Kent County Council v M & Ors

1. Introduction: 3 – 4 2. Summary of Judgment: 4 – 5 3. Threshold: 5 – 8 4. The evidence: 8 5. The Law: 8 – 21 6. Analysis/Finding: • The sexual abuse allegations analysis : 21 – 46 • The sexual abuse allegations findings: 47. • The ability of the parents to meet C’s needs: 47 – 61 7. The adjournment application: 61. 8. Re B v S Analysis. 61 – 62 9. Conclusion: 62. IN THE FAMILY COURT Case no. ME24C50268 SITTING AT MEDWAY B E T W E E N: KENT COUNTY COUNCIL Applicant And M First Respondent And F Second Respondent And C (a child, by her children’s guardian Jessica Steadman) Third Respondent Legal Representation. Mr Goodwin KC & Mr Broadbent, (Counsel), on behalf of the Applicant Local Authority Miss Ancliffe KC & Mr Clegg (Counsel), on behalf of the First Respondent Mother Mr Howling KC and Mr Batt (Counsel), on behalf of the Second Respondent Father Mr Donaghey (Solicitor), on behalf of the Third Respondent Children Judgment. Judgment Date: 2nd March 2026. Introduction. 1. The court is concerned with the welfare of C who is currently aged 3 years and 3 months. This judgment follows an eight day fact find and welfare trial that commenced on the 16th February 2026. All page references are to the pdf bundle and the supplemental bundle identified as SB followed by the relevant page number. 2. M is the mother, (aged 37) and F is the father, (aged 56) . The local authority’s care plan, supported by the guardian, is for C to be made subject to care and placement orders. The parents primary position is that C should be returned to their care. M’s secondary position is that the court should adjourn any welfare decision for month or two to enable M to establish that she now understands the local authority’s concerns and is prepared to address them. F’s secondary position is that either C should live independently with M or himself. 3. There are a number of issues in this case upon which I am required to make a determination, however the most significant is that when she was aged 3 or 4 i.e. in circa 1986 F on multiple occasions sexually abused his niece, (N1). It is also alleged that F on multiple occasions when she was 3 or 4, (circa 1993/1994) and when aged 7, (circa 1997) sexually abused his other niece N2. F’s father RK died in 2005, F’s mother EK has just turned 90 and suffers from ill health including dementia. The mother of the nieces and the sister of F is SD. F and SD also had an older brother AK who died in 2016. AK for a period of time between 2006 and 2009 was married to DW. The couple had a child SK. SD is married to CD. N1 is not CD’s biological father. N1 and N2 have another sibling LD who was born in 1986. 4. The alleged abuse perpetrated by F was said to have occurred in various properties owned by RK and EK. In the 1980’s the family lived in a MOD property in Town A as RK was in the MOD’s military police. In the early 1990’s , the family moved to a property in Town B which has been referred to as the cottage and in 1996/1997 the family moved to Street C in Town B where EK, F and M currently reside. 5. In 2006 F was arrested for the alleged sexual assault of his step daughter LA at the time F was married to JT. The investigation was discontinued and no further action was taken. 6. M has been known to children services for several years. M’s three older children have been removed from her care as a consequence of neglect and substance misuse. Rather bizarrely the local authority only aware of two of M’s children. Nothing really turns on this unusual anomaly. 7. During the PLO process M had a cognitive assessment which concluded that her functioning fell within the lower extreme level. Following C’s birth, in November 2022, the maternal grandmother, (JC) moved into the family home. A safety plan was agreed that M would not spend time with C absent the presence of F or another adult. In September 2024 F was arrested as his now adult nieces alleged that he had sexually abused them whilst they were children. F was prevented by his bail conditions from having any contact with C. Following F’s arrest C was initially cared for by the MGM at the family home. Following concerns about the MGM mental health M and C in October 2024 moved to a foster placement pursuant to an ICO. By the end of October 2024 the foster carer had given notice. It was said that M had been out of placement for three days, she had been aggressive towards the foster carer and that she had been aggressive in her handling of C requiring the foster carer to intervene on three occasions. On the 31st October 2024 the court approved the separation of M from C with C remaining in the foster placement. These proceedings are now in their 72nd weekend which in part seems to stem from issues that have been encountered in securing disclosure from the police. 8. Negative viability assessments have been undertaken of JC and the maternal aunt NG. Neither have sought to challenge these assessments. The parents have been subject to CUBAS parenting assessments from an ISW Miss Knight that concluded that neither parent individually or as a couple were able to care safely for C. M has also been subject to a psychiatric assessment from Dr Iyer and F has been subject to a psychological assessment from Dr Shaw. Both parents have also undergone hair strand testing. M however in breach of court orders has only attended on one occasion despite . M has also failed to attend the court ordered intermediary assessment. Summary of Judgement 9. I have for ease set out a brief summary of my findings. i. On the balance of probabilities F did not sexually abuse his nieces or lock N2 in the boot of his car. ii. I do not find that the sexual abuse allegations are untrue. iii. I do not find that SD, N1 or N2 have lied to the court. iv. M has been fairly and appropriately assessed with the necessary adjustments having been made to accommodate for her cognitive limitations. v. M knew what was expected of her when she entered the foster placement and a written agreement albeit beneficial would not have ensured that the placement did not break down. vi. M and F either as a couple or independently cannot meet C’s needs and in particular they are unable to meet her additional needs that arise as a consequence of her developmental delay. vii. C is at risk of emotional and physical harm as a consequence of M not adequately managing her epilepsy. I am unable to quantify the extent of that risk . viii. M and F love C dearly and F in particular engages well with her. ix. If C were placed in the care of her parents either together or separately she would be at significant risk of emotional and physical harm as a consequence of: a. Unstable/unsuitable accommodation. b. The parents inability to manage money. c. Poor home conditions. d. M’s mental health difficulties. e. F’s mental health and physical health difficulties. f. M’s substance misuse. g. F’s substance misuse. h. The parents lack of insight into their parenting deficiencies. i. The parents dysfunctional and unhealthy relationship. j. The risks of harm cannot be ameliorated by the support provided by the local authority as the parents have no insight into their parenting deficiencies and M in particular would not be able to work cooperatively or indeed at all with professionals. k. There is an absence of any effective support network from the parents family and friends that can serve to mitigate the risks of harm should C be in their care. l. I make care and placement orders and endorse the local authority’s care plan for contact. Threshold. 10. The local authority essentially plead six allegations in support of threshold. I have set out below the allegations and the parents responses. i. F sexually abused his niece. F denies all of these allegations. a. It is alleged that F in or around 1986 on multiple occasions when N1 was around 3 – 4 years old at F’s mother’s home in Town A took N1 to his bedroom and digitally penetrated her vagina, made her touch his penis and penetrated her vagina with his penis. b. The allegations in respect of N2 are two fold. • On multiple occasions at F’s mother’s property when N2 was around 3 or 4 years old F took N2 to his bedroom and either digitally penetrated her vagina or penetrated her vagina with his penis. • On multiple occasions at F’s mother’s property when N2 was around 7 years old F took N2 upstairs to his bedroom and penetrated her vagina with his penis. ii. It is alleged that in light of F being a perpetrator of sexual abuse against female children that M has been unable or unwilling to accept that risk and to take protective measures. M contends that there have been no findings made and if findings were made she would accept that F posed a risk of harm to C and that she would take protective measures. M does not admit that she is unwilling to engage with professionals about the risk posed by F or to take any protective measures to safeguard C. iii. Neglect and poor home conditions. It is alleged that during a visit on the 12 September 2024 the home conditions were poor that there was a risk of physical harm from encountering animal waste and from eating from unhygienic surfaces as well as emotional harm from growing up in a home which is unkempt. The local authority advances four specific allegations that there were soiled puppy pads in the kitchen, the hallway was cluttered, C’s highchair was dirty with dried food and the property was generally unclean. The parents responses are set out below. • F. – F accepts that there were soiled puppy pads but avers that M was trying to prioritise C, that she had an intention to clear the pads and the puppy no longer lives in the home. – F says that the hallway was only cluttered for one or two days whilst he was arranging to take the items to be stored. – F asserts that the highchair was cleaned several times a day and believes that the highchair had been observed shortly after C had had her breakfast. – F asserts that the property was not generally unclean and that the family were facing eviction and were trying to pack everything in case they were forced to move. • M – M accepts the presence of soiled puppy pads. – M accepts that the hallway had items in it but was not cluttered to the extent it presented as a hazard in terms of a fire risk. – M accepts the highchair was dirty. – M accepts that she did not tidy the property prior to the social worker’s visit. M does not accept that the home conditions were so poor that C was at risk of suffering significant harm. iv. It is alleged that there was £12,800 worth of rent arrears and that the family were facing eviction and that this placed C at risk of physical, emotional and/or psychological harm. F avers that he believed that the rent was being paid straight from his benefits and if C were placed in the parents care any new tenancy would be in his name to mitigate against any future risk. M accepts the existence of rent arrears and that they were served by an eviction notice but does not accept that C was at risk of homelessness as the council would have rehoused her and C if they had been evicted. v. It is alleged that the parents failed to ensure that C’s medical and developmental needs were being met. In particular the local authority advances two allegations. Firstly, that the parents failed to engage with a referral from the health visitor for C to be seen by a paediatrician in light of her developmental delay and secondly the parents failed to enrol C in a nursery as advised by professionals to support C’s development. The parents have responded as follows: • F alleges that the Health Visitor had advised that C would need to be referred to a paediatrician but that she would await her next visit to see if there had been any improvements before making a referral and at her subsequent visit the health visitor determined that C was suffering from a delay in her speech and she would be referred to a speech therapist. The parents contend that C was due to start nursery in October 2024 but in any event this allegation does not go to threshold. • M accepts that the parents refused a referral to a paediatrician and that they asked for more time for C to develop her speech and that this was agreed by the health visitor and if after that period sufficient progress had not been made they would have agreed to a paediatric referral. M also contends that C was enrolled to attend a nursery and was due to attend shortly after the first hearing. vi. The local authority allege that M does not manage her epilepsy by engaging with health professionals and/or taking her medication and this places C at risk of significant physical and emotional harm. It is pleaded that as a consequence of the above M is at increased risk of absence seizures when she would not be able to meet C’s needs at all. M says that she has not been prescribed any medication by any health professional, that she had seizures when she was younger but had not suffered a seizure since C was born and that she had been discharged from the care of the hospital and that no further scans/appointments had been made. The evidence. 11. I have considered all of the documents contained within the two trial bundles. I also heard oral evidence from Dr Iyer, Miss Frampton the allocated social worker, Miss Atherton the initial social worker, the ISW Miss Knight, the police officer who conducted the ABE interviews of the N1 and N2. I also heard the oral evidence of N1, N2, SD and DW, in addition to both parents and the guardian. The Law. 12. The court can only make care /placement orders if the threshold criteria in s 31 (2) of the Children Act 1989, (CA) is crossed and the court is satisfied, after conducting a welfare analysis, that care/placement orders are necessary and proportionate. Threshold. 13. The burden rests with the local authority to establish on the balance of probabilities that the two conditions, (the significant harm condition and the attributability condition) contained within section 31 (2) are satisfied. The local authority must establish that the child concerned has suffered actual significant harm or is likely to suffer significant harm. The threshold document should set out each of the ‘facts’ that the local authority intends to prove occurred. Each of those facts must then be shown to have caused, or placed the child at risk of suffering, significant harm. A fact that can be proven but cannot also be linked to such harm is of no relevance, (Re A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11). 14. The harm suffered or likely to suffer must be significant. This does not amount to a commonplace failure or a feature of human inadequacy it denotes something that is “considerable noteworthy or important” , (Humberside County Council v B [1993] 1 FLR 257, ( a definition endorsed by the Supreme court in Re B (Care Proceedings Appeal) [2013] 2 FLR 1075 SC). 15. Section 31 (9) defines harm it includes ill treatment, (including sexual abuse and non physical ill treatment), or the impairment of health, (physical or mental health) and the impairment of development, (which includes physical, emotional, intellectual, social and behavioural development). The impairment of health and development includes seeing or hearing the ill treatment of another. Section 31 (10) provides that where “ the question of whether harm suffered by a child is significant turns on the child’s health or development, his health or development shall be compared with that which could reasonably be expected of a similar child”.In Re B (a child) (care order: proportionality: criterion for review)[2013] UKSC 33 Lord Wilson said this about s 31 (10) : ''When we read this subsection together with the definition of “harm” in the preceding subsection, we conclude that, whereas the concept of “ill-treatment” is absolute, the concept of “impairment of health or development” is relative to the health or development which could reasonably be expected of a similar child.'' Burden/standard of proof. 16. The burden of proof rests upon the local authority , the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. In Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35, [2009] 1 AC Baroness Hale said this: “ the standard of proof in finding the facts necessary to establish the threshold under section 31(2) or the welfare considerations in section 1 of the 1989 Act is the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less. Neither the seriousness of the allegation nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts”. Inferences drawn from the evidence. 17. Findings of fact must be based on evidence, which can include inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence. Findings of fact must not be based on suspicion or speculation, (Munby LJ in Re A (A child) (Fact Finding Hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12). The wide evidential canvas. 18. The court must reach a conclusion in respect of each separate allegation but it must take care not to compartmentalise its analysis. The court must consider the entire canvas of the evidence, and each piece of evidence must be considered in the context of the other evidence, (Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss in Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558, [2004] 2 FLR 83). 19. When considering the wide canvas of the evidence the following observations of Lord Nicholls’ in Re H and R (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] 1 FLR 80 should be kept in mind: "The range of facts which may properly be taken into account is infinite. Facts including the history of members of the family, the state of relationships within a family, proposed changes within the membership family, parental attitudes, and omissions which might not reasonably have been expected, just as much as actual physical assaults. They include threats, and abnormal behaviour by a child, and unsatisfactory parental responses to complaints or allegations. And facts, which are minor or even trivial if considered in isolation, taken together may suffice to satisfy the court of the likelihood of future harm. The court will attach to all the relevant facts the appropriate weight when coming to an overall conclusion on the crucial issue." 20. As noted above the court may take into account the evidence as to the child’s behaviour post any assault. In A Local Authority and M & SF & O &A [2024] EWFC 35 Judd J noted that there were no accounts of the child demonstrating sexualised behaviour and although there were signs that the child was unsettled and/or withdrawn these observations were very non specific and could be explained by other factors such as tension between the parents. 21. Hayden J in Lancashire County Council v M, F, and J [2023] EWHC 3097 (Fam) said this in paragraph 44: “Inevitably, within the home environment, there are unlikely to be witnesses. The investigative process must track down ascertainable facts from the broadest canvas available and, where possible, draw such inferences as those facts will support. It is frequently a difficult task, but it is not one that can be shirked. The danger in failing to confront it is that an innocent individual may be tainted by a finding that has a direct impact, both on her and on the child……. Of course, the imperative of child protection must not generate a reason to burden unsatisfactory evidence with a greater weight than it can legitimately support. That would create an injustice to all, not least the subject children, but neither does it absolve the Judge of the responsibility to confront the findings that the evidence properly establishes”. 22. Reviewing the broadest canvas of evidence before it does not mean that the court requires all conceivable evidence or “perfect” evidence to make a finding. Baker LJ in J, P, and Q (Care Proceedings) [2024] EWCA Civ 22 said this: “[72] … the fact that at one stage there had been, or might have been, other evidence relevant to the allegations did not prevent the judge proceeding to make findings on the evidence put before her. In almost every case there will be potentially relevant evidence that for one reason or another is not adduced at the hearing. One other example in this case was that neither J nor Y gave oral evidence. Had they done so, it is possible that the judge may have reached a different conclusion on J’s allegations. The fact that material evidence is “missing” does not preclude a judge reaching a decision on the basis of what is available. Mr Twomey is, of course, right to say that the judge has to consider the wider canvas. There may, of course, be cases where the available evidence is so thin – where substantial parts of the canvas are empty or obscure – that, applying the burden and standard of proof, a finding cannot fairly or properly be made. But that was plainly not the case here”. The distinction between finding an allegation not proven or finding it false. 23. If the court finds an allegation not proven it does not follow that the allegation is false unless the court makes a specific finding that the facts did not happen. The court may consider that at the welfare stage it may be helpful to make a finding that a particular matter was not proved because the court was satisfied that as a matter of fact it did not happen. This differs from a finding that a fact was not proved and “therefore in law is deemed not to have happened, because the party making the assertion failed to establish it to the relevant standard of proof”, (Re A (A Child)(No 2)[2011] EWCA Civ 12). Making findings that are not pleaded. 24. The court can make findings of fact that have not been sought by the local authority. In Re G and B (Fact-Finding Hearing) [2009] EWCA Civ 10; Wall LJ said this in paragraph 15 : “a judge … is not required slavishly to adhere to a schedule of proposed findings placed before her by a local authority”. Wall LJ held that it would be “absurd” for the court to ignore new issues that emerge in the oral evidence. 25. If the court seeks to make findings of fact that have not been sought by the local authority it must be satisfied of two things. Firstly, that the additional findings are “securely founded in the evidence” and secondly that “the fairness of the fact finding process is not compromised”, (Re G and B (Fact-Finding Hearing) [2009] EWCA Civ 10). If there is a lack of an evidential basis for the court to make the additional finding the court will not need to consider the issue of fairness. An elementary feature of a fair hearing is that an adverse finding cannot be made against a party unless three conditions have been satisfied. The party must have knowledge of the allegation, they must know the substance of the evidence supporting the allegation and they must be given a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegation, ( Newey LJ in Re B (A Child) [2018] EWCA Civ 2127). Baker LJ in In Re A, B and C (Fact-Finding: Gonorrhoea) [2023] EWCA Civ 437, put it in these terms: “It is axiomatic that a party against whom findings are sought in care proceedings is entitled to notice of the findings sought, the evidence on which they are based, and a fair opportunity to rebut them.” A failure to put evidence in support of an allegation to a witness. 26. It is essential that the court distinguishes between a new allegation that it is considering making which was not put to a party as opposed to a failure to put to a party evidence in support of a pleaded allegation. It is not necessary to put to a witness in cross examination every piece of evidence in support of an allegation , (Chen v Ng [2017] UKPC 27). Multiple allegations. 27. In Re H ( Children) (Findings of Fact) [2025 EWCA Civ 993 Cobb LJsaid this in paragraph 65: “In a case in which there are multiple allegations, a Judge must always guard against the temptation to approach the evidence on the basis that something must have happened”. ABE interviews. 28. The most recent guidance published in January 2022 is entitled “Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings; Guidance on Interviewing Victims and Witnesses, and Guidance on using special measures”. The weight to attach to the evidence given during an ABE interview is a two-stage process. Firstly, the court has to determine if the interview has been conducted in accordance with the ABE guidance and secondly whether any departure from those guidelines impacts upon the weight that the court can attach to that evidence. In Re E (A Child) [2016] EWCA Civ 473 MacFarlane LJ held that the court must conduct a “full and thorough evaluation of the potential impact of the numerous breaches” of the ABE guidance to evaluate whether any of the allegations made to the police can be relied upon, (paragraph 41). Hearsay evidence. 29. Hearsay evidence is admissible in family proceedings , (Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993. The issue for the court is the weight that it should attach to hearsay evidence, (Re W (Fact Finding: Hearsay Evidence) [2014] 2 FLR 703).The court must treat hearsay evidence anxiously and consider carefully the extent to which it can properly be relied upon, (R v B County Council ex parte P {1991] 1 WLR 221). The assessment of a witnesses’ reliability based upon their memory of events. 30. I have considered carefully the four cases relied upon by Miss Ancliffe in support of her general submission that the court should approach the evidence of witnesses based upon their recollection of events with extreme caution. Those cases are Gestmin v Credit Suisse [2013] EWHC 3560 (Comm), Leggatt J, Lancashire CC v The Children [2014] EWHC 3 (Fam) Jackson J, Dutta v GMC [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin), Warby J and Sri Lanka v SOS for the Home Department, [2018] EWCA Civ 1391. Leggatt LJ. I have also considered the President’s Memorandum on Witness Statements dated 10 November 2021. 31. It seems to me that the following eight propositions can be gleaned from the above:- i. Memories are fluid and malleable, being constantly rewritten whenever they are retrieved. ii. An individuals memory can be dramatically affected by their own thoughts and beliefs. iii. Delay in recounting events can adversely impact upon a person’s memory. As memory fades a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural and this process of “story creep” may occur without any inference of bad faith. iv. Repeated questioning as to past events may impact adversely upon a person’s memory. v. An individual may recall as a memory events that did not happen at all or which happened to someone else. vi. It is a fallacy to believe that because a witness giving their evidence appears honest and confident in the account that they are giving that their evidence is reliable. vii. As a person’s memory is vulnerable to a range of influences the individual may not be conscious of the alteration to his/her memory. As a consequence an honest witness can construct an entirely false memory. viii. The greater antiquity of the alleged events the greater is the need for the court to have the matters above in its mind. Assessing witnesses based upon their demeanour when giving evidence. 32. The court should guard itself against making an assessment as to whether a witness is telling the truth based solely on the way that the witness gave their evidence. If the court attempts to determine whether a witness is telling the truth solely by their presentation in the witness box, the court risks making judgments that at best lack any rational basis and at worst reflect conscious or unconscious biases and prejudices, (Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ Macur LJ see also Re J ( A Child) [2014] EWCA Civ 875. Jackson LJ). 33. Instead of relying on an assessment as to whether a witness is telling the truth based upon their presentation when giving evidence the court should consider “the consistency of the account with known facts, with previous accounts given by the witness, with other evidence, and with the overall probabilities”, Re B-M (Children: Findings of Fact) [2021] EWCA Civ 1371, (Jackson LJ). However, Jackson LJ 34. However, Jackson LL also considered that the court may have to attach weight to its assessment of a witnesses giving evidence when the alleged facts, (as in this case), are not contained in any contemporaneous documents. In those circumstances Jackson LJ held that “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”. A Lucas direction. 35. The courts approach to apparent lies made by a party in fact finding hearings derives from the criminal case of R v Lucas (R) [1981] QB 720. The application of that direction in family proceedings has been considered by the court of appeal in Re H – C (Children), [2016] EWCA Civ 136, Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451and Re H (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator: Lies) [2024] EWCA Civ 1261. The court’s approach can be summarised thus: i. If the issue is to decide whether to believe X or Y on a central issue and the evidence points clearly one way the court does not need to address the issue of credibility and consider if a witness has lied, ( Re A, B, C). ii. If the court has to determine if a witness has lied counsel should be invited to make submissions to allow the court to answer the following questions: • On the BOP is the court satisfied that the alleged lie is a deliberate untruth as opposed to the witness being mistaken or confused? • Is the alleged lie relevant to a material issue in the case? • Is the court satisfied that the only explanation for the lie is a parties guilt? As was said in Lucas they were “made through “realisation of guilt and a fear of the truth”. The court must be careful to bear in mind that witnesses lie for many reasons such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, and distress and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything. The court does not need to ignore a lie unless the only explanation for them was guilt. The court is entitled to take account of any lies told in its overall survey of the evidence, ( Re H). iii. Even if the court concludes that a witness has lied on a material issue and that the only explanation for the lie is guilt the lie in of itself is not direct proof of culpability the lie can only support other evidence that points towards culpability, (Re H – C). Parenting assessments and vulnerable parents. 48. In A Local Authority and CG [2017] EWFC B94 .(HHJ Dancey) none of the professionals had been specifically trained to deal with parents with learning disabilities. The mother argued that the failure to tailor the assessment to her learning difficulties rendered the assessment of her unrealistic and unfair. The judge identified the “the real question [as] whether a different approach would have made any difference, or could make any difference now”, (para 218). The court concluded that it was unlikely that the outcome would have been different had different support been given because of the “fundamental nature of the mother’s limitations and the father’s lack of understanding of the concerns and the need for change. I do not consider that it would have changed even had the Guidance been followed”, (para 229). Whether vulnerable parents can provide good enough parenting with support and assistance. 49. In cases involving parents with learning difficulties local authorities have a duty to set out the support and assistance that can be provided to enable those parents to care for their children. Parents “with learning difficulties can often be "good enough" parents when provided with the ongoing emotional and practical support they need”, ( Gillen J in Re G and A (Care order: Freezing Order: Parents with a Learning Disability) [2006] NIFam 8 endorsed by Munby P in D ( A Child) (no 3) [2016] EWFC 1 )). The “Good practice guidance on working with parents with a learning disability” provides that “every effort should be made to support, not supplant the parent, ”(paragraph 1.4.4). 50. In Re H (Parents with Learning Difficulties: Risk of Harm) [2023] EWCA Civ 59 Baker LJ held that the court has an obligation to enquire carefully what support is needed to enable parents with learning difficulties to show whether or not they can become good enough parents, (paragraph 65). Section 1 ACA 2002. 51. Under s 1 (2) the “paramount consideration of the court …. must be the child’s welfare, throughout his life”. The court must be mindful of the “no order” principle under s1 (6) “the court must not make any order under this Act unless it considers that making the order would be better for the child than not doing so”.The court must have regard to the s 1 (4) checklist which provides as follows: (a)the child’s ascertainable wishes and feelings regarding the decision (considered in the light of the child’s age and understanding), (b)the child’s particular needs, (c)the likely effect on the child (throughout his life) of having ceased to be a member of the original family and become an adopted person, (d)the child’s age, sex, background and any of the child’s characteristics which the court or agency considers relevant, (e)any harm (within the meaning of the Children Act 1989 (c. 41)) which the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering, (f)the relationship which the child has with relatives, with any person who is a prospective adopter with whom the child is placed, and with any other person in relation to whom the court or agency considers the relationship to be relevant, including— (i)the likelihood of any such relationship continuing and the value to the child of its doing so, (ii)the ability and willingness of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, to provide the child with a secure environment in which the child can develop, and otherwise to meet the child’s needs, (iii)the wishes and feelings of any of the child’s relatives, or of any such person, regarding the child. 52. The president in Re B ( A Child) (Adequacy of Reasons) [2022] EWCA Civ 407 set out the following three principal differences between the welfare considerations in the CA and the ACA: • Under the ACA 2002 there is an express requirement to consider the welfare of the individual child ‘throughout his life’; • The focus under ACA 2002, s 1(4)(c) on the likely effect on the child of ceasing to be a member of the original family, and becoming adopted; and • Under s 1(4)(f) on the relationship that the child has with relatives, prospective adopters and others, the value of that relationship to him, their capacity to provide a secure environment and meet his needs, and the wishes and feelings of those people. Assessing the future risk of harm. 53. The assessment of any harm that a child has suffered or is at risk of suffering is a feature of both the s 1 (3) checklist under the CA and the s 1 (4) checklist under the ACA. In F ( A Child: Placement Order: Proportionality) [2018] EWCA Civ 2761 (Jackson LJ) the court of appeal proposed that when assessing the risk of harm that may eventuate in the future the court should ask itself: a. What is the type of harm that might arise? b. What is the likelihood of that harm arising? c. What would the consequences be to the child in terms of severity if the harm eventuated? d. How can the risks of harm be reduced/mitigated by support services that are or could be provided? 54. In T ( Children: Risk Assessment) [2025] EWCA Civ 93 Jackson LJ reminded judges that the risk of harm is one of a number of factors in the welfare checklist. The welfare analysis. 55. A care order/placement order represents a significant infringement of the parents and the child’s Article 8 rights, (respect for their private and family life). In Re B ( A Child) [2013] UKSC 33 the Supreme Court held that a care plan for adoption “was an extreme thing of last resort– when all else fails”, (Lord Neuberger paragraph 104). The Court held that a care plan for adoption must be proportionate and should only be made to protect the interests of the child, by which is meant that “nothing else will do”, and the overriding welfare of the child requires it (Baroness Hale paragraph 198). 56. In 2013 the Court of Appeal in a number of decisions considered how the principles in Re B should be applied. The most frequently cited are G (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Welfare Evaluation) [2013] EWCA Civ 965, and Re B – S (Children) [2014] 1 WLR 863. The principles to be applied can be summarised thus: a. The local authority must provide a clear analysis of all options open to the court and the advantages and disadvantages to the child of each option. b. The local authority must set out what support and service can be made available to meet any identified risks of an alternative care plan to that which the local authority proposes. This allows the court to undertake properly the balance of harm exercise (as part of the welfare evaluation), using the tool of proportionality to evaluate which placement best meets the child’s welfare, (Re W ( A Child v Neath Port Talbot County Borough Council [2013] EWCA Civ 122). c. The court must rigorously analyse, evaluate and compare side by side the advantages and disadvantages of each realistic option having regard to the findings that the court has arrived at. d. The linear approach is not acceptable when considering adoption. It must be a global holistic approach. e. Having considered the pros and cons of each realistic option the court should conduct a necessity and proportionality cross check by asking itself whether care/placement orders are necessary to secure the child’s welfare and are they proportionate to the risk of harm? The court must balance the risk of harm to the child of remaining with its parent against the harm that they may suffer if removed from their parents care. The often-quoted phrase “nothing else will do” as set out in Re B is not a substitute for the court having to conduct a proper welfare evaluation. The phrase only comes into play when the court is conducting a proportionality checklist, (Re W (Adoption: Approach to Long Term Welfare) [ 2016] Civ 793). 57. In Re N ( A Child) (Placement order: Proportionality) [2025] EWCA Civ 1541 when considering the principles set out in Re B (A Child) (Care Proceedings: Threshold Criteria) [2013] UKSC 33 said this: • That the above principles echoes what the Strasbourg Court said in Y v United Kingdom (2012) 55 EHRR 33, [2012] 2 FLR 332 at [134]: “[F]amily ties may only be severed in very exceptional circumstances and that everything must be done to preserve personal relations and, where appropriate, to “rebuild” the family. It is not enough to show that a child could be placed in a more beneficial environment for his upbringing.” • 44. This is therefore a case in which the classic statement of Hedley J in Re L (Care: Threshold Criteria) [2007] 1 FLR 2050; [2006] EWCC 2 (Fam) at [50] is of real importance: “[S]ociety must be willing to tolerate very diverse standards of parenting, including the eccentric, the barely adequate and the inconsistent. It follows too that children will inevitably have both very different experiences of parenting and very unequal consequences flowing from it. It means that some children will experience disadvantage and harm, while others flourish in atmospheres of loving security and emotional stability. These are the consequences of our fallible humanity and it is not the provenance of the state to spare children all the consequences of defective parenting. In any event, it simply could not be done.” The conclusion in that case was that the threshold conditions were not satisfied, but the message is equally applicable to cases in which they are”. Placement orders. 58. The court may make a placement order if the child is subject to a care order, the threshold requirements in s31 (2) of the CA are met and the parent has either consented to the application or the parents consent is dispensed with, (s21 ACA). Section 52 ACA provides that the parents consent can be dispensed with if the child’s welfare demands it. (1)). As Wall LJ held in Re P (Placement Orders: Parental Consent) [2008] EWCA Civ 535 the word “requires” in s 52 (1) has “the connotation of the imperative, what is demanded rather than what is merely optional or reasonable or desirable”. Contact post placement order. 59. It is important to distinguish between contact orders made at the placement for adoption stage and contact orders made post adoption orders. S51A is the statutory scheme for determining post adoption contact following an order for placement for adoption. It only applies where a placement order was made and the court is intending to make an adoption order.  The Court has a mandatory duty under s46 (6) to consider post adoption contact before it makes an adoption order.  The law remains as set out by Sir Andrew McFarlane P in Re B(A Child: Post-Adoption Contact) [2019] EWCA Civ 29, “it will only be in an extremely unusual case that a court will make an order stipulating contact arrangement to which the adopters do not agree”. This is despite the President’s Lectures of 2023 and 2024 in which the President set out his “preliminary thoughts” on open adoption and the Public Law Working Group “Recommendations for Best Practice in respect of adoption” published November 2024 which did not suggest that contact orders should routinely be made in the face of opposition from adoptive parents. 60. The court has the power to make a contact order when making a placement order, (Section 26 (2) (b)). The court has a mandatory duty to consider contact arrangements when making a placement order and must invite the parties to comment on those arrangements, (Section 27 (4)). A s26 contact order is limited to the time between the making of a placement for adoption order and the child’s subsequent adoption, (S27 (1) (a)). 61. In Re S (Placement Order Contact) [2025] EWCA Civ 823 the President offered some guidance as to whether the court should make a s26 order for sibling contact. I do not intend to set out that guidance as it has not been submitted that in the event that the court makes a placement order it should make an order for post placement contact. Applications for an adjournment. 62. Under s 32 CA there is a mandatory requirement for the court to draw up a timetable disposing of the application within 26 weeks. The court has the power under s32 (8) to extend the timetable for a maximum of 8 weeks. Section 32 (7) provides that extensions are not to be granted routinely and are to be seen as requiring specific justification. The court when deciding to grant an extension must have regard to the impact on the child (s32 (4)). The court may extend if “it considers that the extension is necessary to enable the court to resolve the proceedings justly” (s 32(5)) . 63. In Re B – S [2013] EWCA Civ 1146, the then President of the Family Division Sir James Munby said that if a court does not have the kind of evidence to properly decide the issues, then an adjournment must be directed even if this takes the case over the 26 weeks. In paragraph 49 Sir James said this: “Where the proposal before the court is for non – consensual adoption, the issues are too grave, the stakes for all are too high, for the outcome to be determined by rigorous adherence to an inflexible timetable and justice thereby potentially denied”. Analysis. 64. I have set out below my analysis of the evidence. I do not intend to set out separately the very helpful submissions made by counsel instead I will refer to them below when necessary. The sexual abuse allegations. 65. In terms of the timeline as noted above N1 alleges that she was sexually abused by F in the mid 1980’s at the grandparents property in Town A and N2 alleges that F sexually abused her when she was aged 3 or 4 ie in the early 1990’s at the cottage in Town B and then when aged 7 circa 1997 at Street C. 66. SD alleges that in 1986/87 N1 said something to her cousin about her uncle having had sex with her. SD avers that she confronted F who admitted to sexually abusing N1. SD did not report this to the police. SD’s evidence is that in 2006 when the LA investigation was underway N1 informed her that F had raped her when she was a child. Neither N1 or SD reported this to the police. 67. N1 made her first report to the police about being sexually abused by F on the 25th January 2023 when the police attended her home in connection with a domestic abuse incident between her and her then husband. On the 2nd July 2024 N2 made her first report to the police who attended at her home . N2 had been drinking and had attempted to take her own life because social services were intending to remove her children from her care. 68. N2 was ABE interviewed by DC Thompson on the 16th October 2024 and N1 was ABE interviewed by the same police officer on the 29th January 2025. I have had sight of those interviews and the police notes generated following the sisters independently first reporting the alleged sexual abuse. 69. SD was not interviewed by the police but she did provide a witness statement to the police dated the 12th January 2026. I have also had sight of a telephone note of DC Thompson’s conversation with SD that took place on the 1st February 2025. I have also seen a witness statement that DW gave to the police dated the 8th January 2026. F’ declined to answer any questions to the police when he was ABE interviewed. 70. To enable me to determine if the sexual abuse allegations are on the balance of probabilities proven I have had to consider and evaluate the following matters: i. The relevance of the LA allegations. ii. The circumstances that led to N1 and N2 reporting the alleged sexual abuse to the police. iii. The nieces apparent lack of cooperation with the police following them making the allegations in January 2023 and July 2024. iv. N1’s evidence. v. N2’s evidence. vi. Absence of any reference to either sister reporting or exhibiting abnormal behaviour following the alleged assaults. vii. The ABE process. viii. The alleged admission by F in the late 1980’s that he had sexually abused N1. ix. SD’s conduct post the alleged late 1980’s admission. x. SD allegedly reporting to her parents and to AK that F had sexually abused N1. xi. The absence of other potential witnesses. xii. N1 informing SD in 2006 that F had raped her. xiii. The telephone conversation between SD and F. xiv. LD not making any similar allegations. xv. N1, N2 and SD discussions about the allegations. xvi. The contextual detail provided by N1 and N2. xvii. The alleged neglect of EK. xviii. The credibility of F. xix. The absence of child abuse material on F’s devices. xx. The alleged verbal altercation between M and N2. xxi. The credibility of N1, N2 and SD. xxii. The credibility of DW. The relevance of the LA allegations. 71. On the 8th September 2006 the police record that F had denied the allegations made by LA who had claimed that that four years previously when she was eleven F touched and licked her breast and vagina and then placed her hand on his penis until he ejaculated, (1354). The note records that LA had been watching a video in school about child abuse and that this prompted her to tell her friend who then told a teacher. The matter concluded with a NFA. As no findings were made I have excluded from my consideration the alleged assault upon LA. The circumstances that led to N1 and N2 reporting the alleged sexual abuse to the police. 72. N1 made her report to the police on the 23rd January 2023 when the police attended her home as a consequence of a domestic abuse incident between her and her ex – husband. N2’s allegations were made to the police on the 2nd July 2024 when they attended her home following her reporting offences against her husband whilst in a drunken state. It was noted that N2 had suffered a mental health episode and that she attempted to hang herself as she believed that her children were going to be removed by social services. I am not satisfied that the fact that the sister’s allegations were made during periods of extreme emotional distress assists me in determining the veracity of the accounts that they have given. It is arguable that the allegations were made to distract attention away from the personal trauma that they found themselves in . However, it is equally plausible that the emotional upset that they were experiencing when they made their allegations against F served as the catalyst for them vocalising these allegations. In reality I cannot come to a view as to do so what amount to nothing more than speculation. The nieces lack of cooperation with the police following them reporting the allegations. 73. It is clear from the Metropolitan Police notes that following N1’s allegations the police were unable to make contact with her which led to them closing the investigation on the 1st September 2023. On the 11th July 2024 following N2 reporting her allegations Sussex Police contacted the Metropolitan Police and informed them that in light of N2’s allegations against the same uncle N1 was now willing to be spoken to again. However, on the 6th August 2024 it was noted that N1 had not made any contact with the police and the case was closed. On the 16th July 2024 it was noted that police officers had tried to contact N2 over the phone, via text and email “with no joy”, (SB48). 74. I am not satisfied that this apparent reluctance/reticence to assist the police with their investigation assists me in ascertaining the truthfulness of the nieces allegations. It is clear that the allegations were made during difficult periods for both sisters and any suggestion that their apparent lack of cooperation tarnishes their evidence is again simple speculation. The evidence of N1. 75. In the police interview N1 said that F would open the door to the cupboard and stand her there as this was the “right height” and that she didn’t “remember facing him”, (1858).N1 says that she remembered: “him doing things to me from behind” “I remember him holding my sides …I don’t remember him saying anything…..I don’t remember how it felt…… I cannot say how many times it happened….because I have such a memory of it I feel like it happened more than once…..because I kind of remember different bits and I feel like if it was just once maybe all of those bits wouldn’t have happened… But I remember him like touching me, putting his hands, obviously down my knickers….. I think I remember him asking me to touch his penis….but what really sticks in my mind, is the cupboard, the cupboard door….I don’t really remember anything from in the cupboard….I just remember being picked up and put on there because I couldn’t get up there….and I remember having my skirt or trousers or whatever it was sort of being removed and held….and I would remember afterwards that he would say you know this is our secret or words to that affect…..and don’t tell mummy …..I didn’t know there was anything wrong with it….so in my eyes it was normal I guess , (1860)….I remember him like doing his trousers up and putting my knickers back on….I don’t’ know it happened over a period of six months ….or a year…is the stair box and opening the door and shutting the door so then he opened the cupboard door …and then being on the stair box…and that’s kind of what I remember, but I remember it quite vividly….like that stair box, that cupboard,)….. “it took me a lot to be able to do that …anything from behind….I don’t remember when I was younger that it hurting…..(1863). 76. N1 says that the cupboard was full, “ I wasn’t looking in an empty cupboard”, (1923). N1 says that she imagined that F placed her on the base of the cupboard because “I never felt like I was frightened of being in the cupboard”. N1 could not remember if F had said anything to her, (1927). N1 says that F held her waist and that she did not remember it hurting, (1930). N1 could not remember if her knickers had been completely removed, (1932). N1 says that F had his hands down her knickers and over her knickers and that he was rubbing her vagina, (1934). N1 says that she did not know if F had “done it more than once”, (1935). N1 says “I think he asked me or he got me to touch him and stuff, erm, which I think is potentially what I told my cousin when it all came out with my mum”, (1937). N1 says that F asked her to touch his penis and “I remember yes I think I did…..I’m sure it was not in his trousers….I am sure it was out of his trousers”, (1937). N1 says that when she was standing in the cupboard “he had sexual intercourse with me”, (1938). On page 1939 N1 says that “he used his fingers …and he as far as I’m aware he used his penis as well….I kind of remember the motion…I believed he inserted [his fingers] inside me”. 77. There are clear consistencies between the accounts provided by N1 and N2 in particular that they were placed on a cupboard ledge/stair box. However, the following elements of N1’s evidence does cause me concern. i. When N1 first made her allegations to the police on the 23rd January 2023 she alleged that the sexual abuse occurred when she was five years of age. The police report records that N1 could not “ be specific about when this incident occurred, only that she was 5 years old”. This does not sit with her ABE interview in which N1 initially says that it occurred when she was 3 and then added “3 or 4”, (1855). I accept that it would not be surprising for an adult complainant to now have difficulties in identifying exactly when the abuse occurred when she was a very small child. ii. I have grave concerns as to the reliability of N1’s evidence if what she is recalling occurred when she was aged 3 or indeed age 5. N1 would have been a very young child and the accuracy of her memory of events at that age must be questionable. This is reenforced by some of the language that she uses when describing the alleged assault during the ABE interview. As noted above on page 1858 N1 says this: “because I have such a memory of it I feel like it happened more than once…..because I kind of remember different bits and I feel like if it was just once maybe all of those bits wouldn’t have happened”. The use of the word “feel” reinforces my concerns that at such a young age N1 would not be able to remember such an assault. iii. In her police interview N1 says that she spoke to N2 about the sexual abuse in the May of 2024 and that “she remembered asking me years ago in my old house what had happened but I don’t remember that conversation”, (1965). N2 deals with this issue on page 1842 in which she says to the police that when she was about 17, (which would have been circa 2007) N1 “mentioned something ever so slight to me ….I think that he’d put her hand down his trousers I think that was the case never in depth I’ve never known in depth what has happened to her…..until the night I reported this”. I have real difficulties in accepting this evidence. If as N2 says she had a conversation with N1 where such serious matters were discussed I would have expected N1 to have remembered it. iv. I cannot find any reference in N1’s police interview of her seeing butterflies in F’s room during the alleged sexual assaults. N2 does make reference to seeing butterflies. SD in her oral evidence says that she believes that both of her daughters said something about butterflies. SD then says this: “N2 mentioned butterflies I am not sure if before that N1 asked me if nan had butterfly wallpaper or butterflies in the cupboard when at my mum’s I looked in the room and he had painted it black…N1 said butterflies in the cupboard then N2 told me about the butterflies they both remember something about butterflies”. N1 in cross said that she thinks that she told her mother that she had a dream about butterflies as an excuse to ask her via text if there was anything in her Nan’s home with butterflies and that SD said that there were not any butterflies. When Miss Ancliffe asked N1 if she had told her mother that she had a memory of seeing butterflies during the assault N1 replied, “no”. v. In her police interview N1 says that when she was sexually abused by F he would have been 18 or 19 years of age, (1897). In reality F would have been closer to 15. I am not convinced that this serves to undermine N1’s evidence bearing in mind that if the allegations were true she would have been 3 or 4 years of age and would not therefore be expected to accurately gauge the age of her assailant. vi. In her oral evidence the following exchange occurred between N2 and Miss Ancliffe. • N1: “I remember going out to his bedroom with him and a stair box behind the door of his bedroom and a cupboard and he used to open it … he would stand me on the cupboard cos I was the right …. pulling my underwear down….it was about around waist height …him standing me on the box in the cupboard and turning me around and pulling underwear down and remember it hurting I am clear about that I was just not able to move”. • Miss Ancliffe: “you are sure about the pain?” • N1 “ yes I am sure it was pain. Pain down below”. This reference to feeling pain is entirely at odds with N1’s police interview where she repeatedly makes reference to the fact that she was not in any pain during the abuse, (1863 “I don’t remember when I was younger that it hurting” , page 1864 “like my mum said , you know, “you never come down stairs and cried and I said But then maybe it didn’t hurt maybe I don’t know”, page 1859 “I don’t’ really remember how it felt, I don’t know if I’m supposed to remember that but I don’t” ) When this inconsistency was put to N1 she replied, ““ I will say this is the first time I spoke to a stranger it was the very first time I gave the details it was quite intense and long and I couldn’t remember everything as time has gone on and with every thing ….things come back so may not have remembered it in my statement does not mean it was not there this is what I remembered it is one of those where the more its opened up the more I revisit the more I talk about it the more that comes into my mind that is why the detail isn’t in there …. its still true when speak about it the more you remember other things…I cant remember everything…….I have opened up about this to my partner the more you talk the more you seem to remember”. In my judgment this is a significant inconsistency particularly so because of the multiple references in N1’s police interview of not being in pain. N1’s explanation for the inconsistency serves to highlight the well known evidential issues associated with reliance upon human memory. This is a case where N1 believes that her uncle is a paedophile, a narrative that has been openly discussed within her family for some 20 years since LA made her allegations in 2006. N1’s memory is thus prone to be impacted by her own beliefs and external sources. I also note that when this inconsistency was put to N1 she still asserted that her “interview was correct…..I don’t believe anything to be wrong in there”. I remind myself that just because a witness has an honest belief in what they are recalling and appears confident in so doing does not mean that their evidence is true. vii. There is a lack of contextual detail in both complainant’s evidence of the assaults in particular there is no reference to F having ejaculated or them experiencing any discharge. In my view this is less indicative of the assaults not having taken place as it is arguable that the complainants were so young that they may not have been expected to remember that level of detail. viii. In her ABE interview on page 1941 N1 says that F used his fingers. When Mr Goodwin in re-examination asked N1 what F had done with his fingers she replied “ I believed that he inserted them inside me…and obviously, and rubbed….” . Again the use of words has in my judgment some significance. N1 does not say that F inserted his fingers inside her but that she believed that he had done so . This suggests that N1 either does not have a memory of this occurring or if she does her memory lacks clarity. In addition N1’s evidence during the ABE interview is at odds with the following contentions made by N1 when she was cross examined, “ F “would lift me up onto a stair box and turn me around and then take my underwear down and then it was hurting and holding me each side so it wasn’t his hands because he was holding me with both hands….it was definitely not his hands or fingers cos he was holding me he inserted his penis it was painful”, [emphasis added]. The evidence of N2. 78. In her police interview N2 gave this account: “he’d take me upstairs and say he was gonna play …the keyboard….and he’d put the floppy disc in, and it would play, and there was a cupboard at the end of his bed and he used to open the cupboard and it was raised off the floor….and he’d stand me there and facing the back of the cupboard and hold my sides and do whatever it is that he did….it was just really painful, I remember being in a lot of pain”, (1760). N2 said that this happened about four or five times. N2 said that there were butterflies on the wall and that she now had “a massive fear of butterflies……I don’t like my sides being touched”, (1761). N2 said that she could “still smell him sometimes”, (1762). 79. N2 says that F locked her into the boot of his car, (1762) and he did not drive away but then opened the boot. N2 says that when F opened the boot she ran up the stairs to her mum….”and he’s come running up behind me and he’s standing behind my mum and was giving me this look as if to say you don’t say nothing …..and I did not tell my mum….I was too worried what would happen next”, (1764).N2 says that she thought that she did think that she had eventually told her mother, (1765). On page 1817 N2 says that this incident happened at the same time as the denim jacket incident but she cannot recall if she was a bit older. On page 1818 N2 says that F told her to get into the boot so she could hear the sound system. 80. N2 says that F would do things all the time to make her feel uncomfortable even if it was not sexual, (1763). N2 says that she had a feeling that she had written this down in a diary that she had kept in a safe but that she has not been able to get into the safe. On page 1815 N2 says that she either wrote it down in her diary or in a letter to her grandfather. N2 contends that “there was times where he just made me put my hand down his trousers ,or not actually do anything to me, just make me touch him in some way…there was never oral”, (1767). 81. N2 alleges that the assaults happened in her nan’s cottage in Town B, (1769) and that it happened every time that that she stayed at her nans, (1790). N2 says that she remembers being in the car with F and he just had his hand on her lap the whole time and this made her feel uncomfortable, (1775). N2 said that he “had a single bed with a green metal frame and …he’d sit me on the end of the bed first and he’s like do you like this song, and then ….the cupboard door would open….and then that would be it, come and stand her, and then I knew ….what was gonna happen I knew after the second time he did it….and I can’t even tell you if it was his penis or his hands…..I just remember feeling a really sharp pain”, (1778). 82. N2 says that F was always behind her and that she never knew at any time if he was using his hand or his penis, (1781), but that she thought that “it must’ve been at some point his penis because I remember both hands being on me at some point”. N2 says that “I remember one time I sat on the toilet and I had some blood”, (1783). N2 says that she believed that the one time that she bled was when she was wearing the denim jacket, (1841). 83. N2 recounts an incident when she was about seven at the property at Street C where F told her to stand up and put her hand behind her back and she “could feel hair I knew it was his penis” and that F stood her on the cupboard and that she did not know if it was his hand or his penis, (1793). On page 1807 N2 says that she thinks that the last time she was assaulted was on this occasion when she was wearing a denim jacket. 84. N2 says “it was always in the cupboard”, (1797). N2 says that “I can’t remember one time I’ve looked him in the eyes”, (1801).N2 said that F did not speak during these assaults, but she was not 100% sure, (1804). N2 says that she thinks she told her elder sister, (not N1) who was 24 years older than her and she said don’t be stupid no one going to believe you, (1806). N2 says that when these assaults happened her mother was in the house as was her nan and her grandad was sometimes working, (1822). 85. In her police interview N2 says that when she first has a memory of being sexually abused by F when “she was about three”, (1760). However, at a later point in the interview N2 says I “might have been four”. 86. On the 19th July 2024 the police attended at N2’s home and recorded this: “She stated that she has not said anything until now because she remembers her mother once confronting F (she is not sure when this took place, who was present and what was said) and he admitted to putting his hands down N1’s trousers”. Absence of any reference to either sister reporting or exhibiting abnormal behaviour following the alleged assaults. 87. SD in cross was asked whether N1 when visiting her grandparents in Town A ever complained about being in pain , if she was ever in tears, if she expressed a wish not to visit or if she exhibited any unexplained behaviour to which SD replied “she was a quiet child….there was nothing out of sorts”. 88. SD confirmed that when N1 was growing up she did well at school, “she was a sweet little girl…there were no behavioural issues”. SD also said that N2 had no issues whilst at school that she was more challenging when she went to secondary school and that there were no concerns about her behaviour. SD said that whilst the children were at her mothers house as children she was never concerned that they were upset nor did they ever say that they did not want to visit their Nan’s. 89. The fact that SD did not report at any time that her daughters expressed pain, discomfort or upset after spending time with F and that as they grew up their behaviour was not in any way concerning points away from this abuse having occurred. If a young male had inserted his erect penis in a child of 3 or 4 one would have expected this to have caused considerable pain. I appreciate that in her oral evidence N1 now claims that it was painful and N2 in her police interview complained of the assaults being painful. If one or other of these sisters had experienced pain as they assert then I am at a loss to understand how this would not have been picked up on by their mother. The ABE process. 90. I have considered the ABE interviews and I am satisfied that DC Thompson allowed a free narrative account to be provided by both N1 and N2. I accept that at the time of these ABE interviews DC Thompson had only undergone the basic ABE training and that she had not undergone the specialist advanced ABE training. That said I am not satisfied that anything of significance turns on this. There was a considerable delay between the investigation of the nieces allegations and the ABE interviews. The reasons for the delay are of no concern to me, however it is clear that this delay enabled the sisters to discuss their allegations. I am satisfied that this has led to their evidence being contaminated by the views and recollection of each other and indeed their mother. Miss Ancliffe put to DC Thompson that SD was a “significant” or “key witness” as defined in the ABE guidance. Paragraph 1.29 of the guidance says that consideration should always be given to video recording interviews with significant witnesses because it is likely to increase the amount and quality of information gained from the witness; increase the amount of information reported by the witness being recorded and ensure that the interview process is transparent. DC Thompson said that the decision not to video record that interview was made in conjunction with her sergeant. Again it is not my place to pass comment upon that decision. I am also not convinced that the absence of an ABE interview of SD has hampered me in determining the disputed facts in this case. What has made my task more difficult is not the absence of an ABE interview of SD but the fact that there exists a considerable amount of documentary and witness evidence that has not been placed before me. 91. On the 2nd November 2024 DC Thompson sent an email to N2 in which she says “I cannot imagine how you are both feeling and I’m certain you share the same feelings when it comes to knowing that it happened to each of you”. Miss Ancliffe took DC Thompson to N2’s interview where on page 1884 she makes comments such as “that’s what people like him do unfortunately….and your so innocent”. Miss Ancliffe put to DC Thompson that these comments were unhelpful and that it was important that she did not show any bias as these were unproven allegations. DC Thompson replied that she was not sure if she agreed. I agree with Miss Ancliffe that the comments made by DC Thompson suggest bias however I am not of the view that this had impacted adversely on the quality of the ABE interviews. The alleged admission by F in that late 1980’s that he had sexually abused N1. 92. SD’s evidence is that when playing with her cousin in the late 1980’s N1 said that she had had sex with her uncle and that this was overheard by her aunty who relayed the information to SD. It is clear from her police interview and her ABE interview that N1 does not remember the details of what was said during this conversation, (1951 & 1866). 93. In her witness statement to the police of the 12th January 2026 SD says this: “he had put his hand down her knickers. She also said that he told her to touch his willy under the blanket but that she wasn’t allowed to look at it”, (2021). SD then says this “A day or two later, I spoke with to F and asked if he had touched N1 in a way that he shouldn’t have done. F initially said “NO” but I told him not to lie and he said “YEAH OK I DID”. I asked“WHY” and he said “I WAS ON DRUGS AT THE TIME” which I didn’t believe as he never took drugs. I told him this too”. SD says that she remembers her elder brother calling to help with the fish tank and that she was crying so much she didn’t know what to do. 94. In her oral evidence SD said that N1 had said that F told her “to put her hand under the blanket and if she told anyone she would be in a lot of trouble”. This account differs to an extent from what SD says in her witness statement in that in her oral evidence SD does not say that N1 told her that F had said that she was not allowed to look at his penis, and in her oral evidence SD says that N1 told her that F had said that she would be in a lot of trouble if she told anyone, this was not mentioned by SD in her witness statement. 95. SD says that after N1 told her this she was very angry yet she waited a few days before she confronted F. SD in her oral evidence said that she knew that F and AK were planning to come to her home to pick up a fish tank. I find it difficult to understand why a mother who had been given such significant information from her daughter would not act immediately upon the information being conveyed to her. This alleged admission by F in my view does not sound credible. M in her oral evidence confirmed that she simply asked two questions which elicited a denial and then an admission. If SD had indeed confronted her brother I would have expected far more to have been said. F’s readily given admission seemingly when not under any real pressure does not fit with his staunch denials in these proceedings and indeed in the criminal proceedings. SD’s conduct post the alleged late 1980’s admission. 96. SD in her oral evidence claimed that she did not tell the police about the sexual assault on N1 because “things were different back then it was unusual for people to speak out” and that her husband warned her that if she made this allegation, she may lose contact with her family. In my judgment neither explanation is credible particularly when one considers that at this stage SD would have in her care not only N1 but her very young daughter LD. 97. In her police interview N1 says that the “hardest thing was the fact that I just couldn’t understand why nothing was done….especially when he’d admitted it to her…its hard to swallow that a lot of adults knew”, (1958). N1 in her police interview says that she remembers that her mother and F did not speak for years “and then all of a sudden I just remember them talking again”, (1867). In the same interview N1 says that after the LA allegations, (which were in 2006 and which N1 incorrectly identified as occurring in 2011), she remembered that at Christmas her mother bought F chocolates and her mother started talking to F and “we actually went to his eldest’s christening”, (1874). N1 says that she could not understand why her mother would talk to F again, (1878). In cross when the above was put to her N1 replied, “yes I remember that”. 98. In her ABE N1 says that F moved back in with her nan and that she and her mother used to visit her nan’s once a week and that initially F would go out whilst they visited but in time he would remain in the house. N1 said that it was “very awkward” and that she could smell his distinctive smell. N1 said that it did not sit right with her and brought back lots of memories (1880). 99. I do not accept the oral evidence of SD who said that after the alleged admission she did not speak to F ever again save for one subsequent telephone call. In her oral evidence SD informed Miss Ancliffe that if any witness claimed that after this admission, she gave F a box of chocolates that witness would by lying. SD’s evidence on this issue flatly contradicts that of N1 whose evidence I prefer . Even if I were not to accept N1’s evidence as to the giving of chocolates SD’s oral evidence was that after the alleged admission M still took N1 and LD to visit her mother and that her brother was present but she would ignore him. I am not satisfied that if this admission had been made that SD would potentially expose her young daughters to a man who had supposedly sexually abused one of her children. 100. In re – examination SD said that she let N1 and N2 go upstairs with F because “mum didn’t know anything I didn’t want to upset mum they said they wanted to go upstairs because of the organ and my mum said let them go up….when I heard the keyboard I thought that was safe I didn’t’ know that it was a recording”. I cannot accept that with knowledge that her brother had sexually abused her child that SD would allow them to be alone with F because she didn’t want to upset her mother or that she was confident that F was not abusing her daughters because she could hear him playing his keyboard, (which she now knows was a recording). These twin reasons for potentially putting her children in harms way are unconvincing. On M’s own evidence post the alleged admission she would attend at her mother’s home and ignore F. I would anticipate that that in itself would have caused upset to her mother. I do not accept that SD’s desire not to upset her mother would take precedence over her the assertion made during the trial that she was a protective mother. In addition if SD was sexually abused by AK as a child as she claims I would have expected her protective instincts to have been heightened. It is simply not credible that any mother armed with knowledge that a man had abused their child would rely upon the sound of a keyboard being played as sufficient assurance that the abuse was not being repeated. SD allegedly reporting to her parents and to AK that F had sexually abused N1. 101. In her witness statement to the police SD contends that that following the admission made by F in the late 1980’s she told her father who didn’t react and just gave her a kiss and a cuddle which was very unlike him. SD informed Mr Goodwin that when she told her father “he didn’t’ say anything he was looking at the floor when he said goodbye he gave me a big hug and a kiss he didn’t normally do that it was as if he knew ….he could not find the words…I said that I couldn’t tell mum as she would not believe me”. 102. I accept the evidence of DW who described AK’s father RK as “a very decent man” and agreed with Miss Ancliffe that he would do the right thing if he was concerned adding “he was in the military police”. DW also agreed that EK was decent and that as a couple they were protective. Whilst I have not found DW to be a reliable witness I can see no reason why she would not give an honest account as to her views of RK and EK. In his witness statement of February 2026 F says that if SD “had told my dad I had done anything like that he would have reacted badly and disowned me. There is no way that he would have ignored it or brushed it under the carpet”. In light of what has been said about RK I find it very difficult to accept his response as advanced by SD when he was told that his son was abusing his granddaughter. 103. SD said that she didn’t tell her mother because she knew that she would not believe her as AK had touched her a few times when they were children and her mother had not believed her, (2022). In chief SD described her parents as “protective people”. This statement does not sit well with SD’s evidence that her mother knows that F is a child abuser but has not only not acted upon that information but has tried to persuade others to withdraw the allegations. 104. SD said that in 2006 when she heard about the allegations in respect of LA she spoke to her mother within days of hearing about the allegations. SD said that after this EK stopped speaking to her for 3 or 4 weeks and then she resumed speaking to her but the allegations were no longer mentioned. SD told Mr Goodwin that she had a close relationship with her mother until “all this came about he has manipulated her”. SD said that when N2 made the allegations in July 2024 EK had said that she did not want to speak to me unless the allegations were dropped and that she did not speak to EK until she was admitted to hospital. 105. SD in her witness statement says that she told AK but he continued a relationship with F. SD informed Miss Ancliffe that when she first told AK “he was shocked he did not know what to say he said I cannot believe it and he asked if N1 was ok he was quite concerned about N1”. In his witness statement of February 2026 F says that AK “never said anything to me about me touching or behaving sexually towards N1. He would have kicked my head in if he thought I did anything like that”, (SB 171). Whilst I find AK’ s ex wife DW to be an unreliable witness, (see post) I accept her evidence as contained in her police statement of January 2026 as to the character of AK. In this statement DW makes a number of allegations against F including that one night when she and AK and their young daughter were asleep in F’s room which was divided by a unit she woke up to see F on his hands and knees peering around the unit. DW says that she had since spoken to her daughter who had confirmed that F had not touched her inappropriately when she was a child. On page SB63 DW says this: “I do believe that F knew better than to touch her as AK was a very strong character and he wouldn’t have stood for that behaviour….I believe that F knows AK would have killed him”. I approach the issue in respect of AK’s apparent knowledge of the assault on N1 in the late 1980’s with the same caution that I have approached the same evidence in respect of the grandfather. That said the evidence as to AK’s character suggests that he was not the sort of individual who would have remained silent. 106. SD’s evidence that she told AK that F had sexually abused N1 and later told him not to allow F to be alone with AK’s daughter does not sit with N1’s ABE where she says on page 1886 that AK would not leave his children alone with F and that he had previously said this to SD. The absence of evidence from other potential witnesses. 107. In her police interview N1 said that she told her ex husband about the sexual assault when she was 17 years of age N1 says that he was very angry and “asked me what had happened….I didn’t go into details….we were married for nearly twenty years…I never went into any details with him…he never asked me”, (1961). However, when the police officers attended N2’s home on the 19th July 2024 M said that “when she was 15 she told her boyfriend and her friends”, (SB 49). N1 also says that she spoke to her stepmother about these allegations “probably about three years ago”, (1960). N1 in her ABE says that she did not tell her father the details but her step mother wanted to know the details, (1877). 108. Following the alleged admission by F in the late 1980’s SD says that she spoke to her husband CD who said that if she told the police her family would not talk to her. SD said that she did not call the police and that she regretted that decision, (2022). It is clear that there are a large number of witnesses that could have been called. My task in determining the sexual abuse allegations against F has been hampered considerably by the absence of all of the available witness evidence. In addition I know that DC Thompson has sought the medical records and the children services file of N2. This evidence may also have been of real benefit to me. N1 informing SD in 2006 that F had raped her. 109. In her oral evidence N1 said that when the LA allegations were made that started a conversation between her and her mum. In cross N1 said that she did not use the word rape, but she accepted that by 2006 she was saying that F had raped her. The purported allegations made by N1 cause me some considerable disquiet. N1 in the late 1980’s is said to have alleged that F was involved in inappropriate touching yet by 2006 when N1 was 25 years of age they had developed into allegations of rape. If indeed this is what F did when N1 was a child I would have expected that information to have been discoverable by SD. Whilst N1 may not have had the language to articulate what was actually done to her by the late 1980’s it seems to me that relatively straight forward questioning from her mother should have revealed that the sexual abuse that she was exposed to was far more serious. There then appears to be a period of twenty years or so until the further more serious allegations were made by N1 and those allegations only appear to have surfaced because of the LA investigation. This timeline and the explanations as to what is said to have occurred in my mind militates against a positive finding of sexual abuse. 110. In addition N1’s conduct in not reporting the abuse in 2006 raises questions as to the veracity of that which was being advanced. In her oral evidence N1 said that she was undecided about going to the police in 2006 and that she was told by SD that her Nan had said that if anyone went to the police, she would not talk to them. N1 also said that the reasons why she didn’t go to the police in 2006 was because the LA investigation had been dropped, that she had to put her family first, that she was concerned about her mental health and it would have been her word against F’s . N1 accepted that at this stage her husband and her mother were supportive of her reporting the alleged abuse to the police. The difficulty I have with N1’ s purported reasons for remaining silent is that when she did make her allegations in January 2023 the issue with EK potentially not speaking to her remained, her mental health at that stage was under siege as she was coming out of “a horrendous marriage” and there still remained the evidential issue of her not being believed as by this stage she was not aware of N2’s allegations. 111. N2 in her oral evidence said that she did not know in 2006 that N1 was alleging that F had raped her and that she did not know about this until July 2024. Miss Ancliffe put to N2 that if her mother had known in 2006 that F had raped N1 she would have come to N2 and checked on her other daughters. N2 replied that “she did not have that conversation that does not surprise me if it was me I would have checked my other children”. I accept N2’s evidence that in 2006 when N2 was aged 16 SD did not check with her that F had not raped her. Like N2 I struggle to comprehend why armed with this knowledge SD would not have ensured that her other daughter had not been sexually abused by her uncle. This further undermines my confidence that in 2006 N1 was alleging that F had raped her. 112. SD in her witness statement to the police of January 2026 says that when the investigation was ongoing in respect of LA in 2006 that N1 informed her that F had raped her when she was a child. In her oral evidence SD said that she believed that the allegations made by LA were true and that by that stage she believed that her brother was a paedophile. In her oral evidence SD said that she didn’t know why she had not gone to the police in 2006, that she could not really remember and there was a lot of debate and “we thought if LA was not believed then why would they believe N1”. SD also said this: “I expected them to come to speak to me and I told my mum that if the police interviewed her she would tell them about N1”. SD said that by 2006 she wanted N1 to report F to the police and that she was “not to fussed” about what her mother may have said. 113. I do not find any of the above evidence to be credible. By 2006 on her case SD was now aware from N1 that F had not only been engaged in the inappropriate touching of her as a child but that he had raped her and in addition she believed that F had sexually abused his own daughter. In those circumstances I cannot understand why SD would not have gone to the police. SD’s previous reasons for her 1980’s failure to report the abuse, (that things were different 40 years ago), is not only not relied upon by SD as a reason for her inactivity but also would be even less convincing as an argument for inaction in 2006. SD’s evidence that she expected the police to come to her is unconvincing. There is some force in the belief that she was fearful that if LA were not believed N1 would also not be believed. However, it is conceivable that a separate allegation made by F’s niece may have changed the outcome in terms of LA’s police investigation. 114. I also do not understand SD’s volte face in that by 2006 she was no longer concerned that her mother may refuse to speak to her. In addition I cannot understand why in 2006 SD having been informed that her brother had raped her child she did not speak to him or confront him in any way. SD’s explanation in cross for not speaking to F was that “no I wasn’t speaking to him I told my mum and asked her why he had admitted to her that he had touched N1” in the late 1980’s, is unconvincing. SD says that EK had told her that F had said that he had admitted touching N1 because SD had bullied him. This was the first time that SD refers to this alleged conversation which undermines further my confidence in her truthfulness. The telephone conversation between SD and F. 115. For the first time in chief SD said that she had a telephone call with F that probably took place ten years ago. SD said that she told F that he must admit what he had done and to stop lying to EK. SD said that F didn’t answer her. Miss Ancliffe put to M that she had not previously mentioned this telephone conversation. SD said that she spoke to F as her mother was ill and she could not get hold of her so she phoned F as there was no other way that she could get hold of her mother. SD says that she said: “you need to own up and stop lying to mum and be a man you are affecting a lot of people’s lives you need to own up about N1 and LA” . SD says that F did not reply. At a later point during cross examination SD said that she asked F if he had raped N1. When Miss Ancliffe put to SD that she had not said that when previously asked to recount her story SD replied, “you are jogging my memory”. LD not making any similar allegations. 116. I accept the oral evidence of N2 that both she and her older sister LD visited their grandparents when they were children. SD says that her other daughter LD who was born in 1986 has not made any allegations that she had been sexually abused by F and that she was “more feisty”. Both N1 and N2 described LD as being different from other members of the family and neither sister got on particularly well LD. The evidence of LD would have greatly assisted me. The hearsay evidence that LD has not made any allegations must be approached with caution. It would not it seems to me to be safe to find that because LD was not sexually abused then the allegations made by N1 and N2 are untrue. Even if I accept the hearsay evidence that LD was not sexually abused there may be unknown reasons why she was not targeted by F , (such as her alleged feistiness) in the same way as her siblings. N1, N2 and SD discussions about the allegations. 117. N1 in her oral evidence said that maybe in the May of 2024 N2 told her that F had sexually abused her as a child and that “ we had a conversation about it….over the next few days”. N1 in her oral evidence informed Miss Ancliffe that “ I have not given the gory details to N2… she has spoken in detail about what he did to her but me not to her”. In cross Miss Ancliffe took N2 to a victim contact sheet dated the 19th July 2024 , (SB 103) where it is recorded that N2 knew that N1 “ has also reported him for raping her. She stated that she has not said anything until now because she remembers her mother once confronting F, (she is not sure when this took place, who was present and what was said), and he admitted to putting his hands down N1’s trousers”. N2 said that she was not sure if he put his hands down N1’s trousers or N1 had put her hand down his trousers. When it was pointed out that she is said to have remembered this incident, which would not have been possible as it allegedly took place prior to N2’s birth N2 said “I was not there that is what I have been told by N1 and I think my mum has said it since”. N2 confirmed that this was not her own memory but someone else’s account. N2 said that she was told about this after “I spoke out …there was a conversation I was present my mum and N1”. Miss Ancliffe has suggested that this note undermines N2’s credibility as she is purporting to remember events that were before her birth. I do not accept that submission as it is equally possible that the author of that note failed to record accurately what was said to her or N2 innocently recounted these events as a memory. What is of more significance, however, is that this note and the evidence as to its provenance highlights that these alleged sexual abuse allegations against F were aired openly amongst this family. 118. In her police interview N2 says that when I hear what’s he’s done to my sister and it’s so similar”, ((1832). N2 in her police interview says that after she made her allegations in July 2024 N1 “told me things that have happened to her, I’m like well that’s really weird because it’s the same”. N2 said that they had spoken to their mother independently, (1842). In her oral evidence N2 said that she and N1 had spoken in detail about the allegations prior to their ABE interviews. Miss Ancliffe put to N2 that she and N1 had spoken in detail about what they were going to say to the police such as the opening of the cupboard and F holding their sides and that both have made the same points to confirm the accounts given. N2 replied, “no”. 119. I do not accept SD’s denials that she has not discussed the alleged sexual abuse with her daughters. In her police witness statement SD says that following N2 making her allegations in July 2024 “I sat her down over the following days”, (SB 58). In cross SD said that “when I said sat down I didn’t ask exactly what was done I asked her why she had taken so long to tell her and I asked her if she was alright”. I do not find this assertion to be credible. The contextual detail provided by N1 and N2. 120. I do not agree with the submissions made by Mr Goodwin that some of the contextual detail provided by both sisters corroborates their allegations. In her ABE interview N1 refers to F wearing vests and how she does not like to see men wearing vests , that she did not want her ex-husband to purchase any vests when they were planning to go on holiday, and that F had bad breath and smelt of body odour, (1857). N2 recalls that F’s bed was green. I accept Miss Ancliffe’s submission that these little details may have had significance if the complainants did not know each other or if the assailant and the location of any alleged assault was also not known to them. 121. I also do not accept Mr Goodwin’s submission that the trauma that these sisters speak about as a consequence of the alleged sexual abuse is probative as it supports the cogency of their evidence. In my judgment it would be erroneous to assess the credibility of N1 and N2 on the basis solely of their demeanour. I have in my mind that these are allegations as to events that are said to have occurred 40 years ago, when these sisters were very young and that human memory is fluid and malleable. The alleged neglect of EK. 122. On the 20th September 2025 DC Thompson made a note that N1 and her family had raised concerns that F was isolating his mother EK from the family. The note records that N1 had reported that EK had been in hospital for the last six weeks but none of the family members were aware and that “adult social care have raised a safeguarding in relation to EK and her care needs”, (SB 90). In cross SD admitted that it was her and N1 who had made this referral and that she believed that DW had contacted social services. 123. DC Thompson in her oral evidence said that she had spoken to adult social care over the telephone, and they had confirmed that they did not have any concerns. When this evidence was put to SD by Miss Ancliffe SD did not retract the allegations and instead responded thus, “it was coming up to my mum’s birthday and my sister in law was trying to phone her and my mum’s sister was trying to phone her and F was saying either she was on the toilet or she was asleep…F didn’t tell anyone that mum was in hospital….I find out that he has had the home phone cut off…my sister in law spoke to a gentleman at BT and he said that F wanted the line cut off…DW then called me and said EK had been in hospital for 9 weeks….went to the hospital I was removed as next of kin he had removed me ….mum was on the floor and F said that she had not fallen….when I saw her she had not personal items only a jug of water she was left on her 90th birthday on her own…I could not believe that a son would leave his mother in hospital for 9 weeks ….he could have taken her some personal items…I saw her 3 or 4 times …that is neglect”. 124. SD’s response is in my judgment telling as it is indicative of her deep mistrust and antipathy towards her brother a view that is also held by N1, N2 and DW. SD was unable to accept that the concerns that she had raised were not supported by the local authority. I also accept F’s evidence that his mother has been cared for since September 2025 by three carers who attend to her needs daily. If there were any concerns as to F’s care of EK I would have expected those individuals to have raised the same yet no such evidence is before the court. The credibility of F. 125. F denies all of the allegations of sexual abuse. He also denies that he locked N2 into the boot of his car. It is thus necessary for me to arrive at a view as to F’s honesty and credibility and in that regard I am mindful of the following:- i. Mr Goodwin took F to Miss Frampton’s witness statement where she says that “F has on two occasions “warned” me that in the event C is not returned home that M will “beat the living day lights out” of me and last raised this at the hearing in court on 17th October 2025”.F denied that he had said this to Miss Frampton. I do not accept F’s denial. In my judgment Miss Frampton would not have reported these conversations unless they had been said to her. ii. F informed Mr Goodwin that he had been suffering from a degenerative bone condition since the age of 13. F said that it does not flare up as much as it used to “maybe its in remission this is the best I have been for years”. F said that the last time that he had suffered a flare up was about 12 years ago. Mr Goodwin took F to the ISW report where on page 868 it is recorded that he said that the last time that it had happened was in the previous six months to one year. F response was that he had not said that to the ISW. Again I do not accept that a professional such as Miss Knight would have falsely or mistakenly recorded what was recounted to her. iii. F denied in cross that he had a lifelong problem with alcohol and that he was a former alcoholic. Mr Goodwin took F to the social workers statement on page 702 where she says that F shared with her that he was a former alcoholic. F said that “she wrote it down wrong”. This is an assertion that I cannot accept. iv. Mr Goodwin took F to his HST of August 2025, (1008) which revealed that for the period approximately from June to August 2025 the results “strongly suggest the active use of cannabis” and “demonstrate the active use of cocaine”. F denied in cross ever having an issue with drugs. When Mr Goodwin asked why the test showed the active use of cocaine F replied, “I don’t know…I have not taken cocaine in my life”. F also denied smoking cannabis and when asked to explain the HST result F’s response was that he didn’t know why they had shown the active use of cannabis. F then said that “I have never touched drugs with a father in the military police its risky”. F’s denials of drug use in the face of the positive HST is wholly unconvincing. v. I agree with Mr Goodwin that F in cross sought to distance himself from any suggestion that he had any form of innocent relationship with his nieces when they were children. What I cannot accept however is that F took this course as part of a ploy to distance himself from their allegations. Having regard to the serious allegations that have been made against him it is equally plausible that F took this approach as a means to bolster his contention of innocence. I also did not accept Mr Goodwin’s suggestion that F interpreted his question as to whether or not he “played” with his nieces in a sexual manner and that this in some way implicates him. It is not at all surprising that faced with these sorts of allegations that F would interpret the use of the word “play” as an insinuation of sexual impropriety on his part. vi. Annexed to F’s February 2026 statement is an exhibit of a Facebook messages between him and SD, (SB 176). The message begins with these words: “All they do is distroy your life until there is nothing left”, (sic). SD’s message reads “the only c*** is you one of these days calma will get you good and proper . Hope your life gets worse you have ruined people’s lives neglect your own mother”. F denied that preceding the message from SD he had messaged and said “all family members are cunts”. F informed Mr Goodwin that he had said “ why cant family members leave me alone and be happy” . F said that he did not have that message and that he had deleted it. F denied that SD’s message made sense if F had said “all family members are cunts”. I do not accept F’s denial that he did not send a message in which he said that all family members were cunts as SD’s response makes sense if F had sent that message. 126. I find that F is more than capable of telling untruths and I thus must approach his evidence with that in mind. I am not of the view that F’s denials as set out above can be explained by confusion in times of stress instead I find that on these issues F has deliberately lied to the court. I remind myself however that just because F has lied about certain things does not mean that he has lied about everything including his denials of sexually abusing his nieces. 127. The local authority suggest that F’s inability to understand appropriate sexual boundaries in some way supports the allegations made by N1 and N2 . The local authority pray in aid the fact that on the 25th March 2025 F had an “inappropriate conversation about sex toys” with Miss Frampton and the adult social worker, (702). F denied that he had initiated this conversation and that he contended that he merely responded to a question as to what was in a box. In addition there is the comment that F made to Miss Frampton and the inappropriate sexual comments and jokes made to Miss Knight. Mr Goodwin took F to task about his comment to Miss Knight that “we must stop meeting like this” and put to him that this was inappropriate as it had a sexual connotation. I did not find that evidence to be helpful. In my view Mr Goodwin overreached himself by making the suggestions and connections that he did. I also do not accept Mr Goodwin’s submission that by informing the ISW that he was a “boob man” is evidence that F told his brother and DW that he thought that LA had “big boobs”. Much of the evidence that has been put before the court as to F’s character are little more than unsubstantiated opinion evidence from those who do not hold him in high regard. I remind myself that my task is to make findings on the basis of evidence not on the basis of suspicion and speculation and I must be vigilant not to make positive findings simply because there are a large number of unproven allegations. The absence of child abuse material on F’s devices. 128. F does not have any convictions, reprimands, warnings or cautions, (1304). I also note that F’s devices have been examined and there is no data on those devices of any child pornography, (2018). Whilst this does not point towards findings of sexual abuse they also do not necessarily militate against the court arriving at such a view. The alleged verbal altercation between M and N2. 129. In her oral evidence N2 said that in the beginning of 2025 she had a chance encounter with F and M at a garage in her home town. N2 said that she smelt F before she saw him and that he had a distinctive smell of tobacco and body odour. N2 informed Miss Ancliffe that she was not sure if she recognised F and then when asked if she had known it was F she replied “no”. N2 told Mr Howling that she recognised F when she returned to her car. 130. N2 said that M was abusive and called her a fat cunt but that F did not say anything. N2 said that she did not respond to the name calling nor did she gesture back to M who had given her a rude hand gesture. Mr Howling accepted that his client had been abusive but suggested that N2 was also shouting and was rude. N2 denied this. 131. M and F accept that this encounter took place and M accepts that she was abusive. However, both allege that N2 was equally abusive. I foundN2 to be a forthright and assertive witness and I do not therefore accept that she played no role in this encounter. This finding is of some limited relevance to me as it is a manifestation of the ill will that N2 and that side of this family feel towards F. It also indicates to me that N2 is capable of coming to court and telling an untruth. The credibility of N1, N2 and SD. 132. I accept the evidence of DC Thompson that neither N1 or N2 have any previous convictions and that neither have a history of making false allegations. 133. It is not disputed that SD has contacted LA’s mother JT, DW and F’s ex wife to encourage them to contact the police to assist them with their enquires. I agree with Miss Ancliffe that SD was to an extent evidence gathering for the police. However, I cannot see how that finding assists me in determining whether or not the sexual abuse allegations are proven. If SD genuinely believes that her daughters have been sexually abused by her brother, it would not be at all surprising that she would seek to marshal any person who could support their claims. I cannot conclude that SD by seeking to find witnesses to speak against F establishes that SD is supporting and advancing false claims against her brother. 134. In her police interview SD says that N2 informed her in July 2024 that F had sexually abused her, (SB58). SD says that she asked her daughter why she had not told her and “she said that she overheard a conversation between me and her aunty about what happened to N1 and she didn’t think she would be believed”. In cross N2 confirmed that this conversation had taken place. Miss Ancliffe asked N2 what she had overheard and N2 replied “ I don’t’ know ….F had been inappropriate with N1” and that this conversation had taken place “years ago”. N2 denied that she was worried that her mother would not believe her and that she was not sure why her mother had said that. The credibility of DW 135. DW was married to F’s brother AK between 2006 and 2009. DW gave a witness statement to the police dated the 8th January 2026 and was also called to give oral evidence. In her witness statement DW makes the following allegations:- – When she first met F she considered him to be “weird” his music taste was heavy metal and gothic which didn’t really suit him. – F would tell a lot of stories about what had happened to him which turned out not to be true. – F commented that LA had big boobs which DW considered to be a weird thing to say about a child that was in his care. – DW says that she witnessed F getting angry with his biological daughter when she cried as a baby. – DW says that when F moved back to his mother’s home he stayed in the attic room ”which was a large room – with a unit which separated the room into two arears”. – DW says that one night she and her daughter who was aged 5 or 6 were sleeping in the room and DW woke up to see F on his hands and knees peering around the unit. DW says that she had spoken to her daughter since and asked if F had ever touched her and she said “no” and then says “I do believe that F knew better than to touch her as AK was a very strong character and he wouldn’t have stood for that behaviour….I believe that F knows AK would have killed him”, (SB63) – DW says that her daughter witnessed F walking into one of his daughter’s rooms when she was undressed. DW didn’t know how old the daughter had been or when this was said to have been witnessed. DW also says that this daughter lived with F for a period of time but moved back to live with her own mother due to F’’s “inappropriate behaviour”, (SB 64). – DW says that following his arrest in 2006/07 F used their computer to send a “Dear Deirdree” email “saying that when he had sex he turned into an animal, scratching and clawing and that he felt the need to bite”. – DW describes F treating one of his step son’s who had learning difficulties badly. 136. In her oral evidence DW asserted that she was “definitely” sure that she knew about F raping N1 in 2001 because that was the first time that she moved to Kent. This is inconsistent with the evidence of N1 and SD who contend that the allegation of rape was made by N1 to SD during the LA investigation in 2006. 137. Miss Ancliffe took some time with DW trying to establish if she was close with SD. Initially DW said that they were not really close and that they spoke on the phone maybe twice per month but the conversation was limited to asking after the welfare of each other and their respective families. However, DW finally accepted that her and SD were close and that she knew a lot of personal information about the family. DW’s attempts to distance herself from SD were unconvincing. I find that not only is DW close to SD but that she is also not at all well disposed towards F. A number of the allegations that she makes in her police witness statement are wholly irrelevant and in my judgment were made simply to besmirch F’s reputation. 138. During his assessment with the ISW F informed her that he was not sexually interested in children as he was a “boob man”. Mr Goodwin submitted that the conversation that DW overheard about F telling his brother that his step daughter LA had “big boobs” reveals his sexual interest in children. This submission has caused me some difficulties. I found F in many ways to be an unreliable witness. I also find, (and he accepts) that he has a propensity to make inappropriate sexual comments. However, I also find DW to be an unreliable witness and her desire to cast F in the most unfavourable light and her connection with SD significantly undermines my confidence in her reliability. On balance I am not satisfied that F made this comment to his brother. I accept DW’s evidence that AK had a strong character and he would have been very protective over his own child. I thus find it difficult to accept that he would simply ignore such a comment as DW suggests. 139. I am not really sure what significance I should attach to the allegation that DW woke at night to see F on his hands and knees peering around the unit. The suggestion seems to be that F was acting in a predatory fashion towards AK’s child who was five or six years of age. I have some difficulties in accepting that suggestion in light of the fact both DW and AK were in the room and F would have known how is brother was likely to react. My lack of faith in the veracity of the evidence of DW and the fact that she did not say anything to F either at the time or subsequently nor did she tell her then husband leads me to conclude that this event was unlikely to have occurred. 140. I do not accept DW’ evidence that F would enter without knocking his teenage daughter’s room when she was undressed. Putting aside the other issues that I have with DW in terms of her reliability I note that in her witness statement to the police she contends that her daughter witnessed this whilst in her oral evidence DW claims that it was she who witnessed this behaviour. Findings re the alleged sexual abuse. 141. I have considered very carefully the evidence as set out above and on balance I am not satisfied that any of the allegations of sexual assault against N1 and N2 are proven on the balance of probabilities. I do not however make a positive finding that these assaults did not take place. I do not find that N1 and N2 have lied to the court. I find that the nieces are honest witnesses who believe that they were victims of sexual abuse but that belief stems from a widely discussed narrative within this family that F is different and “weird” and that he did sexually abuse LA. I thus discount the various motives put forward by F as to why his nieces would make up false allegations. 142. I find that SD has within this family possibly aided and abetted by other family members sought over the years to paint a picture of F in the most unfavourable light. I do not need to speculate as to her motivation for so behaving or if it is justified. The antipathy that is felt between F and SD in my judgment made it relatively easy for SD to believe that F sexually abused his step daughter and that over the last 20 years or so that belief has formed the bedrock of these allegations. I do not intend to speculate any further than that. I do not make a finding that SD has deliberately lied to the court as I am not required to do so but I do find for the reasons set out above that much of her evidence lacks cogency. Analysis: M and F’s ability to meet C’s needs . C’s developmental delay. 143. In light of the fact that I have excluded any sexual risk from F the question that confronts me is whether or not the parents as a couple can meet C’s needs or alternatively whether one or other of them can independently meet her needs. I accept the view expressed by Dr Chandraratne as set out in child permanence report that C is “developmentally delayed in all areas except fine motor skills”, (3650). 144. I do not accept the view of the social worker Miss Frampton that the parents poor care of C has “impacted on her developmental delay”, (701) as there is an absence of any medical evidence as to causation. I accept the pleaded claim that M and F refused the health visitor’s referral to a paediatrician and to enrol C in nursery. This refusal to accept the concerns and advice of professionals is common to both parents but particularly M. In her oral evidence M did not accept that C had developmental delay adding “she is too brainy too clued up”. In my judgment if C were returned to M’s care she would persist with this unfounded belief and C would thus be at risk of being deprived of the additional assistance that she may require. I accept the assessment of the ISW that C’s “needs now dictate a requirement for better than good enough standards of care with an emphasis on her development”, (872). M’s epilepsy. 145. The local authority allege that M does not adequately manage her epilepsy and that this places C at risk of significant physical and emotional harm. There is a letter from a Consultant Neurologist following a clinic appointment on the 17th October 2023 in which M reported that she had not had any seizures for four years and that she was not taking any medication to manage the condition. The neurologist had sight of an EEG report which “was showing in favour of primary generalised epilepsy”, (699). 146. Absent a report from a medical expert I cannot accurately determine the extent of any risks that may eventuate from M having in the past suffered from seizures and thus the future risk of her not being able to care for C during such episodes. That said I do find that the risk exists as M has been diagnosed with epilepsy albeit that I cannot quantify the extent of that risk. Whether M has been fairly assessed. 147. I am of the view that M has been fairly and appropriately assessed with the necessary adjustments having been made to accommodate her cognitive limitations, (M has an IQ of 63). M was assessed by Miss Knight the ISW using the CUBAS model which is specifically designed to fairly assess parents with learning limitations. 148. I accept Miss Frampton’s oral evidence that she was aware of the strategies suggested by the psychologist Miss Thomas in her report of February 2023. On page 1220 the psychologist recommended that those assessing M should follow four strategies to compensate for M’s cognitive limitations. These were firstly ensuring that M understands the meaning of complex terms by either asking her what her understanding of the situation is or asking her to repeat what has been said in her own words. Secondly to allow M time to understand complex information. Thirdly to provide encouragement and finally for there to be adapted versions of any planned assessments. In her oral evidence Miss Frampton said that she took time to explain things more simply and that M was very able to share when she was not sure what Miss Frampton had said. In my judgment the difficulty that M has with working with professionals is not explicable by any failure to put in place the appropriate adjustments but rather her deeply held mistrust of professionals as Miss Frampton put it “M has a view of social workers that has contributed to her attitude…the level of aggression instigated by M has occurred when there has been no communication from me …it has come out of nowhere”. 149. I recognise that the initial social worker Miss Atherton did not have sight of Miss Thomas’s psychological report when she was working with M and that prior to going into the foster placement there was no written agreement particularising what was expected of M. However, Miss Atherton was aware of M’s low IQ, a meeting had taken place in which the expectations of M in placement were discussed and the guardian had a similar discussion with M whilst they were at court. I accept Miss Atherton’s oral evidence that “every effort was made to ensure” that M understood the rules that applied whilst she was in placement. The foster placement broke down in my view for two simple reasons. Firstly because M absented herself from the placement and left C in the care of the foster carer and secondly because M was hostile and aggressive to the foster carer. In cross M offered the following explanations to Mr Goodwin for her absenting herself from the foster placement: to see her ill grandfather, to prepare for the court case in respect of her rent arrears and “I wanted to stay out to celebrate my birthday”. Even if I were to accept the validity and justification of M’s first two reasons the third reason illustrates graphically that M put her own needs above that of her daughter. In my judgment a written agreement would not have changed M’s behaviour. The risks to C if placed in the care of her parents. 150. It is important to acknowledge that M and F love C dearly. I accept the evidence of Miss Knight that F is besotted with C and engages well with her during contact. 151. I accept the evidence of the ISW Miss Knight who opined that “C would be at risk of significant harm and neglect if she were to be placed in the care of either or both of her parents….I do not recommend M and F can care adequately for C either jointly or separately”, (SB 1047). The risks that flow from the parents care flow from the following factors. i. Poor home conditions. ii. Lack of suitable accommodation. iii. Failure to provide a consistent and healthy diet. iv. M’s mental health. v. F’s mental and physical health. vi. M’s substance misuse. vii. F’s substance misuse. viii. The parents lack of insight into their parenting deficiencies. ix. The Inability of the parents to work with professionals. x. The parents attendance at contact. xi. The parents relationship. xii. The lack of a support network. Lack of suitable accommodation 152. I do not accept the suggestion that the fact that the parents were facing eviction for rent arears of some £12, 800 would not expose C to a significant risk of harm as the local authority would have a duty to provide accommodation and C would therefore still have a roof over her head. I accept the evidence of Miss Knight who noted that M “has a history of being evicted from various housing schemes and properties due to repeated breaches of tenancy and concerns for her behaviour within her home”, (866). There is a clear risk to C of emotional harm if she was placed in her parents care as it is likely that this pattern of housing instability would continue. In addition C would be at risk of harm as a consequence of the inability of her parents to manage their finances. If C were returned to the parents care F proposed in his oral evidence that she could live with him and M in his mother’s flat with C sharing a room with EK who is elderly, infirm and suffering from dementia. F seemed oblivious to the fact that this was a wholly unsuitable arrangement for C . In addition the arrangement that F proposes is entirely dependent upon an unknown i.e. whether or not the Housing Association would agree to a change in the terms of the tenancy agreement. M’s contention in chief that if C were to live with her they would reside with their mother also fails to recognise that JC was ruled out as a carer in part because of her unsuitable accommodation. Poor home conditions. 153. I agree to a limited extent with Mr Howling’s submission, (which was also accepted by the social workers and the ISW ) that to establish that a child was living in poor home conditions there has to be an established pattern and that a reliance upon the one observation in September 2024 was not sufficient. There is however evidence that M whilst living in the foster placement neglected the home environment, (dirty pushchair and high chair and washing up not completed). I am not troubled by the fact that this was not put to M as it is not necessary for all of the evidence in support of an allegation to be put to a party. There is also the evidence that neither parent attend to their own dental hygiene and indeed both accepted that they had not brushed their teeth for decades. It was noted by the ISW that neither parent had supported C in brushing her teeth. I do not consider it too great an evidential leap to find that an inability to attend to ones own personal care renders it likely that the individual will adopt the same lack of care in terms of their home environment. Failure to provide a consistent and healthy diet. 154. Whilst Miss Knight opined that the parents had the necessary skills to provide C with basic meals there was limited evidence that they were providing this consistently, (855). M was offered support re mealtimes whilst in the foster placement yet there were several times when the foster carer was required to prepare and provide food for C, (856). Miss Knight was concerned that neither parent had considered the impact on C of drinking coca – cola in terms of its caffeine and sugar content, (856). M’s mental health. 155. I accept the evidence of Dr Iyer. M is suffering from an established diagnosis of mild learning disability, (1033), mental and behavioural disorders and a dependence disorder due to the use of cannabis, (1034). Dr Iyer did not diagnose M as suffering from a personality disorder but considered that she did exhibit some traits “in the form of emotional instability, outburst of violence or threatening behaviour particularly in response to criticisms by others”, (1035). 156. In terms of treatment and prognosis Dr Iyer opined that M had poor insight into her difficulties as she thinks that she only has dyslexia, (1034). Dr Iyer noted that M used cannabis every day claiming that she used the same for pain relief “but shows poor insight into its use”, (1034) and that she was prioritising her cannabis use “rather than understanding how this can have an impact on looking after C” , (1035). Dr Iyer opined that M would not “comply with any recommended treatment as she is quite angry about professionals and she feels that we are slandering her, have taken away her previous three children and are doing the same for C”, (1036). 157. As to M’s ability to care for C, Dr Iyer’s view was that learning disability combined with substance misuse disorders can have a severely detrimental effect on parenting capacity, (1038). Dr Iyer opined that M “will struggle to protect C and prioritise her needs”, (1037) and that she “will struggle to meet C’s physical and emotional needs”, (1038). Mr Howling suggested to Dr Iyer that a “fair addition to that opinion would be without ongoing support”. Dr Iyer replied that “I think if she is using cannabis even with support it would be difficult”. Mr Howling put to Dr Iyer that M had said that she would give up cannabis if C was in her care to which Dr Iyer replied, “that should be fine if she gets the support to quit cannabis”. 158. M’s case is that if C was placed in her and F’s care M may be able to provide care and meet her physical and emotional needs if she had adequate support. I am not satisfied to any extent that M would accept support as she does not believe that there are any deficiencies in the care that she provides. I am also not satisfied that if C were placed in her care that M would give up cannabis and cocaine as she maintains. I therefore accept the unvarnished view of Dr Iyer that if C were in M’s care she would struggle to meet her physical and emotional needs. 159. There are numerous examples in the papers of M exposing C to her emotional dysregulation. Miss Knight opined that M could become easily overwhelmed by her own emotional needs and the parents can become preoccupied with one another “ resulting in C’s emotional needs not being met”, (854). Miss Knight noted that whilst in foster care there were several examples of M appearing not to pick up on or suitably respond to C’s emotional needs and noted examples of C seeking M’s attention and becoming upset when M would priorities going to her room or going for a cigarette, (853). On the 13th January 2025 during family time it was noted that M became emotionally heightened because C was coughing albeit that she was not exhibiting any signs of being unwell. It was recorded that M became loud and asked to terminate family time and that she was somewhat aggressive in the way that she spoke to the supervisor and that she walked around the room and said to C “I’ll get you fucking sorted”. It was noted that C was picking up on M’s distress and it was F who intervened to calm the situation down. Miss Knight opined that F “appears more attuned to C’s needs and shows more capacity for comfort and reassurance”, (853). Miss Knight noted that there had been repeat concerns that M can present as aggressive and intimidating, (867). M was said to have been threatening towards the foster carer and was shouting and swearing during a social work visit on the 12th September 2024. Miss Knight opined that M struggled to manage her emotions and at times could become angry and heightened, (867). On page 868 Miss Knight says that if C “were repeatedly exposed to this presentation from her mother there would be several concerns for her wellbeing and her development. There would be an impact on her attachment, her self-esteem, she would experience these times as frightening and scary. She may also develop the same communication style as she grows older through learning this from observing her mother”. 160. I recognise that in her second report Miss Knight observed a “slight improvement in terms of M’s emotional stability and a slight improvement with regards to M’s presentation”, (1064). There were less examples of M becoming overwhelmed and angry in her sessions with her or during family time. Miss Knight also considered that M had shown a much better commitment to attending family time, (1065). Miss Knight did not agree with Mr Howling’s suggestion that M feels threatened when she is being assessed. Miss Knight said that she witnessed M’s aggressive behaviour more often during family time rather than when she was being assessed. F’s mental and physical health. 161. I accept the unchallenged evidence of Dr Shaw. Dr Shaw opined that F was suffering from a “major depressive episode and a generarlised anxiety disorder” and that although F displayed some personality difficulties Dr Shaw was not of the view that F was suffering from a “diagnosable personality disorder”, (1,000). In terms of causation F maintained that his mental health difficulties had been significantly and negatively impacted by the allegations and the involvement of social services. However, as F reported being on anti-depressants for many years Dr Shaw considered that it was “probable that his depressive symptoms at least have a longer history”, (1,000). 162. Having considered Dr Shaws’ report it seems to me that he identified four risk factors as far as F’s care of C was concerned namely the sexual risk, the risks from F’s depression, the risk of ongoing parental conflict and the risks associated with his lack of insight as to M’s parenting deficiencies. As I have eliminated the first risk factor the three that remain are pertinent to my assessment of F’s ability to meet C’s needs. 163. Dr Shaw opined that the most significant area of potential risk in relation to depression is the potential for emotional and physical neglect, (1001). Dr Shaw opined that “in general terms parents experiencing depression may display withdrawn or hostile behaviours engage in fewer positive interactions and have challenges providing consistent care”. I note that the first two of these behaviours ( withdrawn/hostile behaviours and engagement in fewer positive interactions) are arguably encompassed in the list of F’s personality style that was reported by F to Dr Shaw as set out below: – He exhibits a strong tendency toward withdrawal and introversion, showing little interest in socializing or building relationships. – He harbours significant mistrust and resentment, often perceiving slights or inequities in his interactions with others. – His self-concept is generally negative, marked by self-criticism, pessimism, and a tendency to dwell on past failures. – He also has a tendency to attribute negative circumstances to others while expressing anger directed both at himself and external sources. – He often struggles with stress and turmoil in major life areas, compounded by a lack of supportive social relationships. – Despite experiencing elevated levels of depression and hostility, he is resistant to personal change, which may pose challenges in treatment settings. 164. Dr Shaw noted the history of insecurity and conflict in the couples relationship which had resulted in police call outs, (in reality only one relating to M and F), and heated arguments. Dr Shaw opined that the “ risks towards C were this to continue would be exposure to ongoing parental conflict, which could be distressing for her and affect her future attachment security”, (1001). On the 30th January 2025 F was expressing suicidal ideation as he was concerned that M was cheating on him. This highlights the fragility F’s mental health and his relationship with M and creates in my judgment a risk of emotional harm and neglect should C be placed in her parents care. 165. On page 1002 Dr Shaw says this: “I note that he dismissed all concerns about M’s parenting capacity ,substance misuse and emotional stability when questioned about them. I am particularly concerned about his denial of any knowledge of her substance misuse given the hair strand testing suggested that he had been likely passively exposed to substances that she appeared likely to have ingested. Taking all of this together, I am not confident that he is able to prioritise the needs of his child at the present moment by acknowledging and taking steps to safeguard her from the risks that have been identified as likely present by the wider professional network”. 166. As to treatment and prognosis Dr Shaw’s view was that in addition to his anti-depressant medication F should engage in therapy. However, F indicated that he was not motivated to undertake such therapy. Should F change his mind Dr Shaw opined that given the severity of his depressive symptoms such intervention would likely require 16 – 20 weeks of intervention and would only be available following a referral from F’s GP. Dr Shaw also considered it unlikely that F would show marked improvements whilst the social services process remains ongoing, (1002). 167. F’s evidence as to his degenerative condition which he has said can cause him to be confined to his bed and unable to use the toilet is difficult for me to assess as F’s evidence on this issue is unclear. 168. Miss Knight refers to various comments/jokes that F has made to professionals including herself which she considered inappropriate such as informing Miss Frampton that she looked stunning. Miss Knight expressed concern “about other comments and attitudes C could be exposed to”, (857). It is not the function of the court to advance some kind of moral code as to how an individual should parent his/her child provided that any child in their care is not exposed to harm. I thus make no finding on this issue. M’s substance misuse. 169. M has failed to attend a number of hair strand tests ordered by the court. That said M has been candid with the court and with the ISW as to her use of cannabis, (daily) and cocaine, (during the weekends). On her own evidence M has abused substances for certainly since her teens and her usage in the past has been considerable, ( 20 spliffs a day and maybe 3 or 4 bags of coke a day). I do not accept M’s evidence in cross that if C were in her care she would stop using drugs. F’s substance misuse. 170. F informed Miss Knight on the 9th September 2025 that he had been drinking every night for the past week, (1062). On the 24th September 2025 F informed Miss Knight that he had been drinking half a litre of vodka each evening, ((1063). I am also mindful of F’s HST results which show the use of cannabis and cocaine. I accept Miss Knight evidence that both parents use substances in a way that could be detrimental to C’s safety and wellbeing should she be in their care, (1063). The parents lack of insight into their parenting deficiencies. 171. In my judgment neither parent has any insight at all into the deficiencies in their parenting. I accept the evidence of the ISW who concluded that both parents maintained the view that the local authority’s concerns were “unjustified and unfair”, (1050). I do not accept F’s assertion in his January 2026 witness statement that “ I do accept that I would need support in some areas and that M would need support….I will always be prepared to accept professional help and advice to support my parenting and to keep my family together”, (745). 172. Miss Knight opined that putting aside the sexual abuse allegations neither parent acknowledged the local authorities concerns as to their parenting and the neglect of C and thus there was a “limited motivation to make changes given they do not accept responsibility or acknowledge the concerns regarding their deficit areas of parenting, which is separate from the safety concerns regarding the allegations”, (843). 173. M informed Miss Knight that she could meet all of C’s needs and that she did not need any support to help her meet those needs. F identified that he may struggle to meet needs such as being listened to, regular mealtimes, happy parents and people to look up to. Neither parent was able to identify any unmet needs of C whilst in their care and were therefore unable to take any responsibility for unmet needs. Miss Knight opined that their “recognition of C’s needs beyond that of physical needs is limited”, (850). 174. F informed Miss Knight that a lot of the training courses that had been recommended “just seem a waste of time”. F informed Miss Knight that he had no concerns about C being in the sole care M and “ he is unable to consider anything other than C being returned to both parent’s care, this is linked with his current emotional wellbeing and his difficulties in being able to prioritise C’s needs in this regard”, (862). 175. In her second report Miss Knight noted that the parents had received support from Early Help to support their development in the facets of parental knowledge and recognition of children’s needs. The parents were also given access to the Solihull Programme, (designed to improve parenting), however neither parent had completed the work, (1049). When Miss Knight asked M what she had learnt from Early Help M said that she had learnt about C learning, how to keep her safe and food stages but that she “already knew everything”. F said that he had learnt “some stuff” but he was unable to tell Miss Knight as his head was “scrambled”. 176. In her second report Miss Knight noted that “neither parent had readmy original reports to understand what I was worried about and therefore there has been no change regarding their insight”, (1057). In this report Miss Knight recorded that each parent “believe that C should be returned to their care and that they should be left alone without the support of any professionals”, (1065). On page 1068 of this report Miss Knight says this: “Neither F nor M had reviewed Dr Iyer’s assessment. Both do not understand M’s diagnosis; M remains of the view she is dyslexic and F said that he knows that she is not very good at maths. Given neither appreciate M’s difficulties in this area there is little reassurance that M would engage with the appropriate support in future”, (1068). 177. Miss Knight agreed with Mr Howling that the biggest problem for M was her lack of engagement. Miss Knight did not agree with Mr Howling that it can take individuals with M’s difficulties time before the “bulb is turned on” and that M has now moved to a position of understanding and it is never too late. Miss Knight’s response was that that it was sadly too late and that M had been clear that she did not feel that she required any help and support. Mr Howling suggested that a “bit more delay would not hurt…there are signs of improvement…if the judge agrees this may be a turning point and there should be one more parenting assessment”. Miss Knight’s reply was that “I think the risk of further disengagement is significant I am concerned that history will repeat itself”. I do not accept Mr Howling’s suggestion that M has now had a “light bulb” moment and recognises that her parenting must change. This suggestion is entirely at odds with M’s oral evidence in which she told Mr Goodwin that the social worker and the other experts were wrong when they said that there were problems with her parenting. M’s response “I can parent my child….I don’t know of any arears that I need to improve on” demonstrates her ongoing lack of insight. 178. In his witness statement of January 2026 F says that his intention would be for him to be C’s main carer should the court return C to their care, (746). On page 859 Miss Knight offers this view: “F could potentially compensate for some of these [deficit areas for M] however given the apparent power imbalance within their relationship, I am not confident that he would be able to consistently and safely compensate for all deficit areas in a way which would protect C from harm and neglect”. On page 864 Miss Knight says this: “When we discussed if he would consider taking the care of C as a single parent if the Court determined that M could not care for C, he was completely unable to consider this. He was concerned as to how M would respond to this and said he would be blamed for it”. 179. F informed Mr Goodwin that he would trust M to look after C for long periods of time. F said that M did not need any help to look after C, that he did not require any help and as a couple they did not need any help. F agreed with Mr Goodwin’s suggestion that he and M would rather be left to their own devices. The Inability of the parents to work with professionals. 180. I accept that F’s engagement with professionals has been far more positive than that of M. F to his credit attended the majority of the assessments with Miss Knight. I also accept the evidence of Miss Knight who in cross said that she had never experienced any defensiveness or aggression from F and that he had engaged well with her assessments. Miss Knight said that the only issue she had with F was his tendency to make inappropriate comments but that she did not consider that F was trying to offend her, “it’s his humour…he says that he is old school he does not see any problem with what he says”. Miss Knight agreed with Miss Ancliffe that there is a processing issue and that F has a different perception as to what is acceptable. Miss Knight did not think that F was trying to be sexual it was just his way of building a relationship and trying to be friendly. 181. M on the other hand responds to professionals who do not adopt her narrative in a hostile and aggressive manner. I accept the evidence of Miss Frampton who said that M had been blocked from sending messages to her because of the “shear level of verbal abuse and threats”. M has threatened Miss Frampton on two occasions to “beat the living daylights out” of her if C was not returned home, (702). M failed to engage with Miss Knight’s first Cubas assessment attending only one of the planned 15 assessments and during her second assessment M attended 3 out of 9 of the planned assessments. 182. The parents have been referred to early help for some focused support in respect of their parenting but their attendance was irregular. F did not take up the referral to the adult safeguarding team or the Rising Sun and declined a referral to Forward Trust despite accepting that he was a former alcoholic and informing the ISW that he was drinking half a bottle of vodka a day, (702). M refused to engage with adult services in March 2025 and has declined a referral to Forward Trust despite her accepting that she uses cannabis and cocaine. 183. On page 843 Miss Knight offered this view: “M has been offered many opportunities to engage with professionals to consider her individual needs, and how she can be supported to improve her parenting capacity, sadly she has not engaged with the multiple offers of support. She has been unable to commit to a meaningful change journey”. Miss Knight considered that M “hasalso struggled to follow advice during family time, she can become easily offended / frustrated and respond in a way which could be considered aggressive and / or dismissive”, (869). Miss Knight noted that the same concerns were observed by a social worker in 2011 who reported that when M was offered advice she did not appear to be able to respond to it and on occasions she was noted as being aggressive with the contact supervisors (870). 184. On page 844 of the first report Miss Knight says this: “There would need to be a significant professional presence, throughout her minority, within the family home to ensure her safety. The changes required are significant and sadly, assessment has identified that the parents cannot safely meet the needs of C ,and she would be at risk of significant harm and neglect in the care of her parents” . 185. Miss Knight agreed with Mr Donaghey’s assessment that when it came to his interactions with M it was like F was dealing with a teenager and that if C was returned to the parents care F would be dealing with a teenager, an old and infirm person and a toddler. Miss Knight said that she was a very experienced social worker but she could not work with M under a supervision order. 186. I reject completely M’s assertion in cross that if C were returned to her care she would work with professionals. This assertion was followed by M saying that to her Miss Frampton was “scum ….I hate her she has not worked with me or helped me”. M then said this: “ I will not work with social services they have always treated me like shit since my kids came along social services have disgraded [sic] my family…that is why they don’t like me because I stand my ground”. The parents attendance at contact. 187. The parents attendance at family time was so poor following C being taking into care that the contact was reduced from three times per week to once a week. I note that F’s attendance at contact since March 2025 has improved. The parents relationship. 188. At first blush it is arguable that the fact that the parents have been together for some eight years is evidence that their relationship is a stable one. However, that fact belies what I consider to be significant difficulties in the relationship between this couple which is likely to adversely impact on C should she be returned to their care. M has in the recent past been in a relationship with an unknown male and has refused to provide any details about this individual not only to children’s services but also F. I accept the evidence of the ISW that M has the upper hand in the relationship. 189. Miss Knight opined that due “to her own vulnerabilities and limited cognitive ability M sadly appears to lack capacity to safely risk assess people and situations which could place C at risk in the future”, (858). Miss Knight refers to M in 2007 being in a relationship with a 50 year old male and in 2009 being in a relationship with a male with convictions for indecent assault. Miss Knight also refers to the unknown male of whom nothing was known . I accept Miss Knight’s assessment that the parents “ relationship holds a wealth of difficulties including instability, communication, possible power imbalance, and in them being truthful with one another”, (1060)”. 190. Mr Goodwin put to M the police note of the 16th October 2025, (SB 84) in which on her device there were “various whatsapp chats with unknown people discussing meeting up for sex, (at home and car meets) M suggests the price for set times and different sexual acts”. M said that this was “an old profile …I cannot put a year on it…I didn’t think they were still on there …yes I sent the messages but they were old messages”. M said that she was not being sexually exploited by unknown males to send these messages and that F was not making her do these things. M said that the messages “might have been” sent in the last 8 years but F did not know about them. The existence of these messages raises further concerns for me as to the stability and appropriateness of any home that the parents can offer to C. I agree with Mr Goodwin’s assessment of the couple’s relationship as being chaotic. 191. I accept Miss Knight’s evidence as to the parents own needs adversely impacting on their ability to set boundaries and manage C’s behaviour. On page 857 Miss Knight says this: “with such a complex interplay of the parents own needs, I am unsure how they may manage situations where C tests the boundaries. I would assess that if C were to be returned to the parent’s care, this is an identified area of support for both parents”. The lack of a support network. 192. The maternal grandmother JC and the maternal aunt NG have been negatively assessed. Neither individual has sought to challenge those assessments, nor have they come forward to offer support. 193. JC has a conviction in 2007 for perverting the course of justice by providing a false alibi for her partner who was convicted of attempted murder, (772). On page 783 the assessor says that JC lacked insight into the impact that her going to prison had on her children. The author of the report Miss Atherton also noted that JC had misled her by telling her that she did not own a car due to financial constraints whereas in fact JC had lost her licence. This raised the question for Miss Atherton as to how open JC would be when working with professionals and engaging in services, (783). Miss Atherton noted that JC’s daughters M and NG have had social services involvement in respect of their children and that this “suggests that JC may not have the necessary parenting skills to provide more than good enough care to C”, (783). 194. JC lives with her daughter NG in a one bedroom flat and whilst there were no concerns raised in respect of the home conditions Miss Atherton did raise concerns about the lack of space, (774). JC also has a history of moving to live with family members, (783). JC admitted to previously using alcohol and substances including cocaine, cannabis and amphetamines, (783). Miss Atherton noted that JC had been diagnosed with sciatica which was impacting on her mobility, (784) and that she was also suffering from mental health difficulties. 195. NG was in good health , did not drink alcohol or take drugs and accepted that M and F posed a risk to C. NG’s plan was for her mother to move out of her flat and for her two sons to sleep on the sofa bed and her and C would sleep in the bedroom. Miss Atherton noted that NG sometimes worked as a live in personal assistant and this was likely to be impacted upon if she were to care for C, (807). NG’s childhood experiences had impacted on her ability to care. NG had sought support from children’s services with such support ending in June 2024. One of NG’s sons has additional needs. Miss Atherton said that she was worried “that caring for C who will need more than good enough care given her development and parenting experience could be too much”, (807). Miss Atherton considered NG to be an emotional person and was concerned as to NG’s emotional stability if faced with the pressures of caring for three children. 196. I agree with Miss Knight that C has “very limited support beyond her parents”, (858). Miss Knight noted that C had a relationship with the maternal grandmother and maternal aunt but their visits were not consistent or frequent. In terms of the paternal family C only has time with the paternal grandmother. F informed Miss Knight that he was unable to confide in EK because of her age and ill health and that he did not have any friends. Miss Knight described the parents as “extremely isolated in terms of support”, (870). The application to adjourn. 197. M’s secondary position is that the court should adjourn its welfare decision to allow her to prove that she has now understood that her parenting needs to change and to give her an opportunity to address her mental health difficulties, her drug use and her deficient parenting. I firmly reject this application. M has been given ample time and considerable support to address these matters. There is an absence of any credible evidence that M has experienced the “light bulb moment” described by Mr Howling in fact the evidence strongly suggests that she still clings to her entrenched belief that all is well with her parenting and that social services should leave her and F alone to care for C. Threshold. 198. I am satisfied on the basis of my findings as set out above that threshold in this case is crossed by some margin. Re B – S analysis. 199. In reality there are three realistic options before the court, care/placement orders, return of C to the joint care of the parents, or the return of C to either M or F to care for her independently. Return of C to the joint care of her parents. 200. The obvious advantage of such a move would be the preservation of this family’s Article 8 rights. Not only would C be able to maintain her links with her birth parents but also her extended family in particular the paternal and maternal grandmother and the maternal aunt. Such a move would preserve C’s identity and cultural needs. I have no doubt that if C was placed with M and F she would be cared for by parents that love her dearly. 201. If C were placed in the care of her parents there is a significant risk that her particular developmental needs would not be met and a significant risk that she would suffer emotional and physical harm which is incapable of being ameliorated as the parents do not accept that they have any parenting issues and M in particular would not be able to work with professionals. In addition the couple do not have a family/friendship support group to mitigate the risks of harm. The parents caring for C independently. 202. All of the above advantages and disadvantages would prevail in the event that C was placed with M or F as sole carers. I am not convinced that this is in fact a realistic option as F in particular has stressed that he does not wish to care for his daughter absent his wife. Care/placement orders. 203. Care and placement orders would terminate permanently C ‘s relationship with her parents and extended family and thus cause her to lose her identity. It would of course amount to a significant interference with C and the parents Article 8 rights. There is the risk that C may not be placed for adoption and the risk that any adoptive placement may break down which in turn would cause harm to C. 204. The advantages of care/placement orders is that C would achieve permanence in a forever family free from the risks of harm posed by her parents with carers that are likely to be able to provide for her additional needs. Conclusion. 205. Having considered the advantages and disadvantages of each realistic option I am satisfied that care/placement orders are necessary to secure C’s welfare and that these orders are proportionate to the risk of harm posed by M and F in that return to her parents care would cause C considerably greater harm than the harm that will be caused to her throughout her life of ceasing to be a member of her birth family. This is a case where I am satisfied that nothing short of adoption will do. I dispense with the parents consent under s52 (1) as C ‘s welfare demands it. 206. I have not been invited to make a post placement contact order nor would I have been inclined to do so if such an application had been advanced. I thus endorse the care plan and the contact arrangements contained therein. 207. That is my judgment. HHJ Thomas, 2nd March 2026.