Case No. ZC20C00674

i)GH alleges that when he lived with AB from 2013 to 2017, KB was also living there rather than at the flat, and that a room was rented to tenants. He says that CD and EF then lived in the flat. He alleges that a room at the flat was also rented to tenants. He says that after he moved out of the family home in 2017, he would visit the family home and stay over most weekends, which was still the arrangement in early 2020. He denies having been KB’s carer, or being paid to care for her, but says that he would help with cleaning, shopping, and ironing.ii)JK told me that she knew GH to be AB’s partner but she saw him only rarely at the house. Her evidence was that she would arrive at AB’s house, sometimes waking KB up (indicating that KB had slept there overnight). She would help KB to get ready, to have breakfast, and then to go to the Day Centre. JK was not a master of details and appeared to me to be sometimes confused about what period she was being asked about (2020 or earlier), what days of the week she worked, and where she attended on KB. I accept that she did sometimes provide care for KB in the mornings at the family home but also that she attended on KB at the flat.iii)The evidence clearly establishes that JK did provide care for KB. She helped her with some personal care, dressing, food preparation and feeding etc. On the other hand, GH’s role was as one of the family who would help out with some shopping or cleaning when he was at the family home, which from 2017 was mostly at weekends only, but he did not provide care services to KB. iv)Prior to about March 2020, KB did live at the flat and spent most nights there with CD but, when CD was engaged in her studies or on placements away from home, KB would stay at the family home. I am sure that she spent a lot of her time at the family home even prior to March 2020. From March 2020, when the Day Centre closed and then lockdown began due to the Covid-19 pandemic, KB then lived full time at the family home with AB. v)I have found that AB was dishonest in her misuse of Direct Payments purportedly used to pay GH as a carer. The dishonesty by AB was not in using GH as a carer without disclosing his relationship to her or his immigration status, it was in using the funds meant to be used to provide for paid carers for KB, for other purposes. In pretending that he was a paid carer AB also had to hide the truth of their relationship. In reality GH did not provide care services for KB beyond what might be expected of a member of her family willing to generally help out when he was around. vi)As such, but for the dishonest financial arrangements, GH would still have had access to KB, as he had done for several years when living in the family home. It is not that the failure to follow guidelines from the Local Authority that carers should have police or work checks exposed KB to the risk of harm from GH, it was that GH’s membership of the family exposed KB to the risk of harm. I shall return later to the issue of whether that risk was or ought to have been known to AB, CD or EF. vii)Had formal checks been carried out on GH he would not have been permitted to work as KB’s carer because of his immigration status, not because of any past convictions for sexual assault or other potentially relevant offences. However, whilst he would have been prevented from being a paid carer (which in reality he was not) it would not have prevented him entering the family home and being in close proximity with KB as a member of the family.viii)On my findings in relation to financial arrangements, it follows that AB knew that GH was using a false identity, that he was working when he should not be working because of his immigration status, and that he, along with AB, was misusing the Direct Payments intended to pay for carers for KB. AB had good reasons therefore to believe that GH was capable of dishonesty. ix)In the course of these proceedings, during the course of assessment as a potential Special Guardian, AB has alleged that GH was abusive of her in their relationship. She reported that he was physically abusive towards her and manipulative during conversations and arguments. This led to GH moving out of the family home but she had kept the reasons for this to herself until these proceedings. This has come as a distressing surprise to her children CD and EF. GH denies her allegations. However, if they are true, then they gave AB a further reason not only to distrust GH, but also to believe that he was capable of physical violence. x)In the past GH had taken KB to a movement class but AB had received reports that he was uncaring of her when attending and so AB stopped arrangements whereby GH would take KB to places. This gave AB reason to be concerned about GH’s care of KB.xi)Notwithstanding these causes for concern about GH, the evidence in this case does not disclose anything about GH’s past conduct or general behaviour that would have led AB or anyone else to suspect that he might be capable of sexually abusing or raping KB. Before the rape happened, there was no foreseeable risk that he would commit such a crime against KB or anyone else.xii)AB told the court that she would never leave KB alone with GH. However, she had no grounds to fear leaving them alone whilst she was in another part of the house, or for leaving them alone in the house for a few minutes to run an errand or to do some work for the Church. GH had lived in the family home for several years until 2017. He had maintained regular and substantial contact with AB and the family, including with KB. There is no evidence that he had every touched her inappropriately before the rape.xiii)AB is clearly very committed to her daughter. Although I have found that she has been dishonest in relation to financial matters and thereby has deprived KB of additional professional care, she has never intended to do, or viewed herself as doing anything detrimental to KB. I am sure that the way AB saw things, she was extracting what was due to her from the Direct Payments. She was dishonest but she did not believe it was harmful to KB. She was KB’s carer for a lot of the time and had been throughout her childhood. KB appears to have been well cared for in terms of her physical health and wellbeing, her relationships within the family, and her emotional wellbeing. Had AB had any belief that GH might sexually abuse or rape KB there is no doubt that she would have taken steps to prevent him having any access to her. AB did not have any such belief. She did not doubt that GH would treat KB as a member of his family and as a professed Christian of faith.40.