Case No. NE20C00617

53.I cannot know what discussions E and S have had with each other about the sexual abuse allegations now made against their father. Their interactions with each other have not been explored by any of the professionals in this case. I cannot know to what extent they have influenced each other. I intend to examine E’s allegations first because hers were the first in time (at least as reported by the mother). However, I shall take into account all the evidence as it relates to both children before reaching any conclusions. 54.The nature of the relationship between the mother and father, and the dynamics within the family are an important context in which to consider the allegations of sexual abuse. The parents have admitted a history of neglect of the children, poor hygiene, poor presentation of the children including at school, and that they would argue in front of the children. Those arguments, I am sure, frequently involved swearing and verbal abuse of each other. In their single level home the children were woken by the arguments. They were worried for their parents. I have no doubt that the arguments sometimes escalated into violence. On 20 September 2019 there are clinical records of bruising around the mother’s face and body. I do not accept the father’s account that these were all self-inflicted or accidental. He spoke to the police in September 2019 of having been able to “control” things during the relationship - I am sure that he would sometimes use physical force to exert control. I accept the mother’s case that the father would sometimes hit her. The children have consistently and with feeling spoken of their parents fighting each other. I also accept that the mother kept quiet about the physical abuse of her by the father whilst they were together. I accept the father’s account that the mother would sometimes physically attack him, but he would be able to hold her and he has not complained of suffering any injuries at her hands. E, it was accepted by the parents, would sometimes be sick in front of them whilst they argued. Neither parent seemed to be disturbed that their young daughter was so distressed by their conduct as to be sick. Not only was the parents’ relationship volatile in this way, but it had a detrimental impact on the children who had to witness and suffer the mutual verbal abuse which would sometimes become violent.55.Another important aspect of the family dynamics during the parents’ relationship, was that, as they both now admit, they lied to authority figures about what was happening within the family, and they encouraged the children also to lie to social workers. The purpose of being dishonest to social workers was to cover up deficiencies in their parenting. There was a culture of dishonesty in dealings with authority figures, as well as neglect and conflict, within this family during the young lives of the children.56.The first suggestion of any sexual abuse by the father, came from the mother. She has referred to a “gut feeling” that he had sexually abused the children. This “gut feeling” appears to have struck her on 19 September 2019. The basis for her feeling, which quickly became a firm belief, was extremely thin. E had told her that the father had put things in her mouth when she was naughty. It had made her sick. She did not like being with him on her own. All of those matters were explicable: she told professionals that what he put in her mouth were swear words. As noted, E would sometimes be sick when her parents argued (typically using swear words). E told professionals that she wanted to go out with her mother, not to be left with her father. She complained later that he did not play with her. There was no rational basis for the mother’s “gut feeling” that the father had sexually abused E by putting his penis in her mouth or otherwise. The grounds for believing that S had been sexually abused by the father were weaker still: the mother was distrustful that S was so clingy to his father.57.The mother’s “gut feeling” quickly developed into an unshakable conviction. I do not have any expert psychological evidence about the mother’s thinking at this time, but I note that she was under considerable stress. Her relationship with the father, always volatile, was particularly strained. Public law proceedings had only very recently concluded with a Supervision Order. As the father put it to police, they had “social on their backs”. In the weeks prior to 19 September 2019, the mother was becoming more distressed and erratic in her behaviour and her allegations. This was clearly noticed by her own mother as demonstrated by her messaging to the father in August 2019. 58.The mother’s 999 calls for an ambulance, and her changing allegations against the father, including that she had been drugged by him, show her state of distress and confusion. The body worn camera footage shows her to be in a distressed mental state. Her heart rate was racing. She was mumbling and difficult to understand. There is no evidence at all that the mother or the father were drug users. There is no evidence at all that the father had drugged her drink or food that night but she apparently believed that he had done so. The mother’s vital signs were normal by the time she arrived at hospital and she required no treatment for having been drugged by the father. I am sure that she was not drugged by the father. Her belief that she had been drugged was not a hallucination but it was an example of distorted thinking in a highly aroused and distressed state.59.The distress of the children that night, as captured on the body worn camera footage, is hard to watch. They had been used to being woken by their parents’ arguments which were sometimes violent. This was disturbing to these two children but it did not then turn them against their parents, rather they became very loyal to and protective of them. At that time S was particularly close to his father. When he told the police that he wanted them to “give ’em one more chance… this won’t happen again”, it is not clear to me whether he was referring specifically to his father or to both parents, but I am sure that he is talking about the argument or “fight” between his parents. He did not want the police to take his father away. He wanted the family to stay together. Similarly, E is seen to be understandably worried about her mother in the ambulance. It is as if the children are having to take responsibility for their parents’ behaviour. 60.I do not doubt that at this stage, in September 2019 the mother, in her distressed state, believed that the father had sexually abused the children but the evolution from the mother’s irrational and distorted beliefs in September 2019, to her ten year old son making allegations of anal sexual abuse in a police interview two years later, is even more troubling. 61.The mother’s irrational conviction was that the father had committed oral sexual abuse of the children. She has interpreted everything that has happened since then as confirming her conviction. Hence she has interpreted E’s rough line drawing of 14 October as a crude picture of testicles and a penis. When E mentioned again at that time that something had been put into her mouth, the mother concluded that the circle shape attached to the “penis” was E’s mouth. Had she listened to her daughter rather than her own irrational thoughts, she would have understood that E was pointing to the longer shape as being her (E), with a tail, and the circle as being what the father put in her mouth. E explained this quite clearly to the social worker Ms HS the following day: the circle had been a speech bubble for the swear words. She even wrote down the swear words for Ms HS. The “fish” shape was her. What the mother had interpreted as a crude drawing of testicles, was a fish tail – it does indeed look like a fish tail, or the tail of a whale or dolphin. I do not accept the mother’s evidence at court that E told her that the picture was of her father putting his tail in her mouth. The mother did not report that to Ms HS and E did not interpret the picture that way to Ms HS. This is something the mother has said after the event as a self-justification for her own, distorted interpretation of what E had drawn.62.The mother admitted to the court that she had felt frustrated that her conviction was not shared by Ms HS. In her frustration, the mother recorded a conversation with E and sent it to the police. The court does not know what the mother had said to E before the recording started. However, the recorded conversation proceeds as though the mother knows exactly what E will say if she continues to ask her questions directed to the subject. She then encourages E to speak more loudly so that she can be heard (and recorded). When she asks E why she has not told her this before, E says that she has. The mother’s question was a disingenuous and unsuccessful attempt to make it appear that E’s recorded allegations were spontaneous. E’s reply suggests that they had talked about the allegation at some time prior to the recording. Therefore the recording is not reliable evidence of a genuine, spontaneous revelation by E, but rather of the mother having spoken to E about sexual abuse by the father and then asking her to say something about it on a recording. The following year, in conversations with professionals, E mentions having the recording on an i-pad. The recording was clearly something that continued to be talked about between her and her mother. On the day that the mother sent this recording to the police, officers and a social worker visited E at school. She gave the same account of her father putting swear words in her mouth that she had given to Ms HS four days earlier. E has been consistent and clear, but her mother would not accept what her daughter was saying.63.I am sure that the mother spoke to E about what she thought had really happened and then asked E to repeat that for the benefit of the recording and, she hoped, when talking to social workers. I am equally sure that the mother has talked to E on many other occasions about what she believes really happened, so that E has adopted the story as part of her history. She “knows” that the father put his penis in her mouth because this is what she has been taught had happened by the person she trusts the most – her mother. The mother has not at any point said that she witnessed any sexual abuse by the father. She relies, and invites the court to rely, entirely on what E has told her, and later told professionals. The difficulty with relying on E’s own allegations is:i)The genesis of them, as set out above, is tainted by the mother’s irrational convictions and her interactions with E.ii)E has later, and variously, told professionals that the father put his “tail” in her mouth when she was asleep but that she knows that is what he did because:a)Her mother told her what he had done;b)The father was present in her bedroom when she woke up;c)The police saw him do it and told her and her mother what he had done.The first explanation is denied by the mother but if true would mean that the source of the allegation was indeed the mother not E. The second would be no basis for believing that the father had put his penis in E’s mouth – for her to believe that on the basis simply that he was in her room, would imply that someone else has put the idea in her head. The third is untrue and is either a product of her imagination or misinformation from another person.iii)On 30 July 2020, when E became distressed during the DART group session, I note that she became upset when discussing the relevant OK/not OK card with her mother. The card would have triggered thoughts about the alleged sexual abuse in the mother. E herself seemed reluctant to talk about it, telling Ms SP and her mother to “just stop talking about this”. I am satisfied that the mother had been talking to E about the alleged sexual abuse by her father and that is why E became upset. iv)E’s repeated allegations that her father put his “tail in her mouth” and in S’s mouth, on 7 August and 22 October 2020, were made without emotion or distress, and in a very matter of fact manner (as recorded and described by the relevant social workers). The sense is that she had learned this story by rote. As has been observed during the evidence and submissions, the story has been consistent but it has had no context or detail. The added information that the father also put his penis in S’s mouth does not appear to come from E having witnessed that happening. S has never made that allegation and no-one else has said they have witnessed it. E must have been told that it happened, or she has imagined that this is what happened, or she has understood that this is what she is expected to say to professionals.v)On 29 December 2020, the manner in which E makes the repeated allegations, and her interaction with the social workers, is of a different character. The allegations do not significantly differ but her level of distress is much higher than previously. It seemed to Ms R as if E was desperate to tell her of the allegation and was very concerned about her mother’s reaction. I note that there was due to be a hearing in the private law proceedings in January 2021 and that the mother remained very anxious about the father’s contact with the children. I have little doubt that the mother was once again determined that the allegations of sexual abuse should be on record and that she had pressured E into telling her story. That is why E was distressed on this occasion. She worried that she would get into trouble with her mother if she did not say the “right things” to the social workers.vi)There is no corroboration of E’s allegations. S has never said that he witnessed the father putting his penis in E’s mouth. He has never said that E has told him that happened. They shared a bedroom at all relevant times and it is striking that he does not corroborate her allegations, particularly since she has said that her father abused her in the bedroom when she was asleep.vii)There is no medical or other physical evidence to support E’s allegations.viii)E has not described any circumstantial details – she has just stated that the father put his “tail” in his mouth. She has not given any telling details about what happened that would give the allegations authenticity.ix)E happily chooses to have regular weekly contact with her father and has been consistently observed to be comfortable and affectionate in his presence.x)There has been no ABE interview with E. There has been no psychological or other expert assessment of her. Her evidence has come through her mother and then, later, through what she has told social workers and police officers when visited.xi)There are no reports of E showing disturbed or sexualised behaviour or using sexualised language in or out of school. 64.Turning to S’s allegations, the first matter to note is that he did not report sexual abuse to professionals himself until 25 May 2021, which was 20 months after the last time when he and his father had shared a home together. I take into account that S is reportedly reticent to share his feelings and that anyone who has been affected by such disturbing experiences may well take time to reveal them to others. Nevertheless, during those 20 months S knew that E was making allegations of sexual abuse because it was talked about in front of him by adults, even if E did not say anything to him herself (which she may have done). During those 20 months he changed from being fiercely loyal and protective of his father, to not wanting to see him, and believing that his father hated him. There is no evidence that the father did anything in those 20 months to justify that change in S. In my judgement, either S’s dramatic change in allegiance arose because deep feelings of fear, resentment or repulsion developed as he reflected on his past sexual abuse by the father, or because he was subjected to other influences, namely from his mother, to cause his new antagonism.65.The determination of whether, on the balance of probabilities, S has been sexually abused by the father (there being no allegation and no suggestion that he has suffered sexual abuse by any other person) has been a matter of very anxious consideration. Having weighed all the evidence I am not satisfied that on the balance of probabilities S has been sexually abused by the father. My reasons are as follows:i)The route by which allegations of sexual abuse of S were first reported was via the mother. She told social workers on 1 November 2019 that “S had said similar to E in relation to her disclosure about her dad having sexually abused her.” As the mother accepted in cross-examination, S did not in fact disclose sexual abuse either by oral sex or otherwise at that time. The mother assumed that his nodding whilst she was speaking was a confirmation that he too had suffered his father putting his penis in his mouth. I have already drawn conclusions about the reliability of the mother’s interpretations of what her children were saying or indicating to her at that time. Her interpretation of what S was indicating to her by nodding is not reliable evidence that he wished to communicate that his father had put his penis in his mouth. S has never said that this happened to him. When seen by the social worker on 4 November 2019 S did not make any such allegation.ii)The first occasion on which S made allegations of sexual abuse against his father to a professional was on 25 May 2021, to Ms R. As it happens the question of being touched inappropriately was raised by Ms R not by S, although she reports that S quickly assented and pointed to his groin. On that occasion S did not say anything about his father’s penis being inserted in his mouth or his bottom, only that the father had touched S’s penis over his clothing. He said that this had happened “multiple times”. His motivation for speaking out on that occasion appears to have been a message interchange with his paternal aunt in which she had indicated, as she accepted in evidence had been her intention, that she was aware of allegations by E about the father’s sexual abuse, and she did not believe them. I have already noted S’s proud loyalty to his family. By May 2021 that was entirely focused on E and his mother, due to the separation from his father and due to matters that I shall address in more detail below. The evidence strongly suggests to me that the mother had spoken to S about the paternal aunt’s message and had portrayed it as being that S, E and the mother were not being believed. S may well have been motivated by his sense of loyalty to make the allegations which previously he had not made.iii)I have seen the mother give evidence. I have taken into consideration all the evidence about the parenting of the mother and father, including everything the children have said. Over a prolonged period the parents argued, swore at each other and sometimes fought each other physically in front of, or within earshot of the children. They appear to have given little thought to the impact of the behaviour on the children. The evidence is quite clear that the mother knows no boundaries when it comes to sharing with her young children matters that should be kept to adults, including the disputes between her and the father, detailed aspects of the court proceedings, other adults’ views of her and the children, and her own beliefs about what the father had done to the children. E has reported beliefs about the father stealing money from the mother, and accusations and counter accusations about each parent having affairs, that would be beyond her understanding or knowledge had an adult not talked to her about them. I conclude that the mother is the only adult who would have talked to E about those matters, and that she is the adult who has influenced E to recount those beliefs to social workers. I have no doubt at all that the mother has also told both the children that their father has sexually abused them. No-one listening to the evidence in this case could reasonably have concluded that the mother has kept her beliefs to herself and has not shared them with the children. She has convinced herself that they have been sexually abused by the father. She brooks no disagreement about that conviction – in court she flatly refused to contemplate that there was any doubt about the matter. She is extremely anxious about them seeing their father unsupervised. She becomes agitated thinking about what she believes he has done to the children. She has lived closely with them in difficult circumstances since September 2019. I am sure that during that period she has spoken to S repeatedly about what E has alleged, about what she “knows” happened to him in his bedroom, and about his father’s culpability.iv)S was once very loyal to his father. He now refuses to see him. There is no evidence that his father has had any contact with S during which he has given S cause to distrust or dislike him. S had witnessed his mother and father rowing and fighting but that had not turned him against his father, as the evidence on 19 to 20 September 2019 shows. I am quite satisfied that it is the mother’s conduct and discussions with S that have turned him against the father. He is aware of his mother’s anxieties and he now wants to protect her. As Ms R told the court S and E are very confused children. S now seeks to protect his mother. Rejection of his father is one means of protecting her against her manifest anxieties. Endorsing her fears and beliefs also demonstrates his desire to support and protect her. This provides the context within which he has made the allegations against his father.v)On 25 May 2021 S used the expression “multiple times” when alleging that his father had touched his “tail”. All agree that this is an expression that S would not naturally have used. It suggests that he used that expression because he had heard someone else use it. Its use adds to the concern that he was prompted to make these allegations and had discussed them with an adult before he made them to Ms R.vi)When S was anxious about a forthcoming visit by the police he spoke to his teacher on 28 May 2021. His concerns are illuminating. He was worried about what questions might be asked - he did not know “how it works or whether it is supposed to hurt.” He appeared to be concerned to be able to give the “right” answers, not necessarily to say only what he could remember.vii)When S first made an allegation of anal sexual abuse, on 26 August 2021, nearly two years after the family had been separated, it struck the social worker, Ms L, that he was waiting for her arrival in order to tell her, and that the mother was also anxious that S should tell his story to her. I conclude that prior to the visit, the mother and S had talked about what he was going to say to Ms L. The manner in which S looked to his mother and nodded as he made his allegations seemed to Ms L to be “strange”. Again, this evidence raises concerns that S’s allegations were prepared or stage-managed. I have to bear in mind that there would be some anxiety in the family had he spontaneously made the allegation to his mother who then knew that he would be speaking about it to the social worker. But, given the history of the case, the greater concern is that the mother had been involved in discussions with S which led to the revelations he made on this day. When S first alleged anal sexual abuse he did so without any “run up” to the assertion: he blurted it out. He has repeatedly said that his father “put his tail up my bum.” He has hardly varied that expression at all. S has been quite matter of fact when talking about the abuse. He has been distressed when anticipating talking about it, but rather flat when actually describing what occurred. Perhaps this is a defence mechanism, but it might also be that he was anxious about saying the “right things” and his lack of emotion when talking about the abuse itself is because he does not have any emotions or feelings connected with real events. I accept that he is a generally reticent child and that his demeanour and use of language could be interpreted in different ways but the way he has talked about the abuse calls into question whether he has been recalling genuine incidents or repeating what he has been told had happened.viii)Very unfortunately the handling of S’s allegations in May 2021 and then in August 2021 has not assisted as it might in assessing their credibility. There were delays between the initial allegations and their being explored and recorded at an ABE interview. The first initial contact with police was not recorded by the police. The officer making the second initial contact did not know about the first contact. I have commented also on the questioning technique during part of the formal ABE interview. What might otherwise be regarded as telling details, which demonstrate that his story is of real events not a learned account, such as the wetness of the bed, are somewhat undermined by the questioning that led to their being given. ix)There is no corroboration of the evidence that the father touched S’s penis over his clothing or inserted his penis into his bottom. E shared a room with S where this abuse is said to have occurred and she has said nothing about it. The mother would have been present in the house at night times when S said some of this abuse occurred, but she has not witnessed anything. Indeed she gives no evidence of S or his father behaving oddly, of S being unaccountably upset or disturbed, of wet sheets or clothing, stains, or any other potentially circumstantial or corroborative evidence.x)There is no corroborative medical evidence.xi)S has no recollection of it hurting him when his father inserted his penis in his bottom. It is right to record that he has not been asked any specific questions about penile penetration of his anus, but his use of the phrase “put his tail up my bum” suggests penetration by an adult penis when he was aged six to seven through to age ten. He could not say whether that hurt and did not describe any other feeling other than that he was worried. When asked to describe a specific incident he was unable to do so freely. Again, I take into account S’s natural reticence, and the difficulty for any child being asked to describe such an event, but he has not provided any spontaneous detail about the allegations of the kind that would give the allegations authenticity.xii)As with E, there is no evidence of S exhibiting disturbed or sexualised behaviour or using sexualised language. There is no expert or other evidence that his behaviour is suggestive of a history of sexual abuse.66.Having reviewed all the evidence in the case I find that on the balance of probabilities the father did not sexually abuse either E or S as alleged.67.E appears to be a lively and engaging but suggestible young girl. I am quite satisfied that her mother’s own conviction that E was sexually abused by the father - a conviction built on irrational assumptions - has influenced E to tell professionals what her mother has told her she believes the father did to her. Whenever evidence to the contrary has come to the mother’s attention – such as E saying that what the father put in her mouth were swear words – the mother has explained it away so as to maintain her rigid belief in the father’s abuse. The evidence shows that E has come to believe that her father put his penis in her mouth when she was asleep. There is no corroboration at all for E’s allegations and they cannot be relied upon. They clearly come from what she has been told by the mother, not from her own experiences. 68.S is a quiet boy who is very loyal to his mother, just as he was previously loyal to his father. It is not an easy decision to find that this ten year old boy’s allegations of sexual abuse, including those made to police in an ABE interview, are not credible - there are no obvious signs during the interview that S is lying - but the genesis and evolution of the allegations in this case, the involvement and conduct of his mother, the inconsistencies, the lack of any corroboration, the circumstances in which S first voiced the allegations, the absence of reliable detail about the abuse, and the other matters set out above, mean that I am unable to rely on what he told the police as statements of truth. Indeed, I am sure that S has relayed to the police, and to social workers, what he has been persuaded by his mother to believe had been done to him. 69.Although I have found that the evidence does not prove that the father sexually abused the children as alleged, it does not follow necessarily that the mother both concocted the allegations of sexual abuse and coached the children to make those allegations when she knew they were not true. In this respect I need to consider both the allegations made by E, and those made by S.70.As may already be clear from the earlier parts of this judgment, I conclude that the evidence establishes that in or about September 2019 the mother became irrationally but genuinely convinced that the father had sexually abused the children. Nothing that has happened since has dissuaded her. Whether due to low intelligence, stubbornness, hostility towards the father, anxiety and stress, or fear of losing her children, she has held fast to her conviction even in the face of evidence to the contrary. Moreover, the evidence shows that she is very likely to have shared her beliefs with the children. She has clearly talked to them about what the father has done to them based on her own strongly held beliefs. When professionals did not accept that the children had been sexually abused, she has become frustrated and has tried to enlist the children to convince the professionals otherwise. Sometimes, such as with the recorded conversation with E on 18 October 2019, those attempts have been brazen and unconvincing. Social workers at the time voiced concerns that the accusations came from the mother rather than from the children. At other times her influence has not been immediately obvious to the professionals dealing with the family, but I am sure that it has nevertheless been powerful. For example, I am sure that she had discussed the paternal aunt’s messaging with S and persuaded him that he, E and the mother were being challenged and that it was important that he spoke out.71.I have no doubt that E’s allegations of sexual abuse are entirely the product of the mother having talked to E about her own beliefs about what the father had done to her. However, I am also sure that, however irrational her beliefs, the mother did sincerely believe that the father had sexually abused E. The mother genuinely believed that he had put his penis in E’s mouth. The mother then discussed her belief with E and persuaded E to report to social workers what she, the mother, was convinced had occurred. I do not doubt that E has accepted what her mother has told her and so has repeated it to social workers in good faith. 72.The picture is less clear in relation to S because there is no evidence of the mother having reported any concerns about anal sexual abuse and the touching of S’s genitals over his clothing, prior to S himself making such allegations. Any conversations between the mother and S about what had happened to him, including her own interpretation of past incidents, are unreported and unrecorded. The mother certainly believed in September 2019 that the father had sexually abused S, but she has never been recorded as alleging that there was any anal sexual abuse. The genesis of S’s allegations, which I have found are untrue, is therefore unclear. Nevertheless, having considered all the evidence in the case, I am satisfied that on the balance of probabilities, S’s allegations of sexual abuse by his father do not reflect what actually happened to him, but are instead the product of his mother’s distorted beliefs and her influence on him. The mother clearly influenced E wrongly to believe that she had been sexually abused and I am satisfied that, by a similar process, S has been induced to believe wrongly that he also has been sexually abused.73.Having carefully viewed the ABE interview and taken into account all the other evidence in the case, I am sure that S has come to believe that his father touched his groin over his clothing and put his penis up his bottom when he was in bed. I do not believe that S experienced this abuse but he has come to believe that it happened. S has no memory of such abuse and was telling the police what he believes happened. Hence, he stuck to a fixed form of words when talking about the abuse. He did not give any free answers beyond the basic assertion that he was touched and that his father “put his tail up my bum”. His answers about surrounding details were unconvincing. If he was not sexually abused but believes that he was sexually abused, then the question arises how he has come to believe he was sexually abused in the manner he has alleged. It is possible that the mother dishonestly fabricated allegations of sexual abuse in relation to S and then deliberately persuaded S to believe them. His allegations about anal sexual abuse have arisen long after the mother’s initial accusations of oral sexual abuse. The mother has had the opportunity to plant the belief of the alleged abuse in S’s mind. However, I have concluded that there is insufficient evidence that the mother has dishonestly concocted the allegations of abuse perpetrated against S and then persuaded him to report those allegations when she knew them to be untrue. On the balance of probabilities I find that the mother has herself interpreted things S has said and her own unreliable memories of past events, in such a way that she has formed the belief that the father has committed this sexual abuse against S. She has then discussed her beliefs with S and has induced him to believe that the abuse occurred. The absence of evidence of the abuse has not dissuaded her from holding on to the belief that he was abused. Nor has it dissuaded her from discussing it with S, inducing him to believe it happened, and encouraging him to report it.74.The evidence does not allow the court to know precisely how the mother has induced S to believe that his father touched him in a sexualised manner and put his penis up his bottom, but I am sure that she has done so. Having rejected the allegation that the abuse actually occurred, I can identify no other means by which S could have come to hold these beliefs. Furthermore, the mother’s conduct and evidence are entirely consistent with her having induced these beliefs in S as I have found she did with E. It is certainly possible that he has mentioned some things to his mother about relations with his father that were in reality quite innocent, and she has interpreted them in a distorted manner and then convinced S that what happened was abusive – that a father cuddling his child in bed was “putting his tail up your bum” for example. However, the detail of discussions between the mother and S are not known.75.On the balance of probabilities the mother has not dishonestly concocted allegations of sexual abuse out of thin air and persuaded the children to repeat them to social workers and the police knowing them to be dishonest. I accept that although her beliefs that the children were abused are irrational and without evidential basis, they are nevertheless sincerely held. Rather than maliciously fabricating accounts of sexual abuse, the mother has, by her conduct and dealings with the children, induced them to adopt her own distorted beliefs that the father sexually abused them. That does not absolve her of responsibility: she has manipulated the children to adopt her beliefs when those beliefs were without any rational basis and without care for the impact on the children of sharing with them her suspicions and convictions. She has encouraged them to report the allegations even when the children, particularly S, was uncomfortable in doing so. Although her manipulation of the children has not been dishonest it has been damaging to them. Firstly, they have each come to believe that their father has sexually abused them. This has already damaged S’s relationship with his father. It is likely to have long-term consequences for E’s relationship with her father also. Secondly, the children wrongly believe they are victims of sexual abuse, with all the consequences of that for their mental wellbeing and development. Remedying the damage already done to the children will be a complex and long-term challenge. It may be harsh to criticise a person of very low intelligence for holding fast to irrational beliefs, but the fact is that her determination to share them with the children was not in their best interests, and the mother could and should have avoided this damage by taking the clear advice given to her at an early stage not to discuss her “gut feelings” with the children. The mother has not acted in a way that has protected the children. Instead, by openly expressing her anxieties and speculations to the children and by cajoling them to take her side in disputes with the father, she has called on their loyalty, trust, and protective impulses to induce them to believe their father has sexually abused them. She struck me as child-like herself when she was giving evidence. She is unable to put events into perspective or to process information about the father and the children rationally but instead speculates, exaggerates, and gives significance to things said or done which goes far beyond reason. She lacks the sophistication to devise and implement a strategy to manipulate the children - it is something she has done because she has been unable to control herself or to draw boundaries to protect them.76.In summary, I find on the balance of probabilities that:i)E has not been sexually abused by the father.ii)S has not been sexually abused by the father.iii)The mother has not dishonestly concocted allegations of sexual abuse by the father or coached the children to make allegations of sexual abuse which she knows to be untrue. The mother has come to believe, wrongly and without any rational basis, that the father has sexually abused each child, she has induced the children to adopt the same distorted beliefs, and she has encouraged them to report those beliefs to social workers and the police.iv)The father was occasionally physically abusive towards the mother when they lived together, in the context of a volatile, mutually verbally abusive relationship, in which the mother would also attack but not harm him. The father has caused some bruising to the mother on occasions of physical abuse. The evidence does not allow the court to make findings of any specific incidents of physical abuse.