Key Facts
- •Birmingham City Council applied for s31 orders regarding four children (B, 16; C, 14; D, 13; E, 10) and their 18-year-old brother A.
- •The trigger was allegations by C of sexual abuse by brothers A and B.
- •C also alleged emotional and physical abuse by her parents.
- •The Local Authority alternatively pleaded C was beyond parental control.
- •C did not give evidence due to changed circumstances.
- •C made multiple allegations against various individuals, some investigated, others not.
- •There was significant concern over the quality of the initial police investigation and social work assessments.
- •The court reviewed extensive evidence including witness testimonies, police reports, and digital materials.
- •Significant concerns were raised regarding breaches of ABE guidance in the police interviews.
- •The court assessed the credibility of all witnesses, particularly the police officer and social worker involved in the initial investigation.
Legal Principles
Threshold criteria for care orders under s31.
Children Act
Assessing the credibility of witnesses, particularly in cases involving allegations of sexual abuse.
Case law (implied)
Application of the Lucas direction regarding lies told by witnesses.
Re H-C [2016] EWCA 136; Hertfordrshire CC v Ms T and Mr J [2018] EWHC 2795
Achieving Best Evidence (ABE) guidance for interviewing children.
ABE Guidance (implied)
Outcomes
The Local Authority did not satisfy the court that C was sexually abused by her brothers.
Insufficient evidence, inconsistencies in C's accounts, and serious flaws in the initial investigation.
C was found to have suffered emotional harm due to exposure to harmful online material.
Parents failed to adequately protect her from this harm.
C is beyond parental control.
Based on the totality of the evidence, including her emotional harm and the parents' failure to protect her.
s31 orders were granted.
C is beyond parental control.