[2025] EWHC 1713 (Fam)

The social worker spoke to M who reported she felt worried that something like this would happen, because B and F kissed on the mouth which she did not like and felt was inappropriate. M also said that B had been putting things in her bottom and said this was something “papa” did. The social worker then spoke to F who was shocked and denied any inappropriate play or behaviour with B. He raised concerns about the timing of the allegations and referral as being just before the final hearing.

Ms. Veitch’s email then said City X’s children’s social care intended to complete agency checks with B’s nursery and health visitor but at present considered it unlikely they would take any further action, given that B had not repeated her allegations to professionals.

Ms. Guha confirmed that M was not seeking an adjournment as children’s social care were not taking any further action.

Ms. Guha said however that Ms. Veitch’s email did not capture the full factual matrix and hence M had prepared a statement which had been served on F’s representatives. I was asked to admit the same on the basis F should have the opportunity to respond. Mr. Gupta objected on the basis that Ms. Veitch’s email gave me an objective record of allegations (which is all they were) and how social services had investigated the same. However he confirmed it was not being said that F would be prejudiced by the admission of the statement and there would be sufficient time during the hearing for him to prepare a statement in response. On this basis I admitted the same.

I have read both parties’ statements. M’s statement gives further details of what B is said to have said to her (and hence her to the GP) and F’s statement gives further details of his denial.

On the basis that (i) these are allegations (and no more); (ii) they are denied by F; and (iii) so far as I remain aware social services have decided to take no further action, I do not take the allegations into account in reaching my decision. It was not suggested on M’s behalf I should do otherwise.

F’s position statement said M had confirmed she sought the attendance of the immigration expert and had also suggested the Cafcass Officer be on standby in case she was required by the court. It was said that F did not require the attendance of any of the professionals, but if the court required it, there should be limited oral evidence from the parties in relation to the defence of settlement. It was said M agreed evidence be given on this issue but she also sought for the parties to give evidence in relation to protective measures. It was said this would be highly unusual and it was difficult to see why that would be necessary, but if the parties were giving oral evidence in any event, no doubt some focussed questions could be asked on this subject.

On M’s behalf it was said that in addition to the immigration expert, oral evidence had been sought on F’s behalf as to whether B was informed she would be returning to Portugal as this was relevant to settlement. Given her age, it was said it was difficult to see how this would take the case anywhere, but if F’s counsel wished to ask, M was content to answer. It was also said I may wish to hear some limited oral evidence as to the adequacy of the package of protective measures offered by F.