Case No. ZC20C00674

43.The Scott Schedule, with my findings in relation to each allegation, is at Appendix One to this judgment. Given my evaluation of the evidence in this case I make the following findings in relation to those allegations:i)GH raped KB in or around late February or very early March 2020. He did so when they were alone in the family home. There is no evidence that he raped her on any previous or subsequent occasion. I dismiss any suggestion that AB was complicit in encouraging or facilitating the rape, or that she knew it had happened. For the avoidance of doubt, neither CD nor EF knew about the rape or did anything to allow it to happen.ii)AB having caring responsibilities for KB, a disabled and dependent woman, misused the Direct Payments made by the Local Authority for caring provision by causing direct payments intended for the employment of paid carers for KB, to be diverted to the financial benefit of herself and her husband, GH, in breach of the terms and conditions of the payments, to assist in the care of KB, evidencing a lack of transparency and dishonesty. By misusing direct payments in this way, AB prevented KB from having more paid care and assistance which would have been of benefit to her. AB thereby placed her own financial needs above the care needs of her daughter.iii)AB did not follow guidelines from the Local Authority to seek police checks or work checks when employing a carer. However, GH was not truly employed as a carer for KB but was named as a paid carer in order to divert direct payments to the benefit of AB and GH. It is not proven that had police or other checks being performed by AB that GH would not have had unfettered access to and availability/opportunity to abuse KB, because GH was a member of the family and would have had such access in that capacity. Therefore there is no link between the dishonest misuse of the direct payments and the rape or any failure to protect KB from being raped by GH. I do not consider that AB was negligent or at fault for leaving KB alone with GH on the occasion of the rape, as I have found she did. I criticise her for failing to admit that she left them alone, but not for leaving them alone. There was nothing in GH’s history or his previous dealings with KB to give rise to a foreseeable risk that he would act as he did.iv)The making of the LPA was a result of erroneous professional advice and was not an abuse of their positions of trust by AB, CD and/or EF. However, separately from the making of the LPA, AB, but not CD or EF, caused KB’s name to be used in relation to an application for a bank account in an African country, using KB’s name as the Secretary of the Church despite her known lack of capacity. By doing so AB acted dishonestly. It is not proved that the application was relied upon by the bank and that a bank account was opened as a result of the dishonest use of KB’s name and purported signature.v)It is not proved that AB and/or CD knew KB was pregnant prior to positive pregnancy tests on 30 July 2020. AB ought to have sought medical attention for KB for missed periods and weight gain by the end of June 2020 but it is not proved that AB knew or ought to have known that KB was pregnant before 30 July 2020. CD was not involved in KB’s personal care between February and August 2020 and did not know and had no grounds to know that KB was or might be pregnant before 30 July 2020.vi)It is not proved that AB and/or CD and/or EF and/or GH sought the pregnancy to go to full term for reasons of financial gain or other motive not in the interests of KB. In closing submissions the Local Authority accepted that there is limited evidence to make out this allegation against EF or GH. In my judgment it ought to have made a similar concession in relation to CD. As for AB, firstly I have found that she did not know of the pregnancy before 30 July 2020 (neither did CD or EF). Secondly, although the family delayed from 30 July 2020 to 3 August 2020 in informing the GP or the positive pregnancy test, I am satisfied that they did so when in shock and mindful of an appointment having been made. In any event, only AB had been party to the advice to contact the GP if the test was positive. The delay of four days did not materially affect the decision to continue the pregnancy. I am not satisfied that the evidence proves that AB or CD took any steps to prevent or delay medical professionals knowing about the pregnancy once they knew about it nor that they avoided, prevented or delayed discussions about termination. Indeed in my judgment, the greater responsibility for the failure expeditiously to consider termination lies with the healthcare professionals. Further, no financial or other motive for concealing the pregnancy or continuing it has been satisfactorily established.vii)It is not proved that AB and/or CD colluded to ensure the pregnancy would not be noted by medics until a stage in all likelihood too late to terminate and/or expressed a wish for the pregnancy to go full term in the full knowledge that Mother could not care for a child; and considered names for the baby, including the subsequent chosen name, prior to full disclosure of the pregnancy to professionals. As already noted, the Local Authority does not rely on the evidence of the finding of a list of names on AB’s computer. Furthermore, the same considerations as I have set out in the previous sub-paragraph apply to the allegation under consideration here.viii)In relation to the eighth, summary allegation, I find that AB has dishonestly misused the system of direct payments which were intended exclusively for the benefit of KB but which AB misused to divert monies to herself and GH for their financial benefit. However, such dishonest misuse did not afford GH access to KB, which he used to rape her, which he would not otherwise have had as AB’s husband. GH’s rape of KB was opportunistic. It occurred when they were alone in AB’s home. There is no evidence that he has raped her on any other occasion. AB, CD and EF are not responsible for GH having raped KB by intentionally or negligently permitting him or allowing him the opportunity to do so. They had no grounds to believe that leaving KB alone with GH would expose her to the risk of being sexually assaulted by him. AB ought to have sought medical attention for KB by late June 2020 and had she done so the pregnancy is likely to have been detected about one month earlier than was in fact the case. However, AB did not know and it is not proved that she ought to have known that KB was showing signs of pregnancy. What might have been obvious signs of pregnancy in a sexually active woman, were not obvious signs of pregnancy in a woman whom it was reasonably assumed had never had sexual intercourse. KB and LB were put at risk of pre-birth complications and the risk of harm during delivery, and LB is at risk of future significant emotional harm when he learns of the circumstances of his conception. However, those risks were not the foreseeable consequences of any deliberate or negligent acts or omissions by AB, CD or EF.44.Although not alleged I have heard sufficient evidence to persuade me that on the balance of probabilities after the pregnancy was identified, AB knew or ought to have known that GH was a possible perpetrator and that by evasion and lack of positive co-operation she failed to share relevant information with the police that could have led to the earlier identification of GH as the prime suspect. AB did not tell the police what her true relationship with GH was, that GH spent time with KB and, as I have found, that she would sometimes leave him alone with KB. I am sure that she hid these facts because she was afraid that the truth would be shameful to her and the family and might expose her dishonest financial dealings. Although AB, CD and EF have chosen not to be forthcoming, it is difficult to be sure what AB told CD and EF about leaving KB alone with GH, but on balance I accept their evidence that she inaccurately told them that she had not left GH and KB alone. 45.The parties will need time to reflect on these findings. I shall invite the parties to agree directions for consideration of the welfare decisions that now have to be made in respect of the future arrangements for LB. To date the family has not made detailed proposals for those arrangements. I hope that they will have learned through the finding of fact process that broad generalisations will not be sufficient. Evasiveness will not help their cause. If, for example, CD continues to put herself forward as a permanent carer for LB then she will need to engage fully with the Local Authority to work out what the detailed arrangements would be. By offering herself as a Special Guardian for LB she would be taking on a very significant commitment which requires very careful prior consideration.46.It is nearly 18 months since LB was born and so, although proper consideration is required in relation to welfare decision, time is of the essence in concluding the next part of these proceedings.