Kent County Council v M

Judgment contents .

Judgment.

Judgment Date: 2nd March 2026.

Introduction .

The court is concerned with the welfare of C who is currently aged 3 years and 3 months. This judgment follows an eight day fact find and welfare trial that commenced on the 16 ^th February 2026. All page references are to the pdf bundle and the supplemental bundle identified as SB followed by the relevant page number.

M is the mother, (aged 37) and F is the father, (aged 56). The local authority's care plan, supported by the guardian, is for C to be made subject to care and placement orders. The parents primary position is that C should be returned to their care. M's secondary position is that the court should adjourn any welfare decision for month or two to enable M to establish that she now understands the local authority's concerns and is prepared to address them. F's secondary position is that either C should live independently with M or himself.

There are a number of issues in this case upon which I am required to make a determination, however the most significant is that when she was aged 3 or 4 i.e. in circa 1986 F on multiple occasions sexually abused his niece, (N1). It is also alleged that F on multiple occasions when she was 3 or 4, (circa 1993/1994) and when aged 7, (circa 1997) sexually abused his other niece N2. F's father RK died in 2005, F's mother EK has just turned 90 and suffers from ill health including dementia. The mother of the nieces and the sister of F is SD. F and SD also had an older brother AK who died in 2016. AK for a period of time between 2006 and 2009 was married to DW. The couple had a child SK. SD is married to CD. N1 is not CD's biological father. N1 and N2 have another sibling LD who was born in 1986.

The alleged abuse perpetrated by F was said to have occurred in various properties owned by RK and EK. In the 1980's the family lived in a MOD property in Town A as RK was in the MOD's military police. In the early 1990's, the family moved to a property in Town B which has been referred to as the cottage and in 1996/1997 the family moved to Street C in Town B where EK, F and M currently reside.

In 2006 F was arrested for the alleged sexual assault of his step daughter LA at the time F was married to JT. The investigation was discontinued and no further action was taken.

M has been known to children services for several years. M's three older children have been removed from her care as a consequence of neglect and substance misuse. Rather bizarrely the local authority only aware of two of M's children. Nothing really turns on this unusual anomaly.

During the PLO process M had a cognitive assessment which concluded that her functioning fell within the lower extreme level. Following C's birth, in November 2022, the maternal grandmother, (JC) moved into the family home. A safety plan was agreed that M would not spend time with C absent the presence of F or another adult. In September 2024 F was arrested as his now adult nieces alleged that he had sexually abused them whilst they were children. F was prevented by his bail conditions from having any contact with C. Following F's arrest C was initially cared for by the MGM at the family home. Following concerns about the MGM mental health M and C in October 2024 moved to a foster placement pursuant to an ICO. By the end of October 2024 the foster carer had given notice. It was said that M had been out of placement for three days, she had been aggressive towards the foster carer and that she had been aggressive in her handling of C requiring the foster carer to intervene on three occasions. On the 31 ^st October 2024 the court approved the separation of M from C with C remaining in the foster placement. These proceedings are now in their 72 ^nd weekend which in part seems to stem from issues that have been encountered in securing disclosure from the police.

Negative viability assessments have been undertaken of JC and the maternal aunt NG. Neither have sought to challenge these assessments. The parents have been subject to CUBAS parenting assessments from an ISW Miss Knight that concluded that neither parent individually or as a couple were able to care safely for C. M has also been subject to a psychiatric assessment from Dr Iyer and F has been subject to a psychological assessment from Dr Shaw. Both parents have also undergone hair strand testing. M however in breach of court orders has only attended on one occasion despite. M has also failed to attend the court ordered intermediary assessment.

Summary of Judgement

I have for ease set out a brief summary of my findings.

i. On the balance of probabilities F did not sexually abuse his nieces or lock N2 in the boot of his car.

ii. I do not find that the sexual abuse allegations are untrue.

iii. I do not find that SD, N1 or N2 have lied to the court.

iv. M has been fairly and appropriately assessed with the necessary adjustments having been made to accommodate for her cognitive limitations.

v. M knew what was expected of her when she entered the foster placement and a written agreement albeit beneficial would not have ensured that the placement did not break down.

vi. M and F either as a couple or independently cannot meet C's needs and in particular they are unable to meet her additional needs that arise as a consequence of her developmental delay.

vii. C is at risk of emotional and physical harm as a consequence of M not adequately managing her epilepsy. I am unable to quantify the extent of that risk.

viii. M and F love C dearly and F in particular engages well with her.

ix. If C were placed in the care of her parents either together or separately she would be at significant risk of emotional and physical harm as a consequence of:

a. Unstable/unsuitable accommodation.

b. The parents inability to manage money.

c. Poor home conditions.

d. M's mental health difficulties.

e. F's mental health and physical health difficulties. f M's substance misuse.

g. F's substance misuse.

h. The parents lack of insight into their parenting deficiencies.

i. The parents dysfunctional and unhealthy relationship.

j. The risks of harm cannot be ameliorated by the support provided by the local authority as the parents have no insight into their parenting deficiencies and M in particular would not be able to work cooperatively or indeed at all with professionals.

k. There is an absence of any effective support network from the parents family and friends that can serve to mitigate the risks of harm should C be in their care.

l. I make care and placement orders and endorse the local authority's care plan for contact.

Threshold .

The local authority essentially plead six allegations in support of threshold. I have set out below the allegations and the parents responses.

i. F sexually abused his niece. F denies all of these allegations.

a. It is alleged that F in or around 1986 on multiple occasions when N1 was around 3 – 4 years old at F's mother's home in Town A took N1 to his bedroom and digitally penetrated her vagina, made her touch his penis and penetrated her vagina with his penis.

b. The allegations in respect of N2 are two fold.

• On multiple occasions at F's mother's property when N2 was around 3 or 4 years old F took N2 to his bedroom and either digitally penetrated her vagina or penetrated her vagina with his penis.

• On multiple occasions at F's mother's property when N2 was around 7 years old F took N2 upstairs to his bedroom and penetrated her vagina with his penis.

ii. It is alleged that in light of F being a perpetrator of sexual abuse against female children that M has been unable or unwilling to accept that risk and to take protective measures. M contends that there have been no findings made and if findings were made she would accept that F posed a risk of harm to C and that she would take protective measures. M does not admit that she is unwilling to engage with professionals about the risk posed by F or to take any protective measures to safeguard C.

iii. Neglect and poor home conditions. It is alleged that during a visit on the 12 September 2024 the home conditions were poor that there was a risk of physical harm from encountering animal waste and from eating from unhygienic surfaces as well as emotional harm from growing up in a home which is unkempt. The local authority advances four specific allegations that there were soiled puppy pads in the kitchen, the hallway was cluttered, C's highchair was dirty with dried food and the property was generally unclean. The parents responses are set out below.

• F.

— F accepts that there were soiled puppy pads but avers that M was trying to prioritise C, that she had an intention to clear the pads and the puppy no longer lives in the home.

— F says that the hallway was only cluttered for one or two days whilst he was arranging to take the items to be stored.

— F asserts that the...