FD24P00534 - [2025] EWHC 717 (Fam)

The children’s evidence to third parties

R was visited at school on 30^th September 2024, in the presence of the school safeguarding lead, the CAIT leader, a police officer and the social worker. I have a record of what R said but not of the questions she was asked. The report states that R answered ‘no’ when she was asked if her father did anything that made her feel uncomfortable or unhappy. When she was asked what her father did if she did something wrong, she responded with an account of how her parents had helped her when someone kicked her at a bus stop. When asked if there were nice things about her father she said he took them on outings and smiled, albeit she did not give details. She said that she liked everything with her mother but that she had worried about her when she went away.

R was also asked about who bathed her, and she said her grandmother and her father. She said she did not know if there was anything that she liked or did not like. The questioners tried to explore whether there was any difference when her father bathed her as opposed to her grandmother but R did not respond to that. The observations of the professionals were that R did not appear to show any fear when her father was discussed, and that she appeared comfortable.

S was visited at home on the same day in the evening. R was also there and S did not want to be without her. When she was asked if she liked her father she smiled and nodded. She said she liked going on outings with him, and when asked if there was anything she felt sad about relating to her father she said that she was sad when mum went away.

During the course of the investigation the safeguarding lead at the school said that there were concerns of neglect by the mother at the start of the year as R came to school with clothes and shoes that were too small and sometimes did not bring in lunch. She sometimes had no sweater and once said she did not want to go home. Sometimes the mother did not respond when the school tried to contact her. The home was said to be a mess (although I am not clear how the safeguarding lead at school could have known this unless she visited). The father was said to be a simple person but caring.

There was another visit to the family at a Jewish community centre on 22^nd October. The mother was a little late with the children (it was a special festival day) and when they arrived the children appeared not to be listening to their mother and it took quite some time to engage them. On this occasion there were discussions with the children about privacy and their bodies. When being asked about bathing the children said nothing of concern. The children were asked if there was anything they did not like when they lived with their grandparents and S said that she did not like her grandmother and ‘mummy does not like [the grandmother] she did not let us go to Israel’. R said ‘I do not like my [father] because my mummy does not like him. [father] did not let us go to Israel, mummy’s mummy was in Israel she lives there, I was born in Israel’. R also said that her mother had gone away for three months.

I will not set out all of the conversation that took place apart from this, save to say that through numerous questions the children were given an opportunity to set out any concerns they had about their father and did not do so. They did not present as afraid when talking about their father, private parts of their bodies, or being bathed. They both smiled a lot and presented as being relaxed and happily drawing when they settled down.

Following the visits, the investigation was concluded and the allegations found to be unsubstantiated. The parents were informed and told there was no reason why the father’s contact with the children could not be reinstated.

A new s47 inquiry was commenced when the mother went to the police station on 29^th October, very shortly after being told of the outcome of the first inquiry. She made similar allegations to those she had made before, but added to them. She said that the father hit the children on multiple occasions. She said that the father had had the children in his bed on multiple occasions when he had been partially naked. She said that the children had touched the father’s penis with their legs.

The children were then spoken to by the police at home on 31^st October. On this occasion R said that she had been hit by her father a number of times, all over her body. T made no allegations, and responded by saying ‘good’ with a smile when asked about her father.

On 9^th December 2024, the social worker visited both children at school. The head teacher and the rabbi (who is someone who was known to the father and family) were present. The social worker had a book with her called ‘My body is special’ and she asked a number of direct questions of each child (who she saw separately) as to whether the father had ever hurt their private parts when she was having a bath, and she said no. R also said no when asked if her father ever asked her to touch his private parts.

On 9^th January 2025, R was video interviewed. During the course of this she said that her father screamed at her and her sisters, and also her mother. She was not able to give a specific example of what had caused him to do this on any particular day. She said after a number of questions that he had smacked her, describing this as being all over her body, and that he had pinched her when she put on her tights. She said that her father had hit her sisters too, as well as her mother, stating that she knew this because ‘mum has told me’. She said that she felt sad when her father hit her but the last time she had seen him she was ‘so happy’ because he had not done that. She said several times that she wished to remain with her mother.

Looking overall at what the children said to third parties about their father and his behaviour, it was very little. On the first two occasions they were spoken to by professionals they did not make any allegations about his behaviour, whether of a sexual or physical nature, and did not appear to show any distress or fear of him. Their responses did suggest that their mother had said things to them about their father, for example as to him hitting her, and also that their paternal grandmother had not let them go to Israel. Even when the children were asked direct questions about their father they said nothing untoward.

It was only on the third visit on 30^th October 2024 that R made allegations of being hit by her father which she then repeated in the ABE interview in January 2025. She also said that the father screamed at them when he got home from work, and that he had hit them on their body. By this time, R had been with her mother for some time, and had only had supervised contact with the father for several weeks. She did not demonstrate any distress when speaking of her father, although it was plain from that and earlier interviews that the children had been caused distress when their mother went away in mid 2024, and that R wished to stay living with her.

The children have not said anything or behaved in a way that would corroborate the allegations of sexual abuse, or sexual behaviour on the part of the father. On 17^th January 2025, T handed a note to the officer in the case with a drawing and a note, which read ‘my dady wipde’, but the police considered it likely that the mother had worked with the child to get her to make this particular allegation, and they considered the case to be closed.