered at the hands of his father. The father has not sought to challenge K’s account and appears to me to have resigned himself to findings being made against him but in the forlorn hope of not being exposed to giving evidence or admitting the truth given the criminal investigation which remains ongoing.

104. The most significant problem for the father’s denial in the circumstances is the medical evidence. The extensive bruising, particularly injury 21, is entirely consistent with K’s account of being hit with a bat or by a belt repeatedly in the same area. It is inconceivable that K could have caused these injuries himself. There is no other person beyond the father who it is suggested could have been responsible for the injuries.

105. I accept the evidence of K and find threshold established on the basis of the physical and emotional harm being caused or likely to be caused to K when protective arrangements were first instituted arising from the physical assaults as alleged by the local authority over the 23to 24 June 2025 and a pattern of preceding violence which had become part and parcel of K’s life.

106. In reaching this conclusion, I take into account K’s facility to lie. The father thought K had sought and now obtained the freedom to do as he wished to his ultimate detriment. He implied that was the cause of this fabrication of the truth. There are some inconsistencies (such as an earlier reference to whether the dart actually broke the skin or not). In my judgment, however, the overall body of evidence establishes on a balance of probability that K did not lie about the issue of his physical mistreatment within the home.

107. I return to answer the questions I originally posed: – What, if anything, happened in the period 23 – 25 June 2025, to cause K to stay out overnight and sleep rough?

108. In my judgment, K had been assaulted by his father, did not want to live with him any longer and was frightened of what would happen to him if he returned. Why did he make an allegation against his father when he first got to school?

109. K was scared and upset. He wanted help and he told the truth about his father’s behaviour. Did his father act in any way as alleged to cause this sudden change in K?

110. Yes, he did. The father dealt with his son’s behaviour by physical abuse borne out of his anger and frustration. What he did to K cannot be justified.

111. I make the following findings for the purposes of establishing the threshold criteria: – “Background Facts The court is concerned with the child, K (born in 2012). His father is [redacted]. K’s mother [redacted] is deceased. K had been living with his father since 2019. At the time protective measures were implemented on 26 June 2025, K was suffering and was likely to suffer significant, physical and emotional harm attributable to the care given to him, or likely to be given to him, that care not being what it would be reasonable to expect a parent to give. The facts are: Events of 23 and 24 June 2025

2. On either, 23 or 24 June 2025, K sustained the following injuries. Such injuries were inflicted to K by the father using a belt to hit K. a. “Injury 11” – a 5cm linear purple bruise on the upper outer aspect of K’s left thigh. b. “Injury 16” – a 5.5cm bluish bruise wrapped below K’s left buttock. d. “Injury 18”- a 3cm blue bruise with purple pin pricks, diagonal linear, on the right upper-outer aspect of K’s thigh. e. “Injury 19” – a 4cm by 0.5cm , horizontal blue bruise on K’s left upper thigh. f. “Injury 22”- a 2cm horizontal bluish purple bruise on the left outer aspect of K’s back, above his waistline. 1 cm below is a further 2cm horizontal purple bluish bruise. g. “Injury 23” – a 2.5cm, vertical, purple bruise in the middle of K’s right buttock. h. “Injury 24”- a 3cm by 1 cm blue bruise to K’s upper left buttock. i. “Injury 25”- linear purple pin pricks with bruising extending diagonally from K’s left upper buttock through to his right lower buttock.

3. On either the 23 or 24 June 2025, K sustained the following injuries. Such injuries were inflicted upon K, by the father using a cricket bat or being kicked by the father a. “Injury 12” -immediately below “injury 11” a purple bruise.

4. On either the 23 or 24 June 2025, K sustained the following injuries. Such injuries were inflicted upon K, by the father using a cricket bat or alternatively a belt to hit K: a. “injury 21” an extensive, blue bruise with purple pin pricks throughout, wrapping around the entire of K’s waist, directly above his waistline. It has straight edges and is 2.5 cm in width vertically.

5. On either the 23rd or 24th June 2025, K sustained the following injury. Such an injury was inflicted upon K, by the father using a cricket bat to hit K. a. “injury 26”- a 5cm by 2cm bluish purple bruise with purple pin pricks and linear extension to the left of K’s right lower buttock. The infliction of those injuries caused significant physical and emotional harm to K.

5. K was subject to physical and emotional abuse by his father from the age of about 9 years’ old including on an occasion or occasions by means of: – a. slapping, punching or kicking; b. being struck by a belt or a cricket bat or a metal wire; c. being placed in a chokehold; d. being threatened with bodily harm or death.” WELFARE Realistic Placement Options

112. There is only one realistic placement option. The plan of the local authority is for K to be placed in residential care. Positions of the Parties

113. The plan of the local authority is agreed by all parties. There are no proposals at this stage for K to have any contact with his father.

114. It is agreed that a care order should be made to facilitate this outcome. THE SOCIAL CARE EVIDENCE

115. The children’s guardian and allocated social worker have provided their individual analysis at C97 (final report, dated 5 December 2025) and C66 (final Social Work Evidence Template, dated 25 November 2025) respectively. I have already considered their updated positions filed in readiness for this hearing. The allocated social worker, SW

116. Her original proposal had been for a solo therapeutic placement but as described earlier the need to seek psychological input and the breakdown of his previous placement swung the balance. The relevant risk factors are as follows: – Risk factors [C78] • Emotional Dysregulation: Since being in the care of the Local Authority, K has had episodes of distress, as evidenced by property destruction and self-harm ideation after family contact. • Behavioural Risks: Reports from K’s father, school, and current placement include aggression, fire-setting, and providing sharp objects to peers. • Sexualised Behaviours and Peer Risk: Recent incidents (19–21 November) include allegations and counter-allegations of sexualised behaviour between K and another young person in placement (exposure, inappropriate touching, masturbation in communal areas). These have been reported to the police and required immediate safety planning, including 1:1 supervision and waking night staff. This significantly escalates safeguarding concerns and highlights the need for a solo therapeutic placement. • Psychological Concerns: K’s father reported disturbing writings in a book about serial killers; professionals note fixation on violent themes and emotional detachment. • Placement Instability: K has experienced multiple moves—within maternal care, foster care, father’s care, and now residential care—impacting attachment and emotional security. • Educational Risks: Disruptive behaviour, truanting, ADHD referral, and EHCP request remain ongoing concerns. • Family Dynamics: Allegations against father create significant safeguarding concerns; relationship highly strained.

117. It remains the case that a placement is required which is “capable of delivering intensive support to address his trauma, emotional dysregulation, and emerging sexualised behaviours. This plan prioritises K’s safety, psychological wellbeing, and stability while continuing to maintain family contact and therapeutic interventions.”

118. In my judgment, K faces many risks as he continues his journey through adolescence into adulthood. The urgency to deliver work to seek to mitigate those risks cannot be overstated. The present placement with a psychologist within the clinical team offers an opportunity to build a multi-agency support plan for K. The Children’s Guardian, Pamela Leech

119. The Guardian agreed with the original plan of the Local Authority. At paragraph 21 [C103], she stated that: – “21. K’s placement options are only limited to him remain in the Local Authority’s care and a Care Order is needed to carry out this plan. I agree with the Social Worker and the IRO that a therapeutic solo placement is more suitable to meet K’s needs at this stage, this will keep him and other children safe from harm. I am pleased to note the Local Authority will consider matching K with a skilled Foster Carer in future. I do not believe K’s need would be met or managed by a mainstream foster carer due to the complexity of his current emotional and behavioural presentation.”

120. The Guardian approves the placement plan of the local authority but continues to regard the option of a solo therapeutic placement as one which the local authority should keep firmly in mind should there be difficulties within the current placement.

121. I accept the social care expert evidence as to K’s needs and the only realistic placement is currently outside the care of his family in a residential placement with psychological assessment underway to inform future therapy and care alongside any further assessments such as AIM3. I accept it is in K’s best interests to be placed in the care of the local authority in the current placement.

122. K, for all his challenges, is often witty, well spoken and an intelligent young person. I expect that he will receive the care necessary for him to develop to his potential.

123. That is my judgment.

124. A draft of this judgment was emailed to the nominated persons on 23 January 2026.