Case No. PR15C00407
IN THE FAMILY COURT

Tuesday, 28th April 2015

Before: 

HIS HONOUR JUDGE BOOTH

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In the matter of:

Re: E (CHILDREN – FACT FINDING)

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Transcribed from the Official Recording by
AVR Transcription Ltd
Turton Suite, Paragon Business Park, Chorley New Road, Horwich, Bolton BL6 6HG
Telephone: 01204 693645 - Fax 01204 693669

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Counsel for the Father: MR HART
Counsel for the Mother: MRS BEEVER
Counsel for John E: MR MOORE
Counsel for Saarah H: MRS NEWTON
Counsel for Carol M: MRS CLARKE
Counsel for the Local Authority: MISS WALL
Solicitor-Advocate for the children: MR BLACKBURN

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT

JUDGMENT
1.	THE JUDGE:  This is my judgment on the fact finding part of a final hearing in care proceedings that concern two children, A (born 24th September 2002) who is currently 13 years of age, and B (born 24th August 2010) who is currently five years of age. This judgment has been prepared for publication. In any further reporting of this judgment nothing must be published that could lead to the identification of the children.  
2.	The case was listed for a composite final hearing, and it was agreed that I would consider first of all the factual background, and determine whether the case advanced by the Local Authority was made out.  If it was, that I would, in the second phase of the case, move on to welfare considerations in respect of both children.  
Introduction
3.	This case has been touched by tragedy in more than one way.  I am dealing with an extended family.  The sad fact I have to record is that every female member of that extended family, with the exception of B, has, at some stage in their lifetime, been either sexually abused, or been the subject of inappropriate sexual behaviour, or been groomed for the purposes of sex.  
4.	Many of the most serious allegations have been made against Paul E.  He is A’s father, and for most of her life, B has been brought up believing he was her father.  
5.	The fact finding hearing began on 11th April 2016.  By Friday of the second week, I had heard submissions from the advocates as they closed their cases.  I had heard evidence from Paul E, and he had attended all of the hearings.  On Sunday, 24th April, Paul E took his own life.  He left a note maintaining his innocence, and I make it plain I had reached my conclusions on the factual matters in this case before his death.  I do not regard his suicide as a tacit admission of his guilt of the matters alleged against him.  
6.	In this hearing, Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council has been represented by Miss Wall.  Paul E has been represented by Mr Hart.  Mary E has been represented by Mrs Beever.  John E has been represented by Mr Moore.  Saarah H has been represented by Mrs Newton. Carol M has been represented by Mrs Clarke.  The children have been represented by their solicitor-advocate, Mr Blackburn, who, in‑keeping with his role, has assisted the court, whilst at the same time making it clear that he was not an advocate for either the Local Authority or the adult family members. 
Legitimacy by court order
7.	One matter I should raise right at the outset.  At the time these proceedings were commenced in 2015, A was living with Paul E, her father, and Mary E, his wife, pursuant to a court order made on 20th April 2012.  B, at that time, was residing with Paul E and Mary E, neither of whom was her parent, as a result of a court order made on 26th September 2011.  
8.	There have been previous proceedings in relation to A.  Section J in the bundle was generated by proceedings in 2011 running into 2012, which include a Section 37 Report from Lancashire County Council, together with an addendum to that report, and a report from a Cafcass Officer appointed to assist the court in those proceedings.  
9.	Documents relating to previous proceedings concerning B are in Section K in the bundle.  Those include a Section 7 Report from Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council from September 2011, provided to the court immediately before the residence order was made to which I have already referred.  There was a Cafcass report in addition, which was effectively a letter from the Early Intervention Team setting out what was known about the family.
10.	There have been Social Services and Police involvement with other members of the family in circumstances that I will set out in a little more detail in due course.  None of those investigations, whether by the Police, by Cafcass, or by Lancashire, or Blackburn with Darwen Social Services had, in reality, got to the truth of what was going on in the lives of the children who were being cared for by Mary E and Paul E.  The fact that there had been investigations and court orders made in favour of Mary E and Paul E gave them a false authority, false in the sense that it was based on a false premise, but authority in the sense that it gave them validation for the way they were bringing up the children, a validation made in ignorance of the truth.  It has only been with the benefit of a full investigation into this family that what I am satisfied is the truth has, at last, emerged.  
The law
11.	I adopt the statement of the law by Sir James Mumby, President of the Family Division, in Re Y (Children)(3) [2016] EWHC 503 (Fam), which he took in part from his own judgment in Re X (Children)(3) [2015] EWHC 3651 (Fam), where he adopted the words of Mr Justice Baker in Re L and M (Children) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam). I add to that list a judgment from Mr Justice Peter Jackson in Lancashire CC v The Children [2014] EWHC 3 (Fam).  The advocates were agreed that those authorities contained the law that I must apply.  The following points are particularly relevant to this case:
(1)	the burden of proof lies at all times with the Local Authority.  
(2)	 the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.  
(3)	the finding of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence, but not on suspicion or speculation.  
(4) 	when considering cases of suspected child abuse, the court must take into account all the evidence, and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence.  A court invariably surveys a wide canvass.  A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to the other evidence, and to exercise an overview of a totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the Local Authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof.  
(5)	the evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the upmost importance.  It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability.
(6)	it is common for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing.  The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress, and maybe out of fear that the truth will not speak loud enough.  The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything. 
(7)	the legal concept, proof on a balance of probabilities, must be applied with common sense.
(8)	the court should have regard to the inherent probabilities, but this does not affect the legal standard of proof.  That proposition was enunciated by Lord Hoffmann in Re B (Children)(Care proceedings standard of proof)(Cafcass intervening) 2008 UKHL 35, where at paragraph 15 he said this:
“There is only one rule of law, namely that the occurrence of the fact in issue must be proved to have been more probable than not.  Common sense, not law, requires that in deciding this question, regard should be had to whatever extent appropriate to inherent probabilities.  If a child alleges sexual abuse by a parent, it is common sense to start with the assumption that most parents do not abuse their children, but this assumption may be swiftly dispelled by other compelling evidence of the relationship between parent and child, or parent and other children.  It would be absurd to suggest that the tribunal must, in all cases, assume that the serious conduct is unlikely to have occurred.  In many cases, the other evidence will show that it is all too likely”.
(9)	the fact that the parents fail to prove on a balance of probabilities, an affirmative case that they have chosen to set up by way of defence does not, of itself, establish the Local Authority’s case.  
(10)	that parents may, in some respects, be good parents.  That does not necessarily mean that they are willing and able to protect their children in the way that might otherwise be expected.  
(11)	that where repeated accounts are given of events, the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of reported discrepancies. They may arise for many different reasons such as lies, faulty recollection or contamination from other sources. It may simply be the effect of the human reaction of unconsciously filling in the gaps.
(12)	finally, I remind myself that the case against each of the adults, against whom the Local Authority seeks findings, has to be considered separately, albeit in the light of all the evidence.
The family
12.	Next let me explain who make up the members of the E family.  Paul E, now deceased, was born 18th April 1958.  He married Mary E in 2005.  She was his fifth wife, and his marriages were interspersed with other long-term relationships.  He was previously in a relationship with Saarah H, who is A’s mother.  He is the father of Barry E, whose mother is Theresa E.  Paul E is the brother of John E, who in turn is B’s father.  Paul E has throughout denied all the allegations made against him. 
13.	Mary E was born on 1st September 1965, and so is 50 years of age.  She is the mother of Claire E, who is married to Barry E, the son of Paul E.  She was previously married to Michael M.  He had a daughter from a previous relationship, called Michelle.  Michelle has three children –Melissa, Paul, and Carol M.  She was unable to care for them, and their care was undertaken by Mary E with her then husband Michael M.  When they separated in 2002, she assumed the care of Melissa and Carol, and from time to time the care of Paul.  
14.	Mary E and Paul E obtained a residence order for B, who is the daughter of Carol M and John E, and brought her up as their own daughter, she believing that they were her parents.  
15.	John E is 60 years of age; he is the brother of Paul E and the father of B.  He has two other children who are not the subject of these proceedings.  B is the child of a liaison between Carol M and John E, which occurred when she was 16 and he was 54, and living in the same house as her under the roof of Mary E and Paul E.  
16.	Carol M is now 23 years of age, having been born 21st January 1993.  She has lived with Mary E since 1998, and with Mary E and Paul E since their marriage in 2005. 
17.	Saarah H is 38 years of age.  She is the mother of A, whose father was Paul E.  Saarah H has another child, D, who lives with her.  She has a third older child who has been adopted.  Her relationship with Paul E ended when A was approximately 18 months old.  
18.	All those I have named so far are parties to the proceedings.  I have heard all of them giving evidence.  I have also heard evidence from the following members of the family.

19.	Barry E is 37 years of age, and the son of Paul E and Theresa E.  He is married to Claire E, who is the daughter of Mary E.  The two did not live together when they were children, and met one another prior to Mary E and Paul E meeting.  Barry E alleges that he was sexually abused by his father Paul E when he was about 13 or 14 years old.  
20.	Melissa M/E is 20 years of age.  She lived with Mary E from 1998 and subsequently with Mary E and Paul E from 2005 until about February 2014 when she moved out of their home.  She received assistance from the Prince’s Trust, and during the course of their involvement with her she alleged that she had been sexually assaulted by Paul E between the ages of approximately 13 and 16.  
21.	Paul F is aged 21.  He is the brother of Melissa M/E and Carol M.  He lived for some of the time with Mary E and subsequently Mary E and Paul E.  He spent time living with his grandfather, Michael M. Once he got into his teens he was in trouble with the law, having a series of convictions for serious offences, as a result of which he is currently incarcerated.  He was approached by the Police about any knowledge he may have about allegations made by other members of the family. He said that he too was abused by Paul E when he was between eight and eleven years of age.  
22.	Claire E is aged 30.  She is the daughter of Mary E and Michael M.  Michael M is the former husband of Mary E, and the father of Carol, Melissa and Paul.
23.	James F is the stepfather of Barry E, being the partner of Theresa E, and Maria F is the sister of James F.  
24.	In addition to those witnesses from whom I heard oral evidence, either from the witness box or via video link, I have a wealth of written material.  Paul E, Melissa E, Barry E, and Paul E again were interviewed by the Police.  I have transcripts of those interviews, and I watched the DVD recordings of both Melissa’s and Barry’s Police interviews.  I have witness statements from all of those who gave evidence.
25.	I have statements from Local Authority witnesses, a witness from A’s school and a witness from the Prince’s Trust.  I have the papers from previous proceedings concerning A, and previous proceedings concerning B.  
26.	As will be apparent from the description I have given of the relationships between the individuals involved, this is a large family with different familial connections.  For reasons which I will deal with in due course, Mary E has, at all times, maintained a house full of children.  There has in recent times at the heart of this household been a significant lie.  B was led to believe by them that Mary E and Paul E were her parents.  Her mother lived with her as her sister.  The obviously difficulty created by a lie is that it encourages dishonesty from all affected by that lie.  What is clear to me is that when Cafcass, and when Lancashire and Blackburn with Darwen Social Services have been involved in assessing this family in the past, they also have been lied to, as I will elaborate below.  That has meant that the value of their assessments was completely undermined.  There have been a number of investigations into this family, none of which have got close to the truth of what was going on.  I will illustrate that general point by reference to the allegations the Local Authority seek to prove.  
The allegations, the evidence and my conclusions
27.	The first matter I need to deal with concerns Paul E.  The allegation is put this way by the Local Authority.  
“Paul E has sexually abused Barry E at a time when he was a minor at about aged 13 to 14.  Paul E performed oral sex upon Barry E, and required Barry to perform oral sex upon him.  On one occasion, Paul masturbated Barry to an erection, and then required Barry to penetrate him by anus”.
28.	At the time Barry was a young teenager his father was working as a lorry driver in Scotland.  It was Barry’s habit when he spent time with his father to go out with the lorry, and to meet the other drivers with whom his father worked.  Paul E was making regular deliveries to and from a quarry.  One of his fellow lorry drivers whom Paul allowed Barry to travel with in his cab befriended Barry, had him act as his golf caddy, and having secured Barry’s attendance at his home, sexually abused Barry.  That account was agreed by both Barry and Paul E.  Barry eventually told his father what was going on.  Paul E attempted to confront his son’s abuser, and the man promptly took his own life.  I have no doubt that the abuse and the death of his abuser will have had a profound and lasting effect on Barry.  
29.	Barry says that after his abuse he and his father moved to live in Lancashire and that whilst staying at Paul E’s mother’s home temporarily, his father abused him in the way described by the Local Authority, saying in effect that “if it was good enough for his fellow lorry driver, it was good enough for him (Paul E)”.  Paul E denies that any such incident ever took place.  He denies that he ever stayed at his mother’s home with or without Barry.  He denies that he had any reason to abuse Barry, and expressed his abhorrence at the thought that his own son should accuse him.  
30.	It is clear that as a result of his experiences, Barry was, and remains, a very troubled young man.  He is first said to have complained about his father’s behaviour towards him when he visited his mother in Barrow-in-Furness when he spent time in the care of his mother’s partner’s sister, Maria F.  She said that on an occasion when she was in her local pub with Barry, when both had been drinking, that Barry revealed to her that he had been abused by his father.  His mother’s partner, James F, gave an account of a different occasion when Barry had had a lot to drink and said he had been abused by his father.  Both of their accounts I accept as accurate, describing a drunken Barry saying he had been abused by his father.  In neither instance did he give any significant detail.  
31.	The next person who says that Barry accused his father of abuse is Claire E, his wife.  She describes an occasion when again Barry was drunk and upset, and gave her an account of what he said his father had done to him.  She went further.  She described occasions when both Barry and Paul E were drunk when Paul E had apologised to Barry and one in particular where there had been a discussion between the two men about the abuse.  Paul E denied any such thing occurring.  
32.	At midnight on 1st January 2011, a drunken Barry reported to the Police that he had been abused by his father.  There was a Police investigation.  Paul E denied what had happened, and Paul E’s mother supported her son saying that he and Barry had never stayed at her home.  The Police did not pursue the allegations.  Barry E said they were dismissive of both him and his wife.  
33.	It has been a common feature of Barry E’s allegations against his father that they have occurred when he has been drunk or under the influence of drink.  
34.	As a result of allegations made by Melissa E/M in 2015, Barry was interviewed by the Police.  He gave to the Police an account consistent with the account he gave in evidence.  He was challenged to a number of the factual details of his account.  In some respects he was effectively undermined as to those details.  
35.	Paul E, when he gave his evidence, was adamant that what Barry was saying was utterly false. 
36.	Have the Local Authority proved on a balance of probabilities that Barry was abused in the way he describes?  Barry admitted that there have been times in his adult life when he has been an alcoholic, and when he has abused Class A drugs.  I have no doubt that he has convinced himself that the accuracy and truth of what he described both to the Police and in evidence to the court.  If he did not believe it, there would be no value to him in subjecting himself to the trauma of a trial and giving evidence.  
37.	Given his history of alcohol and drug abuse, and given the way he was undermined as to detail, I have doubts about the accuracy of the detailed evidence that Barry gave of his abuse.  I cannot rely on his detailed account, and so the Local Authority has not proved that aspect of the allegation.  
38.	However, I am satisfied that given the early disclosures to family members, who I accept were giving me a truthful account of their conversations with the younger Barry, that he was indeed the subject of some form of sexual abuse at the hands of his father.  What that was will never be known, but I am satisfied that in his denial, Paul E was lying to me. My reasons for rejecting the evidence of Paul E appear throughout this judgment.
39.	The next allegation reads as follows:
“Paul E has sexually assaulted Melissa E while she was between the ages of 13 and 16.  This abuse included sexual touching of her breasts; digital penetration of Melissa’s vagina, and masturbating himself in her presence.  On one occasion, he forced her to touch his penis.  Paul asked Melissa to take photographs of her breasts and genital area on her phone”.
40.	This allegation rests entirely on the evidence of Melissa.  She was a troubled teenager.  What her allegations now raise is the spectre that her bad behaviour was a reflection of what was happening to her in her home.  She describes a gradual scaling up of abuse by Paul E, starting off by touching her on the outside of her clothing on her breasts, and making comments of a sexual nature to her.  She then describes that to progressing to touching under her clothing, and then of her genital area, leading onto digital penetration, and then with Paul E producing his penis to her and inviting her to touch, and going on to invite her to produce photographs of herself.  
41.	Melissa had the opportunity to tell Social Workers what was going on when there was an investigation in 2011, triggered by Barry E’s Police complaint.  At all times when spoken to, Melissa maintained that she was happy at home with Mary E and Paul E.  She did not complain at school.  She did, however, tell her mother.
42.	Having left Mary E and Paul E’s home, as an older teenager she returned when she found herself homeless.  Was that the actions of a vulnerable teenager with nowhere else to go retuning to the scene of abuse, or was it a teenager returning because there was no reason not to return?  When challenged by her mother Michelle as to how she could possibly be going back into a home where she said she had been abused, she said she had lied about being abused. 
43.	It has been said by Mary E that this was an allegation manufactured by Melissa at a family funeral.  There is no evidence at all to support that suggestion.  Why would Melissa make false allegations?  Why would she subject herself to a Police investigation and to these proceedings?  
44.	Her disclosure was made to a worker with the Prince’s Trust when Melissa was receiving help to sort out her life.  It is clear that she felt comfortable and able to say what had been happening to her.  Melissa in her Police interview, and when she gave evidence via video link, appeared very immature, and very young for her years. She was plainly acutely uncomfortable giving her story to the Police.  
45.	What do I make of her and what do I make of the evidence she gave?  I am satisfied when looking at her evidence in the context of all the other evidence that Melissa was telling me the truth.  I am satisfied that the allegation pursued by the Local Authority is proved with this alteration: I would remove the word ‘masturbating’ and replace it with ‘playing with’.  
46.	What emerged during the evidence, as it happens by a question by me to Paul E, was that as a result of an incident shortly after his marriage in 2005 when he received a head injury, and as a result of his subsequent medication and heavy drinking, he was unable to attain or maintain an erection.  He had been, up until that point, a man with an active sex life with a variety of partners. He described to me an enthusiastic sex life at the start of each of his relationships, and how that mellowed as the relationship developed.  
47.	Following the start of his relationship with Mary E, he said he had had an active sex life.  All of that came to an end when he was assaulted in a public house in September 2005.  The circumstances of that assault were never properly explained to me.  Paul E told me that he remembered nothing of it, save when he came round in the ambulance on the way to hospital.  Perhaps unwisely, he immediately discharged himself from hospital, although he was subsequently investigated with various scans to assess what, if any, damage had been done to his brain.  Mary E was a witness to the assault.  Despite this being one of the most memorable moments in her life where her new husband was assaulted by being kicked in the head in such a serious way that he required immediate hospitalisation, she purported to remember very little of the detail of what was going on.  I do not believe her.  The explanation for the assault, why he was assaulted, who he was assaulted by, are matters that this family have chosen to bury.  
48.	However, the fact that Paul E could neither attain nor maintain an erection is significant for what subsequently happened in his home.  He no longer had a sex life.  When he was drinking, as he did regularly and frequently, some of his sexual urges returned.  He was unable to satisfy those urges.  It is of significance that Melissa describes Paul E as having been drinking when he abused her.  I am quite satisfied as to the accuracy of what Melissa says, and I reject Paul E’s denials in their entirety.
49.	Mary E’s case as advanced both in her statements to the court, and previously to Barnardo’s in their work with her in a pre-proceedings assessment, was that she never left Paul E alone with the children for a moment.  That was, of course, nonsense.  She said that she had no trust of men in the presence of girls.  That, she said, was a reflection of her own childhood when she had been abused, both by her father and by her father’s friends.  Sadly, her own view of herself as a protective factor for children in her care was misplaced and wrong.  
50.	The next allegation the Local Authority seek to prove is as follows:
“Paul E sought to look at the underwear of children in his care by looking up their skirts, including Samantha, Melissa, and Carol”.
51.	Melissa gave evidence to this effect, as did Claire E.  Claire E’s account was that this was treated as a joke within the family.  
52.	Mary E’s evidence was that at all times she insisted the girls in her care wear shorts under their skirts.  That was denied by Melissa, but supported by Carol.  Carol denied that Paul E had looked up the girls’ skirts.  I find more credible the evidence of Melissa and Claire E.  That allegation is proved and is consistent with Paul E’s sexual interest in Melissa as evidenced by his abuse of her.  
53.	The next allegation reads as follows:
“Paul E sexually abused Paul F in that on more than one occasion he took his flaccid penis out from his trousers and manually manipulated it in his presence when he was about eight years of age.  Further, he would try to remove Paul F’s pyjamas whilst he was doing this”.
54.	I have heard evidence from Paul F via video link from the jail where he is currently resident.  He is a most unimpressive young man.  He has a string of serious criminal convictions involving dishonesty, drugs, and he is likely to spend much of the rest of his life in prison if he does not change his ways.  He made this allegation against Paul E when the Police went to see him about Melissa’s allegations.  
55.	I have to ask why Paul F might make up an allegation against Paul E.  Paul E denied that anything of the sort described by Paul F happened.  If the allegation were a made up allegation, it is, in the context of sexual abuse of children, a very mild allegation to make.  Given Paul F’s ability to behave dishonestly, it was well within his capability to create a story of much more serious sexual abuse, but he did not.  
56.	What was significant was that he described Paul E having been drinking when these incidents occur.  He described Paul E producing a flaccid penis.  There is no way that Paul F could have known, and nor was it suggested that he could have known, that Paul E was incapable of attaining or maintaining an erection.  When he gave his evidence, Paul F was emotional, and in describing what happened to him, he was entirely consistent with the earliest accounts he had given to the Police.  
57.	I believe Paul F, and I believe he was giving me a truthful account of what happened to him as a young boy; a boy like Melissa, his sister, neglected by his mother, entrusted to Mary E and, in due course, to Mary E and Paul E to be his parents.  That trust was abused by Paul E in respect of both Melissa and Paul F.  
58.	Before I leave Paul E’s evidence and the allegations against him I should add a detail from the evidence of Melissa. Melissa described that as the abuse committed by Paul E escalated, and she approached her 16th birthday, he said to her that “as she was not blood [i.e. not a blood relation] he could get into bed with her and do what he wanted”.  That reference to ‘blood’ had an echo in what Mary E said to Barnardo’s when they were carrying out an assessment where she referred to the significance of blood relatives in the context of sexual relations.  I am satisfied that that conversation described by Melissa occurred.  
59.	In evidence that I accept as accurate and reliable, Paul E was described by Saarah H at the time when they lived together as being something of a Jekyll and Hyde character.  Different family members have described his ability to be charming, and the easy facility he had for making relationships with women.  I witnessed some of that at court.  However, they also describe a different side to him, particularly when he had been drinking, and particularly when he was depressed following the assault.  It is noteworthy that the allegations of sexual abuse made against him by Barry, by Melissa, and by Paul F, all involved him having taken drink.  I am satisfied that he was a different man when under the influence of alcohol than he was when sober.  It is a tragedy that drink had such a hold over him, and that when drunk he blighted the lives of children in his care.  
60.	Paul E has repeatedly lied about his relationship with drink. For example in a statement he made in proceedings concerning A dated 7th December 2011 at paragraph 9 he said:
There is a suggestion that I have a drink problem. I deny that. I do not drink to excess. I usually only have a drink on a Friday socially at home.
61.	In fact the evidence I heard shows conclusively that throughout his adult life Paul E had drunk to excess and when under the influence of drink could be a very different man from the pleasant individual he could be when sober. The assessments of the situation in relation to A did not take into account the consequences of Paul E’s drinking.
62.	Inevitably the social work investigation into B’s circumstances that led to a Section 7 Report dated 22nd September 2011 made no mention of Paul E’s drinking. Mary E knew perfectly well that he drank heavily and was a different man when drunk but she did not disclose that to social services.
63.	Next, the Local Authority seeks a finding in relation to John E.  It is in these terms that:
“John E entered into an intimate relationship with Carol M when she was a young girl and he was in a position of trust.  This culminated in her becoming pregnant to him when she was 16 years of age and he was 52 years of age”.
64.	John E is Paul E’s older brother.  His marriage broke down and he separated from his wife. His children are now adults.  With nowhere else to go, he went to live with Paul E and Mary E, and the children who were with them.  At the time he moved in, Carol M would have been about 15.  It was difficult to establish a chronology with any detail.  Much of the evidence that I heard was related to house moves and incidents occurring in particular houses.  However, the likelihood is that John E moved into his brother’s home in or about 2007/2008.  At that time, Melissa had moved out, and A, Paul E’s daughter by Saarah H, was a part-time resident at the home.  Melissa will from time to time have returned. What is clear on the evidence is that Carol M, then in her mid‑teens, developed a relationship with John E, a man whose status in the household was that of an uncle.  
65.	Carol M was adamant in her evidence that responsibility for her relationship with John E and their entering into a sexual relationship resulting in a child was entirely of her own doing and her responsibility.  She said she developed a crush on John E, and it was pursuant to that crush that she encouraged him at her request to have sexual intercourse with him that led to the conception of B.  What was clear was that Carol spent a lot of time in the company of John E.  She would spend her evenings when not at school in his bedroom.  She would fall asleep on his bed, and stay there overnight.  John E’s evidence was to the effect that he was entirely oblivious to what was happening emotionally with Carol.  He had no idea that she had a crush on him. He had no idea that she had a sexual interest in him, and whilst he accepted he took the opportunity to have sex when it was presented to him, he was, he said, disgusted by his own behaviour.  
66.	It was his case that he had treated the girls in the family all the same when Melissa was there, with Carol and with A.  However, whilst he accepted that there were occasions when Carol fell asleep on his bed, and they spent the night together on the same bed, that this was something entirely innocent.  It suited them both, and the rest of the household, as he was taking Carol to work, once she had left school and obtained a job in a bakery, which required a 6 o'clock start.  
67.	The Local Authority case initially was that the relationship began when Carol was 13 or 14. During the course of the evidence that suggestion was not substantiated.  Michael M described an occasion which, in all probability, was Carol’s 16th birthday when he witnessed John E and Carol in close proximity behaving towards one another in a way that made him feel uncomfortable.  
68.	Claire E described a similar situation occurring when she was at the home of Mary E and Paul E where she thought she heard John E and Carol kissing.  
69.	Sadly, the court is increasingly familiar with girls who have been groomed for sex by older men.  It is a common feature of such instances that invariably the girl believes that what happened with the older man was something entirely of her own making and that she acted throughout of her own free will, precisely as Carol described it to me.  However, the reality is, and this case is no different, the process of grooming is an insidious one, where a young girl is made to feel special, she is made to feel valued, so much so that she falls for the older man.  I have no doubt that is what has happened here.  
70.	I reject entirely the evidence of John E and Carol M that B was conceived as the product of a one-night stand, an occasion when Carol threw herself at John E, and he succumbed to temptation.  This was a relationship that he had carefully cultivated over a period of time whereby they became comfortable in one another’s presence.  She began to feel special. She began to feel that it was her taking the lead.  I am satisfied that although inaccurately recalled by Michael M the relationship between John E and Carol M was well established before B was conceived.  
71.	If I had any doubts about the matter, those were allayed by information that A gave to her school. In 2014, long before DNA testing established the truth, she was able to describe the close relationship between John E and Carol M, and was able to say that she believed that John E was B’s father, in circumstances where John E, Carol M, Mary E and Paul E all told me there was no relationship between the two of them.  
72.	A has been described as a bright girl.  That was not the description of her when she was in Mary E’s care.  Since she has been in foster care, she has blossomed.  She is doing well at school, and she sets high standards for herself.  The evidence of what she said to her school is, of course, hearsay.  The person A gave information to was not required to give evidence.  I have no reason to doubt the accuracy of what A said.  Her evidence fits with the true picture of what was going on in this household and I accept the accuracy of the report of what she said.  
73.	What the evidence does not establish is when the relationship between John E and Carol became intimate.  They both know but have declined to tell me. That was plainly the position when B was conceived, and I am satisfied that sexual relations occurred on many occasions.  Therefore, subject to removal of the word ‘intimate’, I find the allegation proved.  
74.	Next the Local Authority seeks findings in relation to Mary E.  The first follows immediately from the finding I have made in respect of John E.  It reads as follows:
“Mary E has failed to protect the children for whom she was responsible, and left them at risk of sexual harm in that she has:
(i)	Knowing that John E had commenced an intimate relationship with Carol, she allowed him to continue to reside in their home, and to continue the relationship, and for her to become pregnant”.
75.	From the findings I have just made, I find that to be true, with the removal of the word ‘intimate’.  Mary E lied to me when she told me she was unaware of the relationship between John E and Carol M, a teenage girl whom she had brought up from being a young child.  
76.	Next:	(ii)	“Mary does not accept that Paul E poses a risk to the children and has chosen to maintain her relationship with him.”
77.	Mary E has maintained throughout that Paul E was of no risk to children. I have found the reverse.  It is significant that Mary E commenced a relationship and moved Paul E into her home when she had known him for, at the most, three weeks.  She admitted that at that stage, she knew nothing about his history.  She had not asked him.  She had children in her care. She gave no thought to the welfare of those children While he was in her home, he abused Melissa and Paul.  He did so under the influence of drink.  Not only did Mary maintain her relationship with him, but she acted as his apologist, and sought to provide him with an alibi by saying that at all times, she was present with the children. 
78.	Through her evidence to the court, in her statements, and in the work she was doing with Barnardo’s in the pre-proceedings assessment, Mary E has maintained that Paul E poses no risk.  The matter was summed up in the Barnardo’s report as follows:
“Mrs E was unable to develop her understanding, insight, knowledge, and response to the allegations made against Mr E.  She was unable to apply anything she may have learned to Mr E, or the current situation, and so unable to demonstrate that she had developed her own thinking or responses in relation to the potential for risk of sexual abuse that Mr E may pose”.
79.	At an earlier passage in the assessment Mary E’s position is recorded as follows:
“During the assessment, Mrs E appeared committed to the relationship [with Mr E].  She stated she had reduced her level of contact with Mr E to around an hour a day after children’s services expressed concerns about her possibly prioritising Mr E over her caring responsibilities towards the children.  She also expressed frustration with Mr E when he appeared to be unable to take part in his Barnardo’s assessment on account of his alcoholism.  Despite these tensions and the allegations hanging over them, Mrs E was often with Mr E when he was contacted; on a number of occasions before 9am on the days of his assessment sessions, and also taking him to the doctor’s, the hospital, looking after him at his home, and arranging his mental health assessment for him.  It appeared evident that Mrs E remained a committed carer for Mr E, and she described him, when asked, as her “...cosy blanket, something I have for myself...” and that she loved him to bits”.
(iii)Mary would allow Paul to look up the skirts of the children, Melissa and Carol, without taking any steps to stop such actions.  
80.	This was behaviour described by Claire E.  It was denied by Carol.  I am satisfied that Claire was giving me a truthful account. Mary E was there and cannot fail to have noticed what was going on. The allegation is proved. 
		(iv)Mary asked her daughter Claire to sleep with Paul E for the purposes of being a surrogate for her child.  
81.	That was the evidence of Claire E.  It was denied by Mary E.  
82.	I am satisfied that there is something in Mary E’s personality that requires her to have somebody to look after, somebody to be dependent upon her.  For many years she has met that need in herself by looking after children, both her own children, and anybody else’s children who she was able to absorb into her family.  Early in her relationship with Paul E, she became pregnant.  Sadly, and not long after his assault and head injury, she lost the baby she was carrying to a miscarriage.  That loss resulted in an incident of violence on the 30th December 2005 when Paul E was drunk, and led to a conviction when he received a conditional discharge in 2006 for common assault on Samantha M (a young woman living in the household) and Mary E.  
83.	When asked about that incident of violence, Mary E told me that she was badly affected by the loss of her prospective child.  She said that Paul E was similarly affected, and she excused his misbehaviour, blaming it on the loss of the baby.  When that loss is combined with her need to have somebody to look after, what might otherwise sound an unlikely claim by Claire E that her mother wanted her to be a surrogate, makes ready sense.  I am satisfied that Claire was telling the truth about this.  Of course, Claire’s description of her mother’s request goes further, to the effect that her mother wanted the child conceiving naturally, and so she asked Claire to sleep with Paul E.  I accept that Claire was giving me a truthful account.  She had absolutely no reason to make that up.  However, that clearly demonstrates Mary E’s attitude towards Paul E and sexual matters.  Mary E saw nothing wrong with Paul E having sex with her daughter Claire.  It may well be that that would have proved impossible given Paul E’s inability to achieve an erection. 
84.	This is an example, one of many, where the boundaries in this household were lacking. It demonstrates a lack of insight on the part of Mary E in to the implications that might flow from a sexual relationship between her husband Paul E and her adult daughter Claire, albeit for the purpose of producing a baby for Mary E to look after.  The fact of Paul E’s head injury and his dependency on Mary E in part satisfied her need to have somebody to care for, somebody dependent upon her.  In my judgment her need caused her to suspend what might otherwise have been common sense restrictions on Paul E, giving him the freedom and the space to abuse the children in his and Mary E’s care.  
(v)Mary E has another child, Claire E.  Claire was sexually abused aged 15 in the family home by a friend of the family.  When Mary was notified of the abuse, she refused to accept the allegation made by Claire, causing Claire to leave and live with her auntie.  Mary and Michael M subsequently allowed the same men to attend on a family holiday in a caravan with their children.  
85.	This is an allegation that relies entirely on the evidence of Claire E.  It was denied in its totality by Mary E, who denied that the man in question had ever lived at their home, and denied that he had been on holiday with them.  Michael M, when asked about this, had no memory.  He accepted that he had been drinking heavily for a number of years, and that that had affected his memory.  As I have previously indicated, I regard Claire E as a witness of truth.  I accept what she says, and I reject Mary E’s denial.  This is a further example of Mary E being apparently blind to the activities of men in her household.  
86.	The next allegation: 
(h)  Mary E has purported to blame other men for the abuse, including identifying to A that the perpetrator of the abuse of Melissa was, in fact, John E, who she was, at that time, allowing to remain living in her home with A and B.  
87.	Again, this is a matter denied by Mary E.  The evidence in relation to it is in the information A gave to her school when they were providing her in October 2014 with an opportunity to speak about matters that were going on at home.  For reasons I have already identified, A is a bright child, an observant child, and, in my judgment, a more reliable historian than Mary E.  I accept the accuracy of what A has told her school, and the recordings made of what she said.  
88.	The next allegation:
(i): Mary E has prioritised her relationship with Paul E over the wellbeing of the girls in that she has chosen to spend long periods of time with him, leaving the girls in the care of Carol and John.  
89.	This was a concern that Social Services had that formed part of the assessment by Barnardo’s.  As I have already indicated, Barnardo’s concluded that Mary E prioritised her relationship with Paul E over everything else, both her care of the girls then in her care, and over the process of assessment. On the evidence before me that was an accurate conclusion.
90.	Next:
(j) Mary E has caused A significant emotional harm by:
(i)	Pressuring her to believe that the allegations are false and should not be believed;
(ii)	Pressurising her to make a choice of carer between herself and her mother, Saarah H, and seeking to prevent contact between A and her mother.
91.	Again this is an allegation denied by Mary E.  The first part is based on A’s conversation with staff at her school, and for reasons I have already given, I accept the reliability of that evidence.  In October 2014 A told her school that she was scared of Mary and was frightened to disagree with her as Mary would shout in her face or would not speak to her for days.
92.	The choice that A was presented with between Mary E and her mother, Saarah H, was described in detail not only by A to her school, but by Saarah H. She described an occasion when she was invited to Mary E’s home to speak to A and A told her that she did not want to see her.  The background was explained by A to the school with Mary E putting her under pressure to choose who she wanted to live with.  When she said she wanted to live with her mother Saarah H she told her school that she was sent to her room without food.  Mary E denied that any of this had happened, saying that she had never disciplined A by depriving her of a meal.  The descriptions of A at the time the Local Authority intervened were of a quiet, shy, unhappy child.  The Final Care Plan for A records the following;
School note that since moving to foster care A has changed from being a sad timid girl to someone who presents as a happy young person. She is now seen in school as smiling, enjoying school and laughing with her friends and peers. All her teachers have noted that she presents as more confident and “free to be herself”.
93.	Once she was removed from Mary E’s home she has blossomed.  I am satisfied that Mary E’s treatment of A was cruel.  Compared to the other children whom I have seen give evidence and who have been brought up by Mary E, A is a girl with a much higher intellect who represented a different sort of challenge to Mary E than perhaps she had dealt with before.  It is also of note that A was only ever part‑time at the home of Mary E and Paul E as she also spent time living with her mother.  That resulted in A having a different sort of relationship with Mary E, and perhaps a more challenging one.  
Summary
94.	In summary, I accept as accurate and reliable the evidence of Paul F, Melissa E, Claire E, Saarah H, and A E as reported through her school.  Whilst I accept that some sort of sexual assault was perpetrated on Barry E by his father, I cannot rely on the detail as given by Barry.  I reject as unreliable the evidence of Paul E, Mary E, John E, and Carol M. The relationship between John and Carol was not one of equals, and the process by which Carol came to accept responsibility herself was one of grooming of her by John.  My assessment of Mary E is that her life experiences have resulted in her having a need to have people dependent upon her, such as children, or Paul E post head injury.  To Barnardo’s, she described Paul E as a “...cosy blanket, something I had for myself”.  
(End of judgment)