Re A & B (Children) (Fact Finding Hearing) [2026] EWFC 119 (B)
A & B (Children) (Fact Finding Hearing), Re - Find Case Law - The National Archives
Priti from our family department recently represented two young children, through their children’s guardian, at a fact finding hearing. Their mother is deceased and their father was their sole carer. The local authority started care proceedings when the father was arrested and charged with sexual communication with a person under the age of 16 years, contrary to section 1(1) Criminal Attempts Act 1981. His criminal trial will be heard in May 2028.
This timescale is not one compatible with the children’s welfare and decisions needed to be made on the allegations against the father. All parties and the court agreed that a fact finding hearing would be necessary, on the basis that this was a single issue case. The issue for the family court to determine was whether the father knew he was entering into sexual communication with a 14 year old. The judgment annexes the relevant messages between the father and other individual.
At the outset of the proceedings, it became known that the person with whom the father was communicating with was in fact a decoy, an adult from a volunteer group protecting children from online grooming and sexual abuse. The decoy was portraying themselves to be a 14 year old female by the name of ‘Amy’ on a dating site. The fact the other individual was a decoy did not impact on the court’s decision.
The father’s case was that he accepted entering into sexual communication with ‘Amy’ but that he did not, at any time, believe the individual to be 14 years old or a child under the age of 16. The findings were actively sought by the local authority. The guardian adopted a neutral position but was concerned during the process about the evidence against the father, including the evidence he gave during the course of the fact finding hearing. He was the only witness to give evidence and was assisted by an interpreter throughout.
Having met ‘Amy’ on an adult dating site, the father moved the conversation to WhatsApp. The father denied understanding the relevance of references to ‘I’m 14’ or to ‘Amy’ being in year 10, despite his own children being of school age. He confirmed that he did not use any tools or Apps to help him with the communications, which were all in English. It was noted that the conversation rapidly turned sexual on the first day of communication, including the father sending an image of his genitalia, although his evidence was initially that this was sent by mistake. He believed ‘Amy’ may have been a scammer and he wanted to verify their identity, although the judge took the view that by sending an image of his genitalia, he was more likely to land himself in difficulty.
The judge found that:
The guardian had invited the court not to consider the future timetable of the case at the conclusion of the fact finding hearing, clear that they would need time to consider the court’s decision in either scenario. The fact finding hearing concluded with the above findings and directions for a response from the father to these findings, and then any Part 25 applications for assessments.
This guardian did not need to take a firm position on the allegations. Representing the guardian and children, Priti adopted a neutral position and assisted the court with the evidence before it, to ensure there was clarity to allow the court to then make decisions on the schedule of allegations. The case will now continue and the guardian’s role will be to make welfare recommendations to the court around their long term care.