K-K (Children : Fact Finding : retracted allegations), Re

SCHEDULE A PARTICULARS OF THRESHOLD FACTS 5. The Second Respondent, Stepfather, sexually abused the child A causing significant harm in the following terms: a. The Second Respondent, on various dates whilst the child was between 6 and 10 years of age, as reported by the child A to professionals on 18 January 2022 and 17 November 2022: i. showed the...

Source officielle

2 min de lecture 432 mots

SCHEDULE A PARTICULARS OF THRESHOLD FACTS 5. The Second Respondent, Stepfather, sexually abused the child A causing significant harm in the following terms: a. The Second Respondent, on various dates whilst the child was between 6 and 10 years of age, as reported by the child A to professionals on 18 January 2022 and 17 November 2022: i. showed the child A pornography on his mobile phone [49, 50, 173, 235, 253, 333] that was described to the child A by him as ‘where babies come from’ [51, 65, 222, 413, 533, 549, 727, 735, 841, 1018]; ii. inserted his finger and/or fingers into the child A’s vagina [52, 65, 222, 256, 269, 533]; iii. would join the child A in bed and ‘suck her neck’ [50, 173, 253]; iv. on one occasion, entered the child A’s room and asked her to ‘lick his dick’ an instruction the child followed [50, 172, 235, 253]; v. on one occasion, entered the child A’s room and touched her bottom whilst she was in bed [254, 278, 655] and/or, vi. on one occasion, in around 2017, kissed the child A and/or showed her video of people kissing [278,656]. 6. The First Respondent Mother failed to protect the child A from sexual abuse and/or failed to respond timeously, adequately or at all to allegations made by the child A to her that indicated the child A was the victim of the Second Respondent’s sexual abuse: a. In or around 2019, the child A told her mother that the Second Respondent had sexually abused her on occasion (on a date unknown but presumed to be c.2019 [50, 173, 254, 413] yet she failed to alert social services or the police of these allegations. b. On one occasion, in around 2017, the First Respondent Mother was informed by the child A that the Second Respondent had kissed the child A and/or showed her video of people kissing [278]. The First Respondent Mother did nothing save for asking the Second Respondent whether this had occurred. 7. On or around 14 November 2022, the First Respondent Mother shaved the child A’s head as ‘punishment for lying and for not apologising for the reports of sexual abuse against her step-father’ and that the child A was ruining the First Respondent’s Mother’s life and that she regretted the child A had been born [51, 412, 547]. EDWARD LAMB Amended by TARA VINDIS 5 JUNE 2023/22 August 2023/19 January 2024


Open Justice Licence (The National Archives).

A propos de cette decision

Décisions similaires

Royaume-Uni

First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) – Information Rights

Fiscal EN

Beacon Counselling Trust v The Information Commissioner & Anor

Introduction to the Appeal 1. On 23 May 2024, the Appellant submitted a request (“the Request”) to the Leeds and York Partnership NHS Foundation Trust (“the Trust”) for copies of correspondence making reference to the Appellant, which had been sent to or from a named person at the Trust from 1 February 2023 to the date of the Request. 2....

Royaume-Uni

High Court (Chancery Division)

Fiscal EN

Kalaivani Jaipal Kirishani v George Major

Sir Anthony Mann : Introduction 1. This is an appeal from an order of HHJ Gerald sitting in the County Court at Central London dated 23rd December 2024 in which he dismissed two of three claims made by Ms Kirishana as claimant against her former cohabitee Mr Major. The claims were for a contribution to household and other domestic expenses,...

Royaume-Uni

High Court (Insolvency and Companies List)

Commercial EN

Joanna Rich v JDDR Capital Limited

ICC JUDGE AGNELLO KC: Introduction 1. This is the judgment in relation to an application to set aside a statutory demand against Mrs Joanna Rich (Mrs Rich) and a petition against Mr Clive Rich (Mr Rich) relating to the same debt claimed under a personal guarantee provided by them in relation to a loan granted to LawBit Limited (Lawbit). Mr...

Analyse stratégique offerte

Envoyez vos pièces. Recevez une stratégie.

Transmettez-nous les pièces de votre dossier. Maître Hassan KOHEN vous répond personnellement sous 24 heures avec une première analyse stratégique de votre situation.

  • Première analyse offerte et sans engagement
  • Réponse personnelle de l'avocat sous 24 heures
  • 100 % confidentiel, secret professionnel garanti
  • Jusqu'à 1 Go de pièces, dossiers et sous-dossiers acceptés

Cliquez ou glissez vos fichiers ici
Tous formats acceptes (PDF, Word, images, etc.)

Envoi en cours...

Vos donnees sont utilisees uniquement pour traiter votre demande. Politique de confidentialite.