IMPORTANT NOTICE

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the child[ren] and members of their [or his/her] family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court. 

IN THE FAMILY COURT AT NOTTINGHAM         NG14C00099

IN THE MATTER OF THE CHILDREN ACT 1989

IN THE MATTER OF CC (21.08.02), DD  (8.09.04), EE (13.08.06), AND FF (2.04.09). 

                                     BEFORE: His Honour Judge LEA

BETWEEN  

NOTTINGHAMSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
APPLICANT

AA 
FIRST RESPONDENT 
BB
SECOND RESPONDENT

Mr Jacques for the Applicant
Miss Symms for the First Respondent
Miss Hodges for the Second Respondent
Miss Bloomfield for the Children

[Hearing dates 24,25,26,27 & 28 November 2014

FACT-FINDING JUDGMENT

1. These are public law care proceedings brought by Nottinghamshire County Council (the local authority) in which I am concerned with the four children of the B family. AA is their mother. I shall refer to her as the mother. BB is their father. I shall refer to him as the father. Their four children are CC born on 21st August 2002 now 12 years of age, DD born on 8th September 2004 now 10 years of age, their younger brother EE born on 13th August 2006, so now 8 years of age, and FF born on 2nd April 2009 who is 5 years old. 

The background

2. Care proceedings were commenced on 12th August this year.  The mother and father had separated and the children were at risk of significant emotional harm. Put bluntly the parents were at war following the breakdown of their relationship and the children had become the weapons of choice for the parents. The Court  heard evidence over 5 days last week. Anyone who heard that evidence would be rightly appalled at how 2 intelligent, well-educated and well-heeled parents, in their determination to fight each other, have failed to protect their children from the damaging emotional consequences that can beset them as the children of separated parents. Moreover the father has admitted behaviour towards his children in his efforts to hurt the mother which has been amongst some of the most damagingly abusive that I have encountered. 

3. I could deal solely with the facts in dispute but some exploration of the background is necessary to put those matters into a proper context. 

The parents and their marriage 

4. The father was born in 1964. He has a sister CS, who is some 3 years younger born in July 1967. She gave evidence at the hearing. The father’s parents separated when he was at school. His father was a military man. He died in 2009. His mother, RB also gave evidence before me via video link from Bournemouth County Court. The mother was born in 1972 so is some 8 years younger than the father. 

5. The parents married in July 1998. This was in fact the father’s second marriage. He first married P in 1987 and has a daughter L who was born in September of that year. 

Early difficulties

6. The marriage did not have a particularly auspicious start. Fairly quickly the father recommenced a relationship with a long-standing girlfriend S and then had a short relationship with “L from Leeds” as he described her; a young woman aged 17 at the time. On discovering this relationship as a result of an overheard telephone conversation the mother left the father. The parties became reconciled some months later on the mother’s return from America and she was persuaded to give the marriage another go. 

Marriage breakdown

7. It is not necessary to determine why the marriage ultimately foundered. In her divorce petition issued on 24th January 2014 the mother asserted that her relationship with the father was characterised by him “displaying arrogance and endeavouring to show superiority and seeking power and control over her”. From what I heard I am satisfied that the father was unable to deal with a significant injury to his pride when he learned of the mother’s brief affair with a man who was assisting with the landscaping of the garden at the family home. 

LT
8. I accept the evidence on this point of LT who gave evidence before me last week. Her statement starts at F240. I am prepared to accept that the father referred to his wife, not as a “whore”, a word he tells me he would not use, but a “tart”. He did make reference to his wife’s affair and repeatedly referred to the man concerned as a “fucking tradesman”. Having heard the father give evidence for several hours and observed him over several days in Court this recollection of LT had more than a whiff of truth about it. 

The relationship between the mother and CC

9. Of greater significance is the evidence,  which I also accept,  of the father stating that he had got CC on his side , that CC  knew about her mother’s affair and that he, the father, was “working to get the others  onside” as well. I accept the evidence of the mother that CC’s relationship with her changed overnight from a good and normal mother-daughter relationship to one of increasing hostility. CC began to withdraw emotionally from her mother. I am satisfied that this occurred because the father told CC about her mother’s affair in order to turn her against her mother. 

Order not to discuss matters with the children

10. Such discussion by a parent with a child of adult issues is totally wrong and it reveals the father as a man focused solely on his own emotional needs and feelings. In the statement that the mother made within the private law family proceedings she complained that the father had told CC about the difficulties in the marriage and had influenced CC’s perception of her mother as a result. The mother said “I do not believe that the Respondent Father recognises the emotional harm that he is causing to the children”. I agree with her. It was for this reason that the Court made an Order at the mother’s request prohibiting the father from discussing any aspect of the proceedings with the children. The father admits having broken this Order on numerous occasions. 

The legal approach to fact-finding

11. The following legal principles I derive from reported cases and apply to the fact-finding exercise I am undertaking:

i.	The legal burden of establishing facts rests on Nottinghamshire County Council, the local authority applicant throughout the case. The giving of evidence by the father and the mother in no way implies a burden on them to disprove the matters alleged against them.

ii.	There is only one standard of proof namely the simple balance of probabilities: neither the seriousness of the allegations nor the seriousness of the consequences makes any difference to the standard of proof applied: Re B [2008] UKHL 35. 

iii.	 Findings of fact must be based on evidence including inferences that can be properly drawn from the evidence, and not from suspicion or speculation: Re A [2011] EWCA 12. The task of fact-finding has to be carried out without prejudice and preconceived ideas. I should be guided by many things including the inherent probabilities, any contemporaneous documents or records, and circumstantial evidence tending to support one account rather than the other and my overall impression of the characters and motivations of the witnesses: Re B supra. 

iv.	Making findings of fact is a complex process. It depends upon my evaluation of the whole of the evidence presented and of the witnesses who gave evidence. The evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. I must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to the other evidence and to carry out an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to conclude whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the requisite standard of proof. It is only when the whole jigsaw is assembled that the weight of an individual piece of evidence can be reliably determined. 

v.	Where I find that a particular witness has lied I remind myself that a witness may lie for a number of different reasons and must not assume “guilt” from the fact that the witness has done so. 

12. There are historic allegations of sexual abuse made by the father’s sister, CS.  If I were directing a jury in a Crown Court at the conclusion of a trial involving allegations of sexual abuse I would in my summing up to them offer some guidance as to how they should approach the evidence of adults when recalling matters that happened to them as children. It is guidance based on many years experience in the courts of cases such as this and has the approval of the Court of Criminal Appeal.  I would explain to the jury that when looking at allegations of sexual abuse it is important to watch with care any ABE interviews. Here none were made. The father’s sister has never made a statement. When more than one account is given, sometimes by earlier disclosure it can be helpful to look for consistency and inconsistency but it is unwise and simplistic to assume that a true account is always consistently given and that an inconsistent account is always untrue. Witnesses rarely give an account in its entirety: sometimes a witness discloses abuse over a period of time and in an order of ascending seriousness. The jury would be told to examine very carefully where disclosure is not immediate, as it rarely is, at what triggers disclosure and any explanation that may be given for delay in disclosing. The fact that disclosure of abuse may be made sometimes many years later is not necessarily an indication that the disclosure is untrue. The process of grooming a child that often takes place is designed to obtain the compliance of the child in advance to what is going to happen and to make it less likely that the child will make a complaint. All these difficulties are compounded when the alleged abuse occurs within a family. Very often in that context a child being abused will have very ambivalent feelings towards the abuser, sometimes in part because of the grooming process, sometimes because the child may depend and rely on the abuser for emotional support and affection. The child may not like the abuse but there may be aspects of the abuser that causes the child to view them with some degree of affection. Sometimes the abuser may be an imposing and powerful adult in the family or household of whom the child is afraid.  The jury should be made aware of the difficulty faced by an alleged abuser in responding to a stale complaint and the impossibility of proving that something never happened. I take all these matters into account when considering the evidence I have heard.  

13. I heard evidence from CS, the father’s sister to whom I have already referred. I heard from Mrs JP, a friend of RB, the paternal grandmother. I heard from AP, the head teacher of the school attended by the 3 younger children, and from the current social worker DL. I heard briefly from SS, social worker. The father’s mother RB gave evidence although for reasons I shall elaborate for not very long. I heard from EW, a teacher at CC’s school. I then heard from the mother and the father. The Guardian gave very brief evidence on one discrete point. Time did not allow for oral submissions. I received as requested written submissions which I have read with care. I do not propose to rehearse in great detail all of the evidence that was given. I shall concentrate on an analysis of that evidence. 

14. The father did not impress me as a witness. Plainly there were already significant concerns as to his credibility by the time he came to give evidence given the admissions of both misconduct and lying which he had already made. He spoke rapidly at times. He was forthright in his righteousness. He expressed outrage when allegations were put to him. Above all else, as I have indicated elsewhere, he exhibited a complete lack of insight into the impact of his behaviour on his children. The mother was softly spoken and more measured. She was so far as I could tell trying to tell the truth. She did not strike me as naïve or downtrodden. I note that she very carefully planned her exit from the marriage. 

15. I propose to deal with 3 matters which do not of themselves require findings because the father admits them. They do however inform my assessment of the parties and in particular the father. 

The trip to the Chinese takeaway

16. The father was still living at the family home on 15th February 2014. The mother had been tidying up the garden. In the course of the afternoon she drank some lager. In the evening the father suggested buying a Chinese takeaway. He asked the mother to drive to fetch it. This was unusual. It would normally be something he would do. The mother told me, and I accept her evidence that the father was quite insistent that she should take FF with her. She did so. The father then phoned the police to report a suspected case of drink-driving. The police responded. The mother saw the blue lights of a police car flashing behind her as she pulled up at the takeaway. The mother was breathalysed. The reading was zero. None of this is really challenged by the father. 

17.  I asked the father about this when he gave evidence. He insisted that he acted as he did because he genuinely believed that the mother had been drinking. As Miss Bloomfield pointed out if the father is to be believed then he not only required the mother to drive when she should not have done but he deliberately exposed his daughter to significant risk at the hands of a driver who was likely to be over the limit. In addition FF was likely to be upset at seeing her mother with the police and would presumably have had to accompany her mother to the police station. All this would have been done in order to prove his case that the mother was drinking too much and to show her up in the eyes of the children. The alternative is that the father lies when he says he believed the mother was over the limit and he acted as he did out of malice. If that were the case he should have been prosecuted for wasting police time in making an call which he knew to be false. Neither explanation shows the father in anything other than a poor light. On balance I am prepared to accept the father’s account. So I find he was prepared to endanger his wife and child in order to advance his case to be primary carer of his children. The father seems to have been quite proud of his actions. When the mother returned home and told the father what had happened he admitted that he had phoned the police and proceeded to lecture the mother about her drinking. 

The Little Black Dog story

18. As I have already indicated a Court order had been made on 5th February 2014 prohibiting the father from discussing any aspect of the proceedings with the children. After he left the family home contact to the children became an issue within the proceedings. At the beginning of November the father was having supervised contact to the children but there was to be a hearing at Court to look at contact which the father hoped would move from the contact centre to his home. More importantly from the father’s position was his wish for CC to move from the home of Mr and Mrs C to live with him. 

19. So in breach of the Court order the father wrote a long letter to CC (page A52-53). He then persuaded the mother of one of CC’s friends MJ to pass this letter via her daughter to CC. The letter was received by CC at school but was left by her in the students’ toilet where it was found and was given to the school child protection officer. I wonder whether the burden that was being heaped on CC by her father became too much and she had a subconscious desire to be relieved of it by leaving the letter where it might be found. 

20. In the letter the father spelt out what CC should say to the Guardian. He asked her to write a story about a Little Black Dog and to bring it with her to contact on the following day when it could be read to her brother and sisters and then passed on to the Guardian The father gave CC the plot lines for her to include in her story. In the event he wrote the story himself which was passed by the same route to CC with instructions that she should take it along to contact on the following day. It may be of course that CC was able to let her father know that she had lost his letter and that is why he decided to write the story himself. 

21. The story was dutifully produced at contact and was read by the father who ignored the distress that its contents caused to DD who recognised the thinly disguised allegorical story as being about her own family.  Within the story written by the father the Mummy is described as being “colder and harder and meaner than ever”. 

22. The Guardian in her position statement to the Court once the father’s letters to CC had been discovered (A66) described the father’s behaviour as “emotional harm at its highest”. I agree. This episode reveals the father as a deeply manipulative man prepared to sacrifice his children’s happiness and emotional wellbeing in order to defeat their mother. In her written submissions the Guardian asserts that the father has been “merciless” in his use of the children in order to advance his case. I agree with that description. 

Manipulation of the Guardian

23. The father wasted no time in forwarding the Little Black Dog story to the Guardian. His primary purpose in writing it was to try to persuade the Guardian that CC should move from her carers to live with him. In his email to the Guardian (A68) he pays himself the compliment of describing the story as “brilliant”. The father’s intellectual arrogance has no limits. By attempting to dupe the Guardian in this way the father is seeking to corrupt the whole Court process.

Manipulation by the  father of his mother

24. Given that his mother is vulnerable and of advanced years I was somewhat surprised that the father called her to give evidence in order to bolster his case that he had not sexually abused his sister when young. The documentary evidence on its face, namely the various written statements which had been presented to his mother for her signature, suggested that his mother was aware of something happening with his sister many years ago. This combined with the reports by the sister to her GP would be sufficient to defeat any suggestion of recent fabrication. 

25. The mother was called up via the video link. It quickly became apparent that she had some sort of “script” with her. She claimed it was notes she had made a considerable time ago. She tried to replace it into her handbag. It was removed from her and copies were made available to this Court. The document was plainly of recent origin. The first part was an account of what would happen at Court and of the arrangements that would be made for her to get to Court. It resulted from a telephone call from the father to his mother the previous evening.  It was unwise for the father to have done this given that he has solicitors to marshal his witnesses. What was the revealed in the latter part of the “script” was the answer to the 4 specific questions that Miss Hodges, as Counsel for the father had been instructed by him to ask. 

26. This conduct of coaching the witness to give helpful evidence is to be the subject of a committal application for contempt of Court which I shall deal with later this morning. I therefore say no more about it at this stage other than to observe that RB was I am sorry to say  prepared to perjure herself (by lying about how long she had had the note)  in order to assist her son. Had she told the truth she would have had to confess to having written the note the evening before. Miss Hodges acted entirely properly as I would have expected in telling the Court of the 4 questions she had been instructed to ask, bearing in mind her professional duty not to mislead  the Court. The father did himself no favour by audibly disparaging his mother as she gave evidence, describing her as batty as a fruitcake, a comment presumably designed to distance himself from her evidence and make her less credible to the Court. 

L

27. As I have already set out the father had been married albeit briefly to a woman P by whom he has an adult daughter L. As might be expected the mother knew about this. Indeed she had met L on one occasion. Curiously the father withheld this information from RS, the Court appointed psychologist, from the Guardian and from the local authority social workers when required to give a brief history of his early life. For most people the birth of a child would be a significant event. Questions inevitably arise as to why the father has withheld this information from the professionals in this case, particularly given the allegation made against him by his sister – which is an allegation of familial sexual abuse. The father is intelligent enough I am sure to see the relevance of the inquiry. Pressed by Miss Symms, Counsel on behalf of the mother, the father lost his temper when asked why he had withheld details of his previous marriage and of his daughter. He claimed that he had wanted to keep that part of his previous life unsullied by this court process, as some part of his life that could be kept pure, or as he put it when shouting at Miss Symms “so that you don’t get your filthy hands on it”. The vehemence of this retort may perhaps be intended to distract from the very obvious point: the mother already knows about L. She had mentioned L to RS but had not sought to give L any prominence in these proceedings at all. Questions therefore remain unanswered as to why the father has withheld information about his daughter L. It may be that because he is a proud man who has a vision of himself as talented successful and charismatic in all that he does,  the father does not want to reveal a part of his history which shows a less than successful marriage and a fractured relationship with his eldest daughter. The father has indicated a willingness to provide contact details for his daughter if required by the Court to do so. I will so require. 

Threshold Findings

1.) The children have suffered emotional abuse as a result of the disputes between their parents. In particular: 
a) The mother has recorded conversations between the children and their father. The mother has then advised the children that she is aware of what the children have said. 
The mother accepts this and so I make this finding. In doing so I observe that by behaving as she did the mother must bear some responsibility for how the father thereafter responded. The father perceived the mother to be “not playing by Queensbury rules (A72)” which in his eyes gave some justification to his subsequent attempts to manipulate events to his advantage. Moreover the recording of the children made it difficult for the children to speak freely to the social worker and the Guardian during visits to the home. The mother admitted in the hearing when questioned by Mr Jacques for the local authority that she read some of the transcripts of the recordings to the children 

b) The parents have discussed the proceedings with the children. 

The mother denies this. The father now accepts that he has done so. In his threshold response, which was plainly false, the father asserted that he had not discussed the proceedings since March 2014. The Little Black Dog episode gives the lie to that assertion.  The contact notes evidence occasions when the father discussed the proceedings with the children (J 9,46,55,65 and 71). 
DL  told me , and I accept her evidence as to this that initially both father and mother were as bad as each other, perceiving themselves as being in a war, and involving their children in so far as it might afford a tactical advantage. The mother admits discussing with CC and DD the tape recordings of father In her report the psychologist RS  refers to the mother sharing and disclosing inappropriate details with the children about her perception of their father and the nature of their relationship, in an effort she alleges  “to give them a more balanced view” of who was at fault. It might be said that this falls short of a discussion about the proceedings. This would be to draw too fine a distinction. The reality is that the children would have found the parents attempts to discredit each other very confusing and distressing to hear and to witness. Every child is a product of both parents. For one parent to disparage the other to a child is to set in train internal conflicts; the child may share characteristics with a disparaged parent which if devalued and denigrated will cause a loss of self-esteem. Given the bitter dispute between the parents I am satisfied that both of them have discussed the proceedings as alleged. I make the finding sought.  

c) The father has encouraged the children to behave in such a way as to undermine the mother’s care of the children and thus promote his own case. 

The father conceded this in the course of his evidence. The Little Black Dog episode is a clear example. I did not sense however any great remorse. The father’s somewhat frequent tears when confronted with evidence to which he had no answer seemed to flow out of self-pity for the damage caused to his case and not because of the emotional harm and distress caused to his children. It was very noticeable that when questioned, whether by me or by others, about the impact of his behaviour upon his children, the father was quite incapable of any meaningful insight into how they would have been affected. By way of example,  when asked to consider and reflect upon the impact on FF of being present in the car when her mother was stopped by the police outside the Chinese takeaway the father plainly had never even thought about it. 

I am satisfied that the father communicated with CC on more occasions than those that have been proved against him. It would be somewhat surprising and unbelievably unlucky if he had been “found out” every time he contacted the children in breach of the Court order. The father is a computer and security expert. He would have been able to remotely access CC’s computer. As I have already indicated it is curious that he seems to have known that CC was not going to be able to write the Little Black Dog story as instructed in time for him to do so before the contact on the 5th November. CC somehow managed to tell him that she could not write the story. How was CC able to tell RS that her aunt’s allegations stemmed from her jealousy of her father? Who made her aware of them? The father admitted to RS that he encouraged DD to communicate with him and with CC via social media. It would also seem to be the case that CC would have been able to access emails at school. 

d) The children have been exposed to inappropriate material on the internet including 18 certificate horror films and sexualised content. 

The father accepts this. The mother does not. DD has disclosed that she has done so. She has “jiggled” whilst watching such material. 
In cross-examination of the father and in his written submissions Mr Jacques puts the case that the father may have sexually abused DD. It would not be appropriate for the Court to make such a finding, unless it was admitted, given the seriousness of it, without it being specifically pleaded as an element of the threshold from the outset.  The mother was plainly concerned at the father’s evidence that DD disclosed the abuse by the boy L to him in the circumstances he outlined before she disclosed anything to her mother. I share the mother’s concerns. 

e) The mother threatened CC with been placed in foster care

The mother admits that she did so. I make the finding. 
 
f) The mother accused CC of been emotionally damaging EE and DD. 

The mother admits this. I make the finding 

g) The father has read stories to CC which have contained rape themes 

The father denies this. He admits telling stories to the children. He told CB the social worker that he had a tremendous ability as a story teller. CC told a friend at school that her father had been reading bedtime stories about girls and women getting raped and that he was lying in her bed whilst doing so. The mother has not heard the father telling such stories. The evidence therefore is second-hand hearsay. The mother did attempt to record the father telling stories which he was very keen to delete from her phone when he became aware of being recorded. The father admits telling stories about the homeless and stories dealing with real life social issues and content. There is insufficient direct evidence to persuade me to make this finding however. I do not do so. 

h) The children have witnessed domestic disputes between their parents. 

This is admitted by both mother and father. I make the finding. 

2) The mother and the father have failed to protect the children from suffering emotional harm as a result of their actions.

This again is admitted by both mother and father. The children will have suffered high levels of emotional harm which could unfortunately have long term damaging effects upon them. 
It is submitted on behalf of the mother that she was young naïve and vulnerable and easy prey to someone as manipulative and controlling as the father. The reality is that she was 26 when she married, well-educated with some experience of the world. She chose to reconcile with the father despite his infidelity. She admitted that her family would have provided her with emotional and financial support had she chosen to leave the father at any stage.  
4) The parents have shared details of proceedings with family friends.

As warring parties both parents have sought to make allies within their friends and local community. AP confirmed that worried parents approached him because of their concerns about the father’s reaction if things did not go his way in Court. I accept the Guardians assessment in her written submissions that it is clear that there has been much ‘gossip’ which will undoubtedly impact upon the children given the family live in such a small community. 

5) The father has formed an inappropriate relationship with CC, which is controlling, manipulative and intense. In particular: 

c) The father has influenced CC to have an extreme and hostile view of the mother 

d) The father controls and manipulates CC’s behaviour
e) CC idolises her father to an inappropriate extent

There is ample evidence of all of these allegations. It was already conceded that the father has controlled and manipulated CC’s behaviour. It is very concerning that CC was prepared to support her father’s lies in presenting the Little Black Dog story as her own to the social worker. She was prepared to lie for her father just as RB was prepared to lie for her son. 

6) The father groomed and sexually abused his sister CS over a period of 3 years from when she was aged 11 until aged 14. This included full sexual intercourse. 

CS gave evidence by video-link. There was no written statement from her as she had refused to provide one. She came to Court because she was witness summonsed. She set out her feelings about that in am email to the Court in which she stated, “I was extremely upset and somewhat annoyed to receive the witness summons as I made it clear to Nottingham SS from the outset that I did not wish to become involved in the court proceedings due to the trauma that still exists and the coping strategies that I have tried to put in place to help me deal with the abuse that I suffered at the hands of [my brother].”
I found her evidence to be compelling. She struck me as a reluctant but truthful witness. If she had been motivated by ill will to give false evidence against her brother she would have willingly come to court because only by giving her evidence would she have been able to achieve her purpose of causing harm to her brother. As it was she had to be witness summonsed as she had indicated a strong desire not to give evidence as to do so would be too painful.
 Her evidence was not in the least detailed. This point was seized upon by Miss Hodges in her submissions. I do not find the lack of detail surprising. She described how she had “boxed” this away because it was too painful to deal with. It is the experience of Courts dealing with the evidence of victims of abuse that commonly attempts are made to “forget” an unpleasant event in order to protect from the damaging consequences of reliving the event by remembering it. Victims frequently talk of shutting memories away. Victims often recover their memory over a significant period of time remembering certain clear details but little else. I would have found the account far less convincing if it had been given in great detail. Those who seek to fabricate will add detail in order to establish credibility. Miss S was able to remember the attic bedroom where sexual intercourse took place but little else. 
There is very important corroboration of abuse. Miss S went to her GP in 1997. This was before CC was even born so cannot have been motivated by any concern about risk posed by her brother. She complained of being sexually abused. The father told RS that his sister had made the allegation up about 3 years ago because of the dispute over his mother’s power of attorney (E50). The report to the GP in 1997 gives the lie to that. 
There is also important corroboration from RB. She had written on the statement that her son drew up that she knew 40 years ago. There is also important corroboration from the evidence of the poor sibling relationship. JP gave important evidence which I accept that the brother and sister could not bear to be in the same room as each other. She was clear that she was told by RB in the 1980’s that something happened when her son and daughter were young. 
To ask what motivates a complaint of the person who alleges the complaint to be false can be seen as requiring that person to disprove something and thus to reverse the burden of proof. I am careful not to do that but the suggestion by the father that his sister went to the GP in 1997 in order to lay the foundations of a false allegation that she would later make is so convoluted as to be laughable. When he gave his evidence the father appeared to acknowledge the absurdity of the proposition.
There is evidence of grooming. Miss S talked of a tickling game. This is classic grooming behaviour. It enables physical touching which on its face is innocent to become normal so as to render later more intimate touching harder to complain about. The suggestion from Miss S that sexual contact between the siblings was spoken about on the basis that it would give them “practice” for boyfriends and girlfriends later in life had the ring of truth about it. 
I therefore find that there is strong and compelling evidence of grooming and sexual abuse over a three year period. I make the finding sought. 

7) Having known about the allegations that the father sexually abused his sister, the mother in or around February 2011, the mother failed to take measures to protect the children and failed to bring those allegations to the attention of the authorities until the 23rd of July 2014 

There is conflicting evidence as to when the mother first became aware of the sister’s allegation of sibling sexual abuse. The father is anxious to suggest 2011 as this supports his case that the allegation, which he claims is false was motivated by disagreement over the power of attorney. At H65 the father appears to have suggested to the social worker that he first heard of having committed a sexual offence against his sister when his wife first accused him of it. This is contrary to the rest of his evidence. The reference to 2011 comes in the father’s statement at A110 paragraph 13 where he refers to a conversation with his mother about the power of attorney. He stated in evidence that following this there was no discussion with his wife about it whereas in his statement he claims to have discussed the allegations on numerous occasions during subsequent days. These statements cannot be easily reconciled. I doubt the suggestion that the mother knew of the sisters allegations in 2011. At K222 the mother told Children’s Social Care in Nottingham that she had been informed that the father’s sister had sexually abused his sister when he was 16 and she was 14. What is perhaps curious is that the mother did not seek to make capital out of this allegation. It does not feature in her divorce petition. She made no mention of it when seeking injunctive relief. This would suggest that whenever the mother did know about the allegation she did not believe that as a result the father posed a sexual risk to his children. Miss Symms on behalf of the mother argues that it is unfair to make a finding against the mother of failure to protect when the local authority with full knowledge of the allegation since the end of November 2013 did not take any protective steps itself. I think there is some force in this assertion. Given that the date of February 2011 is wrong,  I do not make the finding sought.

28. I have attempted to make this judgement as comprehensive as I can. 1 would however ask please that the parties have regard to the guidance given in Re M (fact-finding burden of proof) [2008] EWCA Civ 1261 and draw my attention to any material omissions of which they are aware , any obvious factual errors that 1 have made, or any additional findings of fact that I would , to quote Arden LJ , “ be unsatisfactory to use an omission by a judge as grounds for an W Application for appeal if the matter has not been brought to the judge’s attention when there is a ready opportunity to do so”.   
                                                                             HH J LEA.  3.12.2014.