Durham County Council v KK & Ors

Mr Justice Poole : Introduction

1. This is a judgment after a finding of fact hearing involving allegations of rape of a child and child trafficking.

2. PP is a girl aged 14 and QQ is a boy aged 3. They came from Nigeria to England in December 2023 with LL and MM who stated to the authorities that they were, respectively, their mother and father. In July 2024, PP made an allegation to a school counsellor and then to the police that MM had raped and sexually abused her on a number of occasions. DNA testing revealed that she was not biologically related to him and was not LL’s daughter. KK, LL’s sister, who lives in Nigeria, is said to be PP’s mother. DNA testing also revealed that QQ has no biological relationship with either of LL or MM.

3. MM denies raping or sexually abusing PP and LL denies any knowledge of the same. LL’s lack of knowledge would not be inconsistent with PP’s allegations. The account of QQ’s conception and birth, given by both LL and MM, corroborated by several members of MM’s family in Nigeria, is as follows: (i) LL and MM lived in Delta State. They struggled to conceive and then carry a child through pregnancy for several years. They were recommended to use the New Destiny Clinic (“NDC”) in Rivers State. (ii) After an initial visit, they attended the clinic on 8 July 2021 when a nurse, Nurse Peace Friday (“Nurse PF”) gave LL medication, inserted something in her vagina, and advised the couple to engage in intercourse with a 100% guarantee that LL would become pregnant. (iii) At later attendances at the same hospital Nurse PF advised that LL was pregnant and then that she was carrying twins. (iv) They paid for the treatment in instalments. (v) On 12 June 2022, at the same hospital, LL gave birth to QQ by vaginal delivery. Some days later she gave birth to a second child, a girl, again by vaginal delivery. The girl was weak and was taken away to another hospital but died on the way there and was buried. (vi) LL and MM believed that the fertility treatment had worked and that QQ was their biological child.

4. Both children are subject to interim care orders and currently live together with foster carers. No party asked for PP to give oral evidence. The Local Authority’s allegations of fact which the court must determine are: Sexual Abuse (i) On dates unknown between 2022 and July 2024 MM has sexually assaulted PP in that he has: a. Penetrated her vaginally with his penis. b. Digitally penetrated her vaginally. c. Ejaculated over her vagina / body. d. Has touched her breasts (both directly and through clothing) and all over her body. This touching was sexually motivated. e. As a consequence of the foregoing PP has suffered significant harm. (ii) QQ has been present in the home at times at which this sexual abuse has taken place. Consequently, he has been placed at risk of significant harm by virtue of witnessing these assaults. Identification and Removal from Nigeria PP (iii) PP and QQ entered the United Kingdom from Nigeria on or around 05.12.2023. The applicant asserts that: a. PP travelled on documentation that was fraudulent in that it stated her parents to be LL and MM, specifically; i. A birth certificate dated [redacted] ii. Immigration documentation b. These documents were produced by, at the request of, or on the basis of fraudulent information provided by LL and MM. c. LL and MM have caused PP to provide false accounts as to her true identity to a number of professionals including: i. United Kingdom immigration staff. ii. School staff. iii. Police. d. Specifically, LL and MM have caused PP to make false declarations that: i. She has not previously been known by another name. ii. That LL is her mother. iii. That MM is her father. e. In so doing they have caused PP emotional harm and have placed her at risk of potential immigration sanctions that would lead to instability in her living arrangements and confusion as to her identity. (iv) KK has facilitated and or assisted LL and MM in obtaining false identity documentation for PP, specifically a birth certificate, to procure her entry and leave to stay in the United Kingdom. (v) In so doing KK has caused PP emotional harm and has placed her at risk of potential immigration sanctions that would lead to instability in her living arrangements and confusion as to her identity. QQ (vi) LL and MM have represented QQ as being their biological child knowing such to be untrue. (vii) LL and MM have consistently provided a false and/or inaccurate account as to the circumstances surrounding QQ’s conception, birth and post-natal care. (viii) LL and MM have actively engaged friends and family in providing false information to support their false accounts as o he circumstances surrounding QQ’s conception, birth and post-natal care. (ix) LL and MM have obtained official documentation for QQ through knowingly making fraudulent declarations as to his biological parentage, specifically; a. Birth certificate. b. Immigrations documentation. (x) LL and MM have completed immigration documentation on behalf of QQ falsely claiming to be his parents (xi) LL and MM have been dishonest as to the true biological parentage of QQ. (xii) As a consequence of the foregoing QQ: a. Has been separated from his biological parents and wider biological family. b. Has been provided with a false narrative as to his biological parentage and wider family. c. Has been removed from his country of birth without the knowledge and / or permission of his biological parent(s). d. Has been caused to be known by an incorrect identity (xiii) As a result of the foregoing QQ has been placed at risk of potential immigration sanctions that would lead to instability in his living arrangements, separation from his biological parents and family and confusion as to his identity. This has caused him or placed him at risk of suffering significant harm. (xiv) In the alternative, and in the event that the LL and MM have given a truthful account as to conception and birth of QQ, then LL and MM have failed to make proper enquiry as to the form of treatment that they were undergoing in Nigeria prior to insemination and as a consequence have placed QQ at risk of potential immigration sanctions that would lead to instability in his living arrangements and confusion as to his identity. This has caused him or placed him at risk of suffering significant harm. (xv) In the event that the court determines that the account provided is knowingly fabricated by LL and MM then either with or in the alternative without the knowledge and cooperation of QQ’s biological parent(s) LL and MM have in exchange for financial payment procured a child (QQ) with the intention of raising and representing him as heir own biological child. Physical Abuse (xvi) LL has physically assaulted PP by slapping her around the face and hitting her back. (xvii) This has caused PP significant emotional and physical harm. Neglect (xviii) LL and MM have left QQ (then aged under 2) either; a. in the sole care overnight of PP (then aged 12). b. left both PP and QQ in the care of inappropriate adults. (xix) This has placed both PP and QQ at risk of significant harm.

5. By closing submissions he Local Authority no longer pursued (xviii) and (xix), the neglect allegations.

6. Put more shortly, the primary findings the court is invited to make are (i) that MM has raped and sexually abused PP, (ii) that LL and MM, with the connivance of KK, have lied about being parents to PP, and (iii) that LL and MM have lied about QQ being their child.

7. The court has heard evidence from as student counsellor and the safeguarding lead at PP’s school, police officers involved in interviewing PP and in MM’s arrest, Nigerian private investigators, the parties and members of MM’s family, a cousin of LL, an Independent Social Worker who produced a viability assessment of a relative of MM, and from three expert witnesses: Dr Dearden who carried out a medical examination of PP, Dr Troup a Consultant Reproductive Scientist, and Mr Hounslow, a Consultant in Obstetrics, Gynaecology and Reproductive Medicine. In addition the court has been provided with a number of bundles of documentary evidence including CYFOR evidence taken from devices belonging to LL and MM. The Legal Framework Findings of Fact

8. Many judgments including those of Baker J in A Local Authority v (1) Mother (2) Father (3) L & M (Children, by their Children's Guardian) [2013] EWHC 1569 (Fam) , Peter Jackson J in Re BR (Proof of Fact) [2015] EWFC 41 , and MacDonald J in in Re A Local Authority v W and others [2020] EWFC 68 firmly establish the that the following principles and approaches should be applied to a finding of fact exercise in a public law family case: (i) The burden of proof lies on the Local Authority that brings the proceedings and identifies the findings they invite the court to make. There is no obligation on a respondent to provide or prove an alternative explanation. (ii) The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, Re B [2008] UKHL 35 . If the standard is met, the fact is proved. If it is not met, the fact is not proved. The law operates a binary system in this respect. (iii) There is no burden on a parent to produce an alternative explanation and where an alternative explanation for an injury or course of conduct is offered, its rejection by the court does not establish the applicant's case. (iv) The inherent probability or improbability of an event should be weighed when deciding whether, on balance, the event occurred but regard to inherent probabilities does not mean that where a serious allegation is in issue, the standard of proof required is higher. (v) Findings of fact must be based on evidence not suspicion or speculation - Munby LJ in Re A (A child) (Fact Finding Hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12 . (vi) The court must take into account all the evidence and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence. Evidence cannot be “evaluated and assessed in separate compartments”: per Butler-Sloss P in Re T [2004] EWCA Civ 558 , [2004] 2 FLR 838 at paragraph 33. (vii) The opinions of medical experts need to be considered in the context of all the other evidence: see In A County Council v KD & L [2005] EWHC 144 Fam at paragraphs 39 to 44. As observed by Dame Elizabeth Butler-Sloss President in Re U, Re B [2004] EWCA Civ 567 , "The judge in care proceedings must never forget that today's medical certainty may be discarded by the next generation of experts or that scientific research may throw a light into corners that are at present dark". (viii) The evidence of the parents and any other carers is of the utmost importance. They must have the fullest opportunity to take part in the hearing and the court must form a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. (ix) It is not uncommon for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of the investigation and the hearing. The court must be careful to bear in mind that a witness may lie for various reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress and the fact that the witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything: see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 . In the recent Court of Appeal judgment in A, B, and C (Children) [2021] EWCA 451, Macur LJ advised at [57], "I venture to suggest that it would be good practice when the tribunal is invited to proceed on the basis, or itself determines, that such a direction is called for, to seek Counsel's submissions to identify: (i) the deliberate lie(s) upon which they seek to rely; (ii) the significant issue to which it/they relate(s), and (iii) on what basis it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie(s) is guilt. The principles of the direction will remain the same, but they must be tailored to the facts and circumstances of the witness before the court." (x) Similar caution should be exercised in relation to a respondent giving unsatisfactory explanations or failing to give any explanation for the allegations made against them - the fact that they are unsatisfactory or missing may not be probative of the truth of the allegations or of the culpability of the respondent. (xi) In Lancashire County Council v M and F [2014] EWHC 3 Peter Jackson J made the following observations about assessing credibility: "… in cases where repeated accounts are given of events surrounding injury and death, the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of any reported discrepancies. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is of course that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record keeping or recollection of the person hearing or relaying the account. The possible effects of delay and repeated questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one person of hearing accounts given by others. As memory fades, a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural - a process that might inelegantly be described as "story-creep" may occur without any necessary inference of bad faith." (xii) Witnesses at this hearing gave evidence in a large courtroom filled with Counsel, solicitors and others. Tailored warnings under s98 of the Children Act 1989 were given to the parents. Those warnings add to the pressure on the parents, Macur LJ in Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147 at [11] and [12], cautioned that: "Any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so".

9. In their closing written submissions Mr Feehan KC and Ms Alexander for MM relied on Rhesa Shipping Company SA v Edmunds: The Popi M [1985] 1 WLR 948 , for the proposition that it is impermissible for a judge to conclude in the case of a series of improbable causes that the least improbable or least unlikely is nonetheless the cause of the event. In that case the Lord Brandon rejected the application of the “well-known but unjudicial” dictum of Sherlock Holmes in The Sign of Four: “when you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.” His grounds for rejecting it were (i) a judge is not bound to make a finding on a party’s averment. The case may, rarely be decided on the burden of proof.; (ii) the dictum can only be applied when all the facts are known; and (iii) if a judge finds that an event is extremely improbable then he cannot find that it was more probable than not. Allegations of Sexual Abuse Against Children

10. MacDonald J’s wide-ranging survey of the law and practice in cases of alleged sexual abuse in Re P [2019] EWFC 27 is of considerable value. At para. 577 MacDonald J summarised some key points about children’s evidence in such cases: “i) Children, and especially young children, are suggestible. ii) Memory is prone to error and easily influenced by the environment in which recall is invited. iii) Memories can be confabulated from imagined experiences, it is possible to induce false memories and children can speak sincerely and emotionally about events that did not in fact occur. iv) Allegations made by children may emerge in a piecemeal fashion, with children often not reporting events in a linear history, reporting them in a partial way and revisiting topics. v) The wider circumstances of the child’s life may influence, explain or colour what the child is saying. vi) Factors affecting when a child says something will include their capacity to understand their world and their role within it, requiring caution when interpreting children’s references to behaviour or parts of the body through the prism of adult learning or reading. vii) Accounts given by children are susceptible to influence by leading or otherwise suggestive questions, repetition, pressure, threats, negative stereotyping and encouragement, reward or praise. viii) Accounts given by children are susceptible to influence as the result of bias or preconceived ideas on the part of the interlocutor. ix) Accounts given by children are susceptible to contamination by the statements of others, which contamination may influence a child’s responses. x) Children may embellish or overlay a general theme with apparently convincing detail which can appear highly credible and be very difficult to detect, even for those who are experienced in dealing with children. xi) Delay between an event recounted and the allegation made with respect to that event may influence the accuracy of the account given. xii) Within this context, the way, and the stage at which a child is asked questions / interviewed will have a profound effect on the accuracy of the child’s testimony.”

11. The guidance in Achieving Best Evidence in Criminal Proceedings, published jointly by the Ministry of Justice and the National Police Chiefs’ Council, January 2022, (“ABE Guidance”) provides comprehensive advice about interviewing victims and witnesses. In Re P (above) MacDonald J said: “[856] The ABE Guidance is advisory rather than a legally enforceable code. However, significant departures from the good practice advocated in it will likely result in reduced (or in extreme cases no) weight being attached to the interview by the courts. Within this context guidance from the Children Act Advisory Committee concerning the Memorandum of Good Practice, which preceded the ABE Guidelines, made clear that: “Any joint child abuse interview conducted by police and social services must follow the memorandum of good practice. Otherwise, not only is the resulting interview of no forensic value, but it may impede or contaminate any further assessment of the child ordered by the court.” The Court of Appeal has on repeated occasions allowed appeals against findings of child sexual abuse where there has been a failure (i) to undertake proper preparation, (ii) to note carefully the preparatory work undertaken with a child. (iii) to understand the background to allegations being made; (iv) to abide by rules as to questioning; (v) to follow guidance as to being open-minded and (vi) to engage in repeated interviews (see for example TW v A City Council [2011] 1 FLR 1597 ; Re W v Re F (Children) [2015] EWCA Civ 1300 and Re E (A Child) (Evidence) [2017] 1 FLR 1675 ).

857. The purpose of the ABE interview goal is to provide the child with an opportunity to give an accurate and reliable account in a way that is fair, in the child’s interests and acceptable to the court. The ABE interview is emphatically not a vehicle for encouraging a child to simply repeat allegations made to others (which approach risks falling into the traps set out at Paragraph [X] above). In TW v A City Council Wall LJ (as he then was) observed as follows in this context: “…we are left with the clear impression from the interview that the officer was using it purely for what she perceived to be an evidence gathering exercise and in particular to make MR repeat on camera what she had said to her mother. That is emphatically not what an ABE interview is about and we have come to the view that we can place no evidential weight on it.” Evidence from Professionals School, Police, and Private Investigators

12. I heard from Ms A, a school counsellor at PP’s school to whom PP first made her allegations of sexual abuse by MM on 15 July 2024. I also heard from Ms B the safeguarding lead at the school to whom Ms A reported the allegations and who contacted the police. DC Wilcox and DC Welch of Durham Constabulary gave evidence of their attendance at the school and then at the family home, and the interviews with PP, LL and MM. Documentation has been provided, including a handwritten note prepared by Ms A during her meeting with PP, CPOMS entries made at the school, and police disclosure including interview transcripts. I have also viewed body worn camera footage from MM’s arrest, and videos of PP’s Achieving Best Evidence (“ABE”) interviews both in relation to her allegations against MM and her allegations against another man, NN. The police have decided to take no further action in relation to the allegations against NN. MM remains on police bail pending a decision whether to charge and prosecute him.

13. The evidence from Ms A, Ms B, and the police officers was that on the morning of 15 July 2024, PP asked to speak to a Ms C who was the pastoral support for PP’s year. She was not available but Ms A became available for a one hour session from 10.05 am. PP went alone into Ms A’s room. Ms A had had no previous dealings at all with PP. Using her counselling skills Ms A sought to gain PP’s confidence by giving her reassurance that she was in a safe space and by reflecting what PP told her to ensure that she understood and to ensure that PP knew she was being understood. Ms A made a note on one page of blank paper during the session, which document was produced to the court. She began by establishing PP’s family membership. She drew stick-figure pictures of PP and her relatives: her auntie, her auntie’s partner (PP wrote his name in herself), her “cousin” QQ and, slightly apart to signify that they were in Nigeria, her mother and two children labelled her brother and sister. Her father is not drawn but there is a note with an asterisk saying, “Dad rejected me.” Ms A explained that PP then reported that LL made her cry every day and gave her tasks, such as cleaning the toilet and doing it again if there was an unclean spot. She said that she had no friends and that her aunt was “over-protective” and would not let her go out. Ms A then asked, “do you feel safe?” in response to which she noted in quotation marks, that PP had said, “No… he gets me to lie on the bed with no clothes on and he touches me … he tells me I won’t lose my vaginity [sic.] or get pregnant.” Ms A asked how long this had been going on and PP said, “since last year in Nigeria became worse in UK.”

14. Ms A said that she had no idea that PP would make those allegations after she had asked the question, “do you feel safe?” the whole conversation lasted about 40m minutes to this point with the last half following the question about feeling safe. Ms A then left PP to speak to Ms B in the office next door. She told her what PP had said and Ms B made an entry on the CPOMS system and sought to contact an agency called First Contact and then contacted the police. Officers were dispatched to the school. Ms B went with Ms A to speak to PP. Ms A had another child to see at 11.05. She took PP to Ms C and left her with that woman. She does not know if PP stayed with Ms C until the police arrived, whether she remained in a safe room by herself, or whether she returned to classes.

15. The police arrived at the school at 2.50 pm on 15 July 2024, nearly four hours after Ms A had left PP with Ms C. It remains unclear where PP was, and who she was with, during the last three hours or so of that period. After an initial discussion with Ms B, the officers met with PP. I heard from the officers, DC Welch and DC Wilcox. Initially they spoke to PP alone (after Ms B had performed introductions she left fairly soon after the officers began to talk to PP). DC Wilcox asked the questions and DC Welch made notes during the discussion on a form entitled, “Record of Initial Contact with Chile and Subsequent Events.” There is no verbatim note of the questions asked. The record begins: “What is uncle called [MM] What’s happened with [MM] Told me to lie on bed, take off clothes and stay there. I asked him what is happening. He said you wont get pregnant or lose your virginity Has he touched you All over my body Describe Touch boobs and rest of my body, everywhere In other sexual area (Nods head)” PP then wrote down, “He put his body in my private part. His private part or his hand.” She went on to say that on Friday she had stood up to him. She had told the school about it because her Auntie goes shopping and she might not be able to stand up to him again: “It happens when she goes out.” It had started in Nigeria when her Auntie had done some exams. Then, he had touched her over clothing but since April it had involved “taking clothes off.” The note ends at 1610 hrs, 20 minutes after the discussion started. DC Welch and a social worker then visited the family home that same afternoon. LL was present but not MM. The record of the visit reads: “[LL]confirmed that she lived at the address with her husband [MM], their son [QQ] and their daughter [PP]. I explained that [PP] had disclosed to teachers that she had been sexually assaulted by [MM] and she was scared it would happen again. Initially [LL] said this was impossible as [LL] never leaves the house and they are always together, she subsequently changed this to say she does go grocery shopping at Asda every week and takes the bus back and forth to [local town], she shops alone whilst leaving [QQ] with [PP and [MM] and she is out for about an hour at least. I asked about what relation she was to [PP] and again she initially told me that she was her mother, she had given birth to her in Nigeria and [MM] was her father and along with [QQ] they all arrived in the UK in December 2023. When challenged a little around being [PP]’s mother [LL] became upset and then informed me that [PP] is indeed the daughter of her younger sister called [KK] … she … raised [PP] as her own child with the permission of [KK] and they were in agreement to bring her to the UK for her potentially to have a better life.”

16. MM was contacted and left work to catch a bus home. The police intercepted him and arrested and interviewed him. With the assistance of a duty solicitor, he prepared a handwritten statement denying raping or sexually assaulting PP. In his first police interview either side of midnight he made no responses to questions. I have viewed a video recording of that interview and he appears as a broken man. He was released on police bail. On 16 July 2024 the police took photographs of the family home. On 17 July 2024 the Family Court made Interim Care Orders in respect of both children.

17. PP had an ABE interview with police on 19 September 2024, two months after her initial allegations. DC Willcox conducted the interview with an intermediary present. After introductions and a brief “truth and lies” exercise, PP was asked to say what had happened with her uncle. She replied that he had “done bad stuff to me… since I’ve been in Nigeria … has been like sexually abusing me in a way but it got worse when I came to the UK. The interview continued: “So, tell me about the worst thing he’s done. Erm, putting his private parts in my vagina…. So when my aunt goes shopping, erm, my uncle always tells me to come to his room, take off my clothes and just lie on the bed and don’t look back and keeps telling me I won’t get pregnant and I won’t lose my baby and things … then he takes off his clothes and puts his private parts in my vagina. Then a few minutes later he tells me to go wash myself and put on my clothes and act like nothing happened.”

18. PP was questioned about details of this account for about an hour. She marked body maps indicating a penis on a man and a vagina on a woman. She wrote down that “milky stuff” came out from MM’s body. She said that MM would text LL to find out if she was still in the shop. He would get her to clean up before LL came home.

19. The Nigerian private investigators produced evidence of limited value. Photographs were produced. One is of a battered metal sign for the NDC in Port Harcourt, Nigeria, which reads: “HOSPITAL New Destiny Clinic Maternity, Laboratory & SURGERY 1 Nwogu Estate, opp the Promise Fast Food” Another photograph is of the outside of the clinic which was described by the investigator who visited it as a semi-detached, single level building described by the investigator as a three-bedroom apartment. In oral evidence the investigator said that she had only been in the reception of the NDC and had not seen inside the other rooms. She could not therefore confirm that they were being used as bedrooms or for another purpose. However, the photographs and her evidence of visiting the clinic create a clear impression of a modest, somewhat ramshackle establishment, not of a facility containing a laboratory or surgical theatre.

20. The private investigators also produced an indictment used for the arraignment of Dr Reuben Moses in the High Court in Ughelli, Nigeria, which was LL and MM’s home city when they lived in Nigeria and which is about a three hour drive from Port Harcourt where the NDC is located. Dr Moses operated the NDC. The document bears a court stamp dated 27 January 2025. The second count alleges: “That you, RUEBEN MOSES, sometime in the month of June, [precise date redacted] 2022 at Ughelli, in the Ughelli Judicial Division did traffic and gave a child to one [MM] and [LL] and thereby committed an offence punishable under section 21 of the trafficking in persons (prohibition enforcement and Administration Act) laws of the federation of Nigeria, 2015.”

21. One of the investigators spoke to Esther Moses, wife of Dr Reuben Moses and manager of the NDC who said that LL was at all times the private patient of Nurse PF and not of Dr Moses or the clinic. Dr Moses had trained Nurse PF for two and a half years as an auxiliary nurse but she had then simply used the clinic as a place to see her personal patients. Esther Moses told the investigator that after the police involvement with the clinic in late 2024 Nurse PF had gone to ground and was not answering calls to her mobile phone. The clinic had no medical or other records concerning LL because she had been the nurse’s private, personal patient. Experts

22. Dr Dearden carried out an interim medical report on PP on 18 July 2024 concluding that there were no signs of sexual abuse but that the findings/lack of findings were neutral: they were neither probative nor disprobative of the allegations of sexual abuse. She recorded that, upon questioning by her, PP reported penile vaginal and anal penetration but no details were sought or given. The medical findings were confirmed in a full medical report on 31 July 2024.

23. Dr Troup is a Consultant Reproductive Scientist. He was manifestly fair and balanced when providing evidence to the court. I made it clear that I did not need him to explain what a standard IVF clinic in the UK would do when providing IVF services, nor could he give expert evidence on standards of fertility treatment in Nigeria (because he did not have the expertise to do so), but it would be helpful to the court to understand the minimum requirements necessary to implant an embryo or embryos in a woman when the baby subsequently born has no DNA in common with that woman. He explained that the steps would be: (i) Extract a donor egg – this is usually done in theatre in aseptic conditions. It requires some skill and experience to perform. (ii) Collection of donor sperm. (iii) Creation of an embryo or embryos with donated gametes. This is a skilled process performed in a laboratory. (iv) Storage of the embryo(s) in liquid nitrogen unless a fresh embryo is used within a short time of its creation. (v) Thawing of frozen embryos which will involve a rehydration process. (vi) Endometrial preparation. This could be done without any medication or monitoring if the recipient woman’s menstrual cycle is predictable such that the date of ovulation can be accurately anticipated. The optimum time for implantation of an embryo is two to six days after ovulation. (vii) Embryo transfer (“ET”) which involves loading a catheter with an embryo or embryos in a culture, and insertion of the catheter through the cervix into the uterus. (viii) Luteal support commonly through the administration of progesterone initially at about the same time as the ET.

24. Dr Troup advised that in the UK counselling and screening would be performed. He told the court that whilst many clinics would follow up and monitor, there was no reason why antenatal services had to be provided by an IVF clinic and commonly maternity services would be provided elsewhere.

25. Various factors will affect the chances of achieving a successful pregnancy: (i) The age of the gamete donors. (ii) The performance of extraction of donor gametes, embryo creation, and storage. (iii) Endometrial preparation and timing of the ET. (iv) The skill and experience of the practitioner undertaking the ET.

26. ET ought not to be performed on the day of ovulation. If ET were performed either on the day of ovulation or shortly after menstruation, “whilst one can never say never” IVF would be “extremely unlikely” to succeed.

27. Mr Hounslow is a Consultant in Obstetrics, Gynaecology, and Reproductive Medicine. He had been provided with some new written evidence only shortly before giving his oral evidence and indicated a wish to compare histories of treatment given. However, he was fully able to give evidence within his area of expertise. After the conclusion of his evidence Mr Hounslow wrote to the Guardian’s solicitor providing further evidence. I did not permit that evidence, which I have not seen, to be adduced. Mr Hounslow would have had to be re-called for further questioning. The hearing was likely to overrun in any event and needed managing to ensure that it was conducted and concluded with reasonable expedition. It would have been unfair on the respondents whose Counsel had already completed their cross-examination of Mr Hounslow to give him another opportunity to respond to the points they had raised which were of concern to them. From what I was told about the further evidence there was a risk that in his further evidence Mr Hounslow sought to address the consistency and credibility of the respondents, a matter which is firmly for the court, not an expert witness, to determine.

28. Mr Hounslow advised that, given the DNA evidence, the only theoretical means by which LL could have carried and delivered QQ as she has described was by ET (using an embryo created using donor sperm and eggs). If ET occurred when something was inserted via her vagina (as she has described), and of necessity into her uterus, on 8 July 2021 then QQ’s gestational age at birth, on LL’s account, was 50 weeks. For LL to have become pregnant with twins of different sex, through ET, at least two embryos must have been transferred. It was vital to synchronise endometrial preparation and an embryo’s development so that transfer takes place at the optimal time, otherwise the chances of a successful pregnancy greatly diminish. He explained that in the UK the goal would be to deliver twin two within 30 minutes of the delivery of twin one, but a period of one hour would be acceptable. On delivery of twin one, the uterus contracts restricting oxygen reaching twin two through the placenta. There is simply no data on the effect of a delayed delivery of twin two amounting to a number of days because no obstetrician or midwife would countenance such a delay – at least no accoucheur who would contribute to published data. Importantly, Mr Hounslow told the court that he could find no example of a 50 week twin pregnancy in the medical literature. Evidence from the First, Second and Third Respondents and their Family Members

29. It is essential that the court keeps in mind the cultural, language, and other differences between Nigeria and England. It would be wholly wrong to assess the credibility of the first three respondents and their family members from Nigeria by applying British cultural norms Their beliefs about fertility treatment and pregnancy, their compliance with authority figures such as Nurse PF, the naming and rearing of children in that country, all need to be approached, as best the court can, from a Nigerian perspective in order to assess the credibility of their evidence. Many times during her evidence, LL told me that a particular practice which would be considered dishonest in England – such as registering herself as PP’s mother on her birth certificate when she knew her sister was PP’s mother - was in accordance with Nigerian culture. I have not received any expert evidence on Nigerian cultural norms, on fertility treatment in Nigeria, or on the law and practice of registration of births and deaths. Hence, I must be very careful before rejecting such assertions by LL and others. However, information on a document is either correct or incorrect, whether it was written in Nigeria or anywhere else. A lie is a lie wherever and whenever it is spoken. Witness statements were signed with a declaration of truth. All witnesses at court gave their evidence under oath or affirmation. The respondents were legally represented. They can have had no doubt that they were required to tell the truth in their written and oral evidence including when a lie might have been overlooked in other circumstances.

30. The first respondent, KK, gave evidence remotely from Nigeria with the aid of an interpreter in Pidgin English. She was rather flat in her demeanour and did not appear to be deeply interested in the issues raised with her. I make allowance for the fact that she was abroad, with a less than fully reliable internet connection, using an interpreter, and that many of the issues raised with her, including PP’s conception through rape, were deeply personal matters which she would be unlikely to want to speak about. She was not clear on the details of PP’s upbringing or paternity, but the broad picture that emerged was that PP was born after KK was raped or taken advantage of by a man who lived in the locality who then had nothing to do with his daughter. KK brought PP up but with some help from the family. She said that she had agreed to PP going to live with LL and MM in 2022 because PP had become stubborn and she would be able to go to a good school.

31. The second respondent, LL, gave oral evidence in court over a total of two days. If her account were true then she has been put in a very difficult position: she has found out that QQ is not her and her husband’s child and her husband has been accused of raping the girl she has taken on as her daughter. On her account NDC has destroyed all documents which might have proved that she underwent fertility treatment under Nurse PF or that she gave birth to QQ and his twin sister. She is a victim of a heinous fraud. She has had the children she treated as her own, one of whom she thought was her biological child, removed from her. I take all of that into account. A large part of the reason for the duration of her evidence was that there was lengthy examination in chief during which she introduced new evidence not previously given in, or inconsistent with, her nine witness statements. The ninth statement itself was adduced during the hearing and after the expert evidence. LL occasionally used the interpreter in court but could largely communicate fluently in English. Indeed she was articulate, direct, emotional when talking about the death of the second twin, the fraudulent conduct, as she portrays it, of Nurse PF, and the removal of QQ from her care. In some ways she was compelling when answering questions in court in that she herself appeared to be utterly convinced of the truth of what she was saying. However, for the reasons set out more fully below, it was exasperating to listen to her commit to accounts that were almost fantastical – a fifty week pregnancy with twins for example, change her evidence, tailor it to other evidence given in the case which she may not have anticipated, and to introduce new evidence during her ninth statement and her oral evidence which she must have previously known would be highly relevant.

32. The second respondent, MM, gave oral evidence in court, again occasionally using the interpreter but largely responding fluently in English. Like LL, he was mostly direct when answering questions. He was adamant in his denial of any sexual abuse of PP. If MM did not sexually abuse PP and there was no interaction between them which she might have mistaken for a sexual interaction, then MM might well have difficulty in saying much beyond a flat denial of the allegations. However, he repeatedly couched his denial in terms that it was “not possible” because a married Nigerian man is forbidden from having sex with another woman. I appreciate that MM might have been desperate to deny the allegations with as much force as he could muster, but it was not a convincing line to adopt when what is alleged is rape of a child.

33. The key evidence that I received from LL and MM about QQ’s conception and birth can be summarised as follows: (i) LL and MM tried for a baby from the start of their marriage. Early on, LL conceived but had a miscarriage. They tried forms of fertility treatment including artificial insemination using MM’s sperm but to no avail. MM’s sperm was tested for motility which was a little low. They did not discuss having fertility problems with others but it was clear to anyone who knew them that they had not had a baby after some six years of marriage and there were social pressures to have a baby within the marriage. (ii) LL suffered medical difficulties resulting in the removal of a fallopian tube and, on a separate occasion, removal of a uterine fibroid. (iii) MM has three sisters who are, in age order: RR, SS, and TT. SS and her husband, VV had twins in 2021 and in April that year they held a naming party at their home which LL and MM attended. VV spoke to MM about going to the NDC. He was reluctant but his sisters persuaded him to try it. On 5 July 2021 VV drove LL and MM to the NDC where they met with Nurse PF. She took LL to a separate room, examined her, and advised that she was suitable for fertility treatment which had a 100% guarantee of success. There were discussions about the cost of the treatment which amounted to Nigerian Naira (“N”) 4m (the equivalent now of about £2,100). (iv) Nurse PF agreed to accept payment by instalments. LL has produced a schedule of payments to the court: “1st payment 5th July 2021 N230,000.00 bank transfer, N220,000 cash; N100,000.00 from Monie point POS 2nd payment 7th July, 2021 N50,000.00 bank transfer 3rd payment 20th May, 2022 N1,000,000.00 bank transfer – first bank. 4th payment 17th June, 2022 N700,000.00 bank transfer 5th payment 18th June, 2022 N300,000 bank transfer.” That is a total of N2.7m. In fact bank statements show a further payment of N500,000 to Nurse PF in May 2022 which would bring the total payments to N3.2m. When I asked MM about the payments he told me that he thought there had been another payment of N1m in cash which would not appear in the bank statements. That payment was no mentioned in his or LL’s witness statements. (v) Three days later, on 8 July 2021, VV again drove LL and MM to the NDC where they again met Nurse PF. LL described what happened then in her statement of 13 January 2025: “she took me to the theatre and told me to lie down on my back and she inserted something inside of me through my vaginal [sic.] as part of the process and took me into the injection room and injected me on my buttocks. When I got up I was so curious to know what she had done, so I asked the nurse what she inserted, she replied furiously and cautioned me by saying that if I do not want to continue with the treatment she will have to terminate it immediately stating that it was her job and that we are not to question her method of treatment as she knows what she was doing. She later told us that what she inserted will last in my body for the period of 5years before expiration and it can be terminated within the period if we do not want more children. Then she gave us some orthodox medicines and traditional herbs to take home with instructions and advised we have sex on that day. She equally advised that I should desist from any stressful work at home for the treatment to be effective. We fully adhered to her routines and carried out her instructions including having sex that night. She then told us to return when I miss my period. “ (vi) LL and MM went home and followed instructions. LL took medication daily. She missed her next period but did not return to NDC as instructed. She then missed the second period and arranged to return on 4 September 2021. In her narrative statement of 13 January 2025 LL does not refer to the specific date of that attendance – the date was given later - but her account of it was as follows: “When I got to the hospital, Nurse PF took my urine sample and checked. She said that the line is showing but not deeply and said it was not a problem and that she will place me on some medications. She said that she felt the heartbeat of the foetus but not strong at this stage. She confirmed that I was pregnant. One month later, we did another test, and I was confirmed pregnant. Following the confirmation of the pregnancy, she registered me for antenatal which I attended diligently until the day of delivery.” (vii) In fact, in her statements and oral evidence, LL has given dates of three more attendances before she was in labour. In her most detailed account, which is in her statement of 7 February 2025 she says: There was a further visit on 16th October 2021 and then it was on the 15th January 2022 visit that I was certified as pregnant with twins. Another antenatal visit was on 20th February 2022. I was not subject to any ultrasound scans. I was in an examination room. Nurse PF told me to lie down and she used something that looked like a funnel (pinnard stethoscope) and placed this on both sides of my stomach. She put her ear to listen to the end of the funnel and she was checking the timing of the heartbeat using her wrist watch. She confirmed that there were two heartbeats and that I was expecting twins.” (viii) In her written evidence LL described her pregnancy as “smooth … for the first three months there were no issues. All I had was back and waist pain.” (ix) For about a week before the day of QQ’s birth on 12 June 2022 she had experienced contractions which came and went but on the day before his birth they became more intense. She called Nurse PF who told her to come to the NDC. In fact she only went the following day. MM drove her and his eldest sister, RR, who lived close to them, to the NDC, a journey of some two hours on that day when there was little traffic on the road. By then LL was in labour. MM did not stay at the NDC nor in the area but drove straight back to Ughelli where they lived so that he could tend to his business. He told me that he needed to raise money for the remaining payments due to Nurse PF. (x) LL says that on arrival at the NDC she was given castor oil with warm water and an injection which she told me in oral evidence was to speed up the delivery. Her account of the birth appears in the statement of 7 February 2025: After a while, I started to want to empty my bowels. I defecated three times I was taken to the delivery room. When I went into the labour room while lying down on my back with my legs wide open Nurse PF injected me on my thighs and told me to start pushing. When I wasn't pushing well, one of the nurses climbed over the deliver table crossing over me and placed her hand on my stomach pressing it down so hard while I push and [QQ] came out and into the world. I remember also defecating on the birth mat as a result of pushing so hard. He was taken by the nurses and cleaned up with Olive oil. They dressed him and he was then handed over to my sister in law [RR]. She was the one relative who was with me in the delivery room.” (xi) The second twin could not be delivered shortly after QQ because she was in the breech position. Nurse PF suggested delivery by Caesarean section but LL and MM refused that (MM by phone). She was eventually delivered vaginally. LL told me in her oral evidence that it was only when QQ was delivered that Nurse PF told her that the second twin was a girl – the nurse had seen the second baby’s genitalia when delivering QQ. In her statement of 13 January 2025, LL says: “We lost the girl because she was very weak and did not cry after birth but was only gasping for air on a Tuesday at about 8:30am. And she was buried by [VV].” On LL’s account 0830 am on Tuesday (14 June) was about 38 hours after QQ’s birth. In RR’s witness statement, she said that “we waited about three days before [QQ]’s sister could be delivered. In oral evidence LL told me that the baby girl was born on 18 June 2022, six days after QQ’s delivery. (xii) MM’s written evidence was that VV contacted him to say that the twin girl was struggling after birth. MM told him to take her to a hospital but VV later called him to say that the baby had died. MM told him to bury the baby. In his written statement, VV told the court that he, RR and TT had rushed the baby girl to another hospital where there would be an incubator but she died on the way and “I personally buried her”. RR, MM’s eldest sister, said in her written evidence that she was present at both births. The baby girl was “gasping” at birth and “unfortunately died”. She did not mention rushing to another hospital, but she told me about that during her oral evidence. She wrote that VV was the person who buried her. All say that TT buried the placenta. (xiii) QQ’s birth was registered in the family’s home state, Delta State. The birth certificate says that his parents are LL and MM and that his birth was registered the day after his birth. It states that his place of birth was Ughelli, their home city, not in Rivers State where the NDC is located.

34. LL has produced a number of photographs and I have also been provided with records of messaging between her and her cousin, XX, as well messaging and voice notes downloaded from devices used by LL and MM. One image produced by LL, showing her and her husband in distinctive clothing before a brightly coloured building has been noted by her as being taken when she was five months pregnant. XX produced a screenshot of an exchange of messages between her and LL on 7 November 2021 which included a photograph sent to her by LL, clearly taken on the same occasion. She and MM are in the same distinctive clothes standing in front of the same building. There are various photographs showing LL with a large belly which are said to show her at various stages of her pregnancy.

35. Other important photographs include one of RR holding a baby said to be QQ dated on the day after it is said he was born. There are no photographs of LL in the neonatal period with or without QQ.

36. Due to delays in disclosure from the police, a huge amount of data from phone devices was received by the parties very shortly before the hearing and, indeed, during its early stages. I am very grateful to Ms Hartley, Junior Counsel for the Local Authority, for the work done during weekend hours, and to all Counsel for their flexibility and hard work in assimilating the volume of late evidence, and then identifying and responding to the key parts of it.

37. Counsel for LL invited the Court to have particular regard to the following: (i) 11th May 2022 - LL asked MM to have intercourse with her to help encourage her giving birth as she says, “Make my cervix for open quick delivery.” Other personal matters are raised also. (ii) The day of QQ’s birth - a conversation immediately after giving birth to QQ. LL described her shouting out in pain and defecating on pushing to give birth. In addition, MM commented how QQ looked like him. (iii) Again, on the day after QQ’s birth, LL messaged MM: “and as u know if I deliver days later than this this baby go mature pass the girl and pple go raise eyebrows”. LL told the court that this was a reference to the common perception that a baby whose delivery was late was in some way evil because it had thereby endangered the health of the mother. (iv) Over the course of that and following days, LL messaged MM about the need for the nurse to attend to give her an injection to help her deliver the second baby, about the baby’s position, and about the absence of the nurse from the NDC. (v) On 16th June 2022, LL messaged MM: “Hopefully tomorrow I go deliver” and she refers to having had a drip in her vein.

38. A month or so after QQ’s delivery there is an exchange of messages between LL and MM in which LL seemed to be asking him to pay N3m for another child. MM responded that he would only want a boy and indicated that he had no money for it.

39. In the current proceedings, DNA test results showing that QQ was not biologically related to either LL or MM were released on 8 November 2024. Prior to the results being received but after the court had ordered DNA testing, MM searched online using questions including, “Is it compulsory that a child must have the same dna with parents?” and “what happens in the UK if a child DNA doesn’t match with parents?”

40. After the DNA results became known to LL and MM, LL contacted nurse PF asking for a doctor’s report on the fertility treatment. Nurse PF then left a voice note in response on 11 November 2024. In it she said that the doctor did not want to be implicated because the fertility process “is not advisable”. She appeared to criticise LL and MM or taking QQ abroad. She said, “I burn every successful patient’s file every year after delivery for security reasons. And as it stands, if the file is available, I will have to snap both the amount paid and screenshot to you. Only the amount looks suspicious. People will ask what sort of treatment hospital collect such amount for. We know that the treatment is illegal.”

41. MM then petitioned the police in Nigeria to investigate the NDC. It appears that he paid some money to the police and they visited the NDC – TT was present when that occurred – and arrested Dr Moses. Nurse PF was not found and Dr Moses told the police that she had gone to ground. Nigerian police investigation reports are included in the hearing bundles. MM engaged a Nigerian lawyer to assist him to press the police to investigate. The lawyer referred to Nurse PF as “dubious and fraudulent” in correspondence with the police.

42. I heard oral evidence from Nigeria from MM’s three sisters and his brother-in-law, VV.

43. RR told the court that she was in the delivery room when QQ was born. She recalled a birthmark on his hand which he still has. She said that he was born at 17.20 on 12 June 2022, that LL had “some hours in labour” without being able to deliver, and that the nurse gave her castor oil in water and “some inducement”. In oral evidence she told me that she, LL and MM had arrived at NDC on the day of delivery “in the afternoon”. In her written statement RR said that “we waited for about three days” before QQ’s sister was born. In oral evidence, given after LL had told the court that the baby girl was born six days after QQ, RR said that the time between deliveries was six to seven days. In her written statement she does not mention leaving the NDC after the baby girl was born, only that she was gasping for air after her birth and unfortunately died and was buried by her brother-in-law, VV. In her oral evidence, RR told me that she had held the baby girl as she and TT got into a car and rushed off to find a hospital. VV caught up with them in his car and they transferred to that car but the baby died. They returned with the dead baby to NDC where she saw VV bury the baby at the back of the clinic.

44. SS, VV’s wife, said in her statement that she had been at the NDC with her two sisters when QQ was born, and was there again with them, her husband and her children, when the baby girl was born. She said that she stayed behind whilst RR, TT, and VV rushed away with the baby for emergency help. She wrote: “I remember how often we kept calling my husband and sisters for updates, anxiously waiting to hear how the baby was doing. Sadly, we eventually received the heartbreaking news that she had passed away and it was a devastating experience for everyone.” In oral evidence, SS told the court that there were three to four days between the delivery of each twin. She told me that when the baby girl was born and was unwell, her two sisters, RR and TT left with the baby in a taxi to find a hospital but when they returned with the baby, who was then cold, her husband was with them. They handed the baby over to the NDC.

45. TT also said that she was at NDC when both twins were born. She and SS were not in the delivery room but in the reception area. After the baby girl was born and was gasping for air, she, RR and VV rushed away with the baby to find a hospital but she died. And VV “took her away for burial.” In oral evidence TT told the court that there were two to three days between the births. She said at court that the baby girl was gasping for air. She and RR got into a taxi to find a hospital suggested by Nurse PF. VV caught up with them in his car and then transferred to his car but soon afterwards the baby died. They returned together to NDC and showed the baby to Nurse PF. TT was asked to look after the placenta. She collected it, wrapped up, and buried it at the back of her house. She did not know what happened to the baby’s body.

46. I also heard evidence from XX who joined remotely from Nigeria. She is LL’s cousin. She had visited LL when she was pregnant, including for over a week in late May 2022, leaving about a week or two before QQ was born. She exhibited screen shots of text exchanges in November 2021 when LL had complained about being fat. In May 2022, she told the court, LL was “big but not too big … fat.”

47. All of the witnesses from Nigeria said that they had seen LL when visibly pregnant. Some had felt the baby or babies kick. They were in no doubt that she was pregnant however none of them knew, nor had they discussed with LL when the babies were due. PP’s circumstances in Nigeria and Entry to the UK

48. I received consistent evidence from the respondents that PP’s biological mother is the first respondent, KK, who was raped by a man when she was 16 years old. The man was living locally to the family. KK and LL’s parents were both dead by the time of the rape. They lived with a woman they called grandma. LL was the eldest sibling and took responsibility for the care of KK and her other younger siblings. When it was discovered that KK was pregnant the man was approached but either denied fatherhood or made it clear that he wanted nothing to do with KK or the baby. PP was brought up within the family home by KK, supported financially by LL.

49. When LL and MM married in 2015, they lived apart from KK and PP but PP would stay with them during holiday periods. Then, PP moved to live with LL and MM in on the day of QQ’s naming ceremony in late June 2022. She went to secondary school nearby. Given that PP came to live with LL and MM very shortly after QQ’s birth, and that PP had complained to the school and police that she had been treated as a “nanny” by LL and made to do a lot of chores around the house, the question was asked of them whether PP came to live with them because QQ had been born, and to be a help in the home. They denied this. MM said that all the decision making was by LL and he was happy for PP to live with them. LL told me that KK had been worried about PP’s stubborn behaviour. There was a good secondary school near to where LL and MM lived. They had built a four bedroom house in which there was plenty of room for them to live with PP and QQ. .

50. It was unclear from their evidence when the plan was made for PP to leave her mother’s care, which she had enjoyed all her life to that point, to go to live with LL and MM. Until the births of the twins, only a fortnight before the date PP moved in, it had been anticipated that LL would be looking after two newborn babies. MM told me that he was hardly at home because of the demands of his business. Indeed that is why he absented himself from the clinic when LL went there in labour. LL had never cared for a child as a mother. PP would need taking to and from school, she would need support as she adjusted to a new home and new life away from her mother, and LL would have two newborn babies to feed and care for. The timing of PP’s move is therefore striking, particularly in the context of her later complaints that she was treated as a home help or nanny.

51. LL told me that she registered PP’s birth and, at the same time, QQ’s birth at the National Population Commission Registration Centre in Agbarha-Otor in October 2023. PP’s birth certificate states that it was issued under the Births and Deaths Etc. (Compulsory Registration) Decree No. 69 of 1992. It bears what appears to be an official stamp. It states that the date of registration was a day in November 2011 (the day after PP’s birth). It says that the place of birth was Ughelli which LL told me was not true. It states that her father is MM and her mother LL, neither of whom are her parents. The certificate records PP as having MM’s surname but LL and MM had not even met when she was born and she had a different second name at birth and was known by surnames other than MM’s until 2022. Thus the only information on the certificate which I can be sure is accurate is PP’s first name. The certificate bears a serial number but it is part stamped and part hand-written where the second part of the stamped number appears to have worn out or disappeared.

52. LL told me that (i) PP had to bear MM’s surname because it would be shameful to have a name other than that of the man of the household in which she was living. She said that at the time of registration she was treated as PP’s mother because PP was being cared for by her and in any event, she had always been responsible for PP. She told me that the registrar informed her that the date of registration had to be backdated to the day after birth. She said that she had not handwritten the serial number. She said that she had paid a fee for registration but she has not produced evidence of that payment.

53. MM and LL also made a formal declaration of “consent” for PP to enter the UK with them and to live with them here, declaring that they were her “biological parents” and signing the declaration as her “mother” and “father”. They both told me that the term “biological “was not one that would be used in Nigeria and they had copied it from a specimen letter provided to them by an agent. They said that that they regarded themselves as her parents because she had become part of their family unit. MM accepted that since living in England he had recognised that the documentation about PP would be regarded as incorrect but that was not his belief at the time they used it to gain entry for her in the UK. Law re Registration of Births in Nigeria

54. On PP’s and QQ’s birth certificates there is reference to the Births and Deaths etc. (Compulsory Registration) Decree No. 69 of 1992. That decree provides: “7. The Registration of Births in Nigeria… The birth of every child born in Nigeria shall be registered by the registrar of births and deaths for the area in which the child was born by entering in a register kept for that area such particulars … as may be prescribed …

8. Persons Responsible for Registering Births… It shall be the duty of the following persons to give informationeither orally or in writing concerning a birth, that is‐ a. In respect of a birth in a house … i. The father and mother of the child; or… b. In respect of a birth in a hospital, health centre, maternity or nursing home or other like institution – i) the medical officer in charge of such institution or ii) any person authorised by him in that behalf”

55. The Decree goes on to provide that information required to be given about a birth shall be given to the registrar within sixty days but, upon payment of a fee, may be registered at a later date. There are compulsory requirements about registering a death also. Analysis

56. I must survey all the evidence before making determinations but in giving judgment, the court has to start its analysis somewhere. I shall start with QQ’s conception and birth. QQ’s conception and birth

57. In his closing submissions Mr Spencer KC suggested that the central question regarding QQ’s conception and birth was whether LL carried him in pregnancy and gave birth to him. This admits only of a yes or no answer. A number of the applicant’s allegations hinge on this determination and the burden of proof lies on the applicant to prove that LL was not pregnant with and did not give birth to QQ. The standard of proof is the civil standard on the balance of probabilities. I agree that this is a fundamental finding that the court has to address.

58. Until DNA testing showed that QQ was not the biological child of either of LL or MM, they had presented him to the world as just that. A Capacity to Protect Assessment dated 4 October 2024, before the DNA testing, stated, “Parents have shared that Adriel was a twin when he was conceived, although Adriel's sister sadly died before she was born.” On receiving the DNA test results their position has been that LL gave birth to QQ as one of twins, the female twin dying shortly after birth, and that the conception was aided by fertility treatment given by Nurse PF at the NDC in Port Harcourt, Rivers State, Nigeria. Implicit, and occasionally explicit, in their evidence, which they have maintained over the course of a number of witness statements and in oral evidence, is the suggestion that whilst they thought they were receiving some form of fertility treatment to help them conceive naturally, Nurse PF must have implanted embryos into LL without her knowledge. The credibility of their account faces a number of fundamental obstacles: (i) There are no medical or nursing records of the pregnancy, antenatal care, birth, or immediate postnatal care. It is said that all records were burned by NDC. They have no records themselves, only of payments to Nurse PF. (ii) There is no record of the existence of a second baby: it is said that a baby girl was delivered by LL but died en route to another hospital and was buried by MM’s brother in law, VV, or by Nurse PF or someone else at the clinic. Neither her birth nor her death were registered which is required by law in Nigeria. Photographs of her were lost when MM changed phones. (iii) If MM carried QQ during pregnancy and gave birth to him, then she must have been implanted with an embryo. If she gave birth to twins of different sexes, she must have been implanted with at least two embryos. On her account (in her first eight statements) the only occasion on which that could have occurred was on a visit to NDC on 8 July 2021. Hence, she would have been approximately 50 weeks pregnant with twins when she gave birth to QQ. That would be a quite extraordinary event which, according to Mr Hounslow, has never been documented in any medical literature. (iv) On LL’s account (in her written evidence) she gave birth to the second twin some two to three days after QQ was born. In oral evidence she said the period between the two births was six days. Other witnesses gave inconsistent evidence as to whether two to three days, or six days passed between the two deliveries. In either case, the period of delay would again be an extraordinary, if not wholly unprecedented, event. (v) The witness evidence of what happened to the baby girl after her delivery is remarkably inconsistent. Various versions of this traumatic event have been given to the court. Witnesses have been inconsistent in their own evidence and amongst themselves. I have been told that the baby was not brought back to the NDC and was buried elsewhere by VV, but also that the baby was returned to NDC and buried there.

59. The expert evidence only served to underline the implausibility of LL’s account that QQ was carried and then delivered by her after what she now presumes was ET. Successful implantation of embryos giving rise to pregnancy and birth, would have involved a series of sophisticated procedures and either impeccable timing or extraordinary good fortune. The images of NDC provided to the court are of a ramshackle and unhygienic looking facility. Although the investigator’s evidence that it was a three room unit was not challenged in cross-examination, LL later told me that there was a theatre and other medical facilities beyond the three rooms used for consultations or staying overnight. Considering the photographs I have been shown, which may not cover the whole facility, the notion that IVF treatment could have been provided there is risible. The only information provided to the court about Nurse PF is that her training was as an auxiliary nurse, i.e. a healthcare assistant. I shall call her Nurse PF in this judgment because that is what every witness has called her, but the limited evidence available is that she was not a qualified nurse. No-one could sensibly claim that she herself would have the wherewithal to provide a successful IVF service unbeknownst to LL and MM. Even if she had somehow acquired suitably thawed embryos from elsewhere, successful ET requires a degree of skill, and its timing requires careful thought and preparation. Here, the court is asked to believe that upon being told by LL when her last period occurred, Nurse PF chose a date for the embryo transfer (not informing LL of what she was going to do). LL then turned up on that date, but not at any pre-arranged time. Nurse PF strolled into the NDC and said to LL to follow her into the theatre whereupon she injected embryos into her womb without LL having any idea what was going on.

60. LL and MM said that Nurse PF quoted them N4m for their fertility treatment. MM wished to pay by instalments and that was agreed. LL produced a schedule of payments in her statement amounting only to N2.7m: N700,000 prior to the first treatment on 8 July 2021, N1m on 20 May 2022 and two further amounts totalling N1m between the births of the two twins. By the time Nurse PF told LL that she was pregnant, she had been paid only N700,000. She had also told LL and MM that if they wanted, they could have any baby delivered at another hospital. If so, then the N4m was for the fertility treatment not for maternity services or antenatal care. Of course, if the fertility treatment had not been successful then there would be no need for antenatal care or maternity services. Whilst I understand the concept of paying an agreed fee for fertility treatment in instalments, LL’s evidence was that Nurse PF was specifically chasing for further monies to pay for two induction injections which she believed were needed – one for each of the twins. Not only is this evidence of dubious plausibility from a medical perspective, but it is also at odds with the agreed N4m price for the fertility treatment. Either these were further costs for the maternity care or they were the final instalments for the fertility treatment agreed in July 2025 – they cannot be both.

61. If it was Nurse PF who left a voice message for LL after the DNA results, she appears to have recognised that her fees were higher than would be expected for fertility treatment and that what she did was illegal: “… the amount looks suspicious. People will ask what sort of treatment hospital collect such amount for. We know that the treatment is illegal.” . Her message implies that she understood that LL knew that the amount was suspicious and that the treatment was illegal.

62. MM told me that he was angry about the loss of the second twin and so refused to pay the full balance. However, he also told me that he had paid a further N1m not recorded in the schedule and not mentioned in his or LL’s written evidence. Moreover his bank statements do not show that further payment of N1m – he told me during his evidence that it had been paid in cash – but they do show a sum of N500,000 paid to Nurse PF on 12 May 2022. Hence, he may have paid a total of over N4m which would be inconsistent with having agreed N4m and then withheld some because the second twin had died.

63. There are no records of any payments between July 2021 and May 2022. Then bank statements show payments of N1m on 20 May 2022 and a total of N1m in June 2022. Hence substantial payments were made shortly before and at the time of QQ’s arrival.

64. In the course of the hearing, LL produced a ninth statement in which, for the first time, she told the court that on re-visiting the clinic on 4 September 2021 (which she had previously said was the day on which Nurse PF confirmed the pregnancy) Nurse PF again injected something into her via her vagina. The implication was that this could have been the date on which ET took place and therefore the pregnancy lasted 40 to 42 weeks, not 50 weeks. It is of course extraordinary that she should recall this vitally important occurrence, if it happened, only when making a ninth statement and after expert witnesses had given evidence based on her earlier accounts.

65. In his witness statement of 16 December 2024, MM said, “[Nurse PF] told us that my wife was pregnant with a set of twins – a baby boy and a baby girl.” KK told the court that during the pregnancy she and LL went shopping for baby clothes and other items suitable for a boy and a girl. Inconsistently with such evidence, in her oral evidence LL said, for the first time, that she knew that she was having a baby boy and a baby girl only after QQ was delivered. The nurse said that the other baby – not yet delivered but in the breech position – was a baby girl. Unfortunately, LL gave this evidence only after the two experts had concluded their evidence and they were not asked about whether this would have been possible. I can presume therefore that LL had not told anyone of this evidence before she gave it during her oral evidence.

66. LL told me that having experienced contractions which came and went for about a week, on the day before QQ was born they became worse and she called Nurse PF who told her to come to the clinic that day. Assuming LL did believe she was carrying twins, then, on the most charitable view, LL knew that she had carried a twin pregnancy beyond nine months and was now in early labour. Yet she did not go to a local hospital and she did not go to the NDC until the next day. She could not remember when she went on the day of QQ’s birth but it was a two hour journey by car. MM drove, having picked up RR, and said that they left their home at about 11 am to midday. This was a remarkably relaxed approach given the claimed circumstances. Notwithstanding that LL was in labour on arrival she says that she was given an injection to induce labour and hasten the delivery. The reasoning behind this is difficult to fathom, although I must remind myself that Nurse PF was not a nurse or a midwife. MM dropped his wife off several hours into her labour and set off immediately to drive the two hours or so back home where he remained. He said he needed to raise money from his business in order to pay for the balance of the 4m. He did indeed transfer two amounts totalling N1m to Nurse PF over the following few days.

67. LL gave no evidence as to examinations of cervical dilation or the progress of labour, only that she delivered QQ vaginally with nurses holding her legs apart. LL could not tell me how long there was between the induction injections and the delivery of QQ. RR told the court that QQ was born at 1720 hrs. There is a telephone record of an announcement of the birth at about 1830 hrs local time. However, there is inconsistent contemporaneous evidence of the time and date of birth. MM sent a message to someone on 17 June saying his twins had been born the previous day. He told me that was a lie in order to prompt payment from the man for MM’s business.

68. The evidence from LL and MM and members of MM’s family was riddled with inconsistencies, too many to set out in full in his judgment. There were inconsistencies between them and VV about when the topic of visiting NDC was raised, about SS and VV’s involvement with NDC (I was told that SS had had twins delivered there after fertility treatment but that was not mentioned in any written evidence), and about the number of visits to NDC and what happened on those visits. There was the extraordinary introduction, in her ninth statement during the hearing of evidence from LL that she had something inserted into her vagina a NDC in September 2021. There was no consistency about the layout, number of rooms and facilities at NDC. There was inconsistency about knowing the sex of the twins. Evidence lurched from the second delivery being two to three days after the first, to six days later. The evidence about the death and burial of the baby girl was wholly inconsistent. I was given several different versions of what ought to have been, for awful reasons, a memorable event. In her witness evidence LL has told the court that her pregnancy went smoothly, but in contemporaneous messaging she referred to a heavy bleed. She changed her evidence about visiting shops and leaving PP alone with MM, albeit with QQ in the house. QQ’s birth certificate says he was born in Ughelli. Dr Moses has been indicted with child trafficking in relation to QQ in Ughelli. But I have been told he was born in Port Harcourt.

69. Contemporaneous evidence from phone devices does show LL pressing MM to pay Nurse PF during the days after she says QQ was delivered, so that she could have an injection to induce the birth of the second twin. Mr Hounslow said that it would not be a difficult matter to deal with a second twin’s breech position and to deliver her. However, Nurse PF was not qualified and so may not have had the training or skill to perform such an undertaking. It was not explored with the experts why a further induction injection would be needed or advisable. In any event Mr Hounslow made it clear that there is no evidence of the consequences of leaving a gap of days between twin deliveries at or about, or beyond term (he did not even know that LL was going to tell the court that the gap was six days) because no western healthcare professionals would allow a second twin to remain unborn for more than a few hours at the outside. Most second twins are born within thirty minutes. After the birth of twin 1, various physiological processes will reduce the oxygen flow to twin 2 in utero. Hence the need to deliver twin 2 promptly. The chances of twin 2 surviving a delay of about three days would be very low (he was not asked about a delay of six days because that was not then LL’s evidence).

70. When both LL and MM gave evidence their response to many difficult questions was that what they or others had done or not done was in accordance with cultural norms in Nigeria. I do take into account that there are significant cultural differences between Nigeria and the UK but ultimately, I find that they used this ploy as a means of evasion.

71. The court takes into account the fallibility of memory and the pressure of giving evidence remotely, through interpreters and in a pressured court environment. On the other hand, LL and MM did not appear to be intimidated by the process of giving evidence – indeed they were assertive - and they were able to speak fluently. The same can be said of MM’s sisters and brother-in-law.

72. If LL was not pregnant with and did not give birth to QQ, then he was born to another woman. He must then have been given to LL to be brought up as her child. It would follow that LL’s own account of her pregnancy and QQ’s birth must be false. On her account, there was no opportunity for her to have been duped into thinking she had given birth to QQ – she recalls the delivery. There is no suggestion by her that she was sedated or that there was an opportunity for Nurse PF to have tricked her into thinking she had delivered a baby or babies. Hence, if her account is false, she must know that QQ was born to another woman and then given to her. Likewise, the baby girl was not delivered by her but either was given to her in a very unwell condition or is a fictional creation. It also follows that RR’s evidence that she witnessed the deliveries is also false.

73. It might be asked whether it is credible that another woman gave birth to QQ only for him to be given to LL who pretended that he was her own child to whom she had given birth. Such an arrangement would involve a “surrogate” who was either willing or unwilling to perform that role. An unknown man’s sperm must have been used to conceive QQ either through intercourse or artificial insemination. It is clear that LL and MM paid money to Nurse PF – a significant total sum in Nigeria. That payment would be consistent with what Nurse PF called an “illegal” service in the voice note of 11 November 2024. In Re EZ (A Minor) (Care Proceedings: Nigerian Fertility Clinic and Maternity Hospital) [2025] EWFC 122 , Mr Recorder Tyler KC sitting as a Deputy High Court Judge addressed an account of a birth in Nigeria following implantation of an embryo which, if true, would have followed a 56 week pregnancy during which scans and tests performed in England showed no pregnancy. In his careful and measured judgment he found that the purported mother had not given birth to the child but that the evidence did not allow him to reach conclusions about the child’s true provenance. He heard evidence about practices in Nigeria including “baby farming” in which women are forced into becoming pregnant and giving birth to children who are then sold to others. He also noted previous court decisions involving so-called “miracle pregnancies” in Nigeria, including Haringey LBC v C, E and Another Intervening [2004] EWHC 2580 (Fam) , [2005] 2 FLR 47 (in which Ryder J found that the child was not a child of the couple before him but a child of unknown parents from whom he had been removed by unknown means), London Borough of Lambeth v Mr and Mrs O & E (By her Guardian) [2011] EWHC 2453 (Fam) , A Local Authority v S and Others [2013] EWHC 3764 (Fam) , [2014] 1 FLR 1313 (in which baby farming in Port Harcourt was a feature of the evidence), Re D (Nigerian Fertility Clinic: Fact-Finding) [2012] EWHC 4231 (Fam) (in which Coleridge J found that a Nigerian couple had been duped by a clinic in Port Harcourt into believing they had produced a child of their own), and London Borough of Hillingdon v AO [2014] EWHC 75 (Fam) (in which Hogg J found that a couple had “allowed themselves to be duped by fraudsters … I do not find that the parents were wilfully and knowingly involved with or parties to a wrongful removal of A from her mother or that they cynically “bought” a baby”).

74. Thus, the courts here have long recognised that there are practices by fertility clinics in Nigeria that involve supplying babies to couples and, in some cases, duping them into believing they have produced their own child. These might seem to be extraordinary activities, but they have been found to have taken place.

75. In Re: H (Anonymous Surrogacy) [2025] EWHC 220 (Fam) Sir Andrew McFarlane P, considered a surrogacy arrangement in Nigeria. At para. 19 he noted: “With respect to Nigeria, it is to be noted that the UK has imposed special restrictions on adoptions from that country (Special Restrictions on Adoptions from Abroad (Nigeria) Order 2021). Guidance issued by the Department for Education lists the specific areas of concern relating to adoption from Nigeria as including: • difficulties confirming the background and adoptability of children; • unreliable documentation; • concerns about corruption in the Nigerian adoption system; • evidence of organised child trafficking within Nigeria; and • concerns about weaknesses in checks completed by Nigerian authorities in relation to adoption applications from prospective adopters who are habitually resident in the United Kingdom and therefore are likely to in fact be intended to be intercountry adoptions. This includes weaknesses in pre and post adoption monitoring procedures. There is an absence of checks as to whether the adoption is intended to be an intercountry adoption in light of the habitual residence of applicants and accordingly whether prospective adopters have been assessed and approved by a UK adoption agency and issued with relevant UK authority documentation (e.g. certificate of eligibility to adopt) to proceed with an intercountry adoption from Nigeria. Whilst there is no comparable statutory restriction on surrogacy cases originating from Nigeria, the need for care as to the reliability of documentation and the potential for the involvement of organised child traffickers underscores the need for caution in parental order applications involving a Nigerian surrogacy.”

76. Thus, it is clear that there are known untoward practices in Nigeria concerning fertility treatment, surrogacy, adoption, and births. These practices include child trafficking involving a financial transaction under which a baby born to another woman is supplied to a couple who then present it to the world as their own.

77. Evidence which might confound the applicant’s case that LL was not pregnant with QQ includes: (i) Witness and photographic evidence that MM appeared pregnant. (ii) Witnesses who say that they saw and felt with their hands on LL’s abdomen, the babies kicking inside her. (iii) LL’s claim that she breast fed QQ. (iv) Contemporaneous messaging referring to LL having delivered QQ and the second twin being in the breech position and delivery of her being delayed. (v) Other contemporaneous messaging about the pregnancy which appears to be unguarded and genuine. (vi) MM’s efforts to have the NDC investigated by Nigerian police once DNA evidence relating to QQ was provided.

78. To each of those potentially confounding factors, in turn, there is an answer: (i) The appearance of pregnancy could be induced by drugs or mimicked by weight gain. Indeed, XX told the court that in May 2022, when LL would have been over nine months pregnant with twins, if pregnant at all, LL appeared “big but not too big … fat.” (ii) If LL wished to convince others that she was pregnant she could simulate a baby kicking. Witnesses who believed she was pregnant would be easily persuaded that what they saw or felt was a baby kicking. (iii) There is virtually no corroborative evidence, beyond LL and MM themselves, of her breastfeeding QQ. There is one photograph of a baby lying on LL’s breast but not obviously actively feeding. There are several photographs of artificial milk products (although mixed feeding is a possibility). (iv) If LL was not pregnant with twins or at all then her messaging in June 2022 when apparently in labour would not be true or reliable. A cover story would have to be adopted. The gap in time between the reported deliveries, and indeed the hurried last minute payments to Nurse PF and then a refusal to pay the balance said to have been due, could be explained by some difficulty arising with regard to the provision to LL of a second child as planned. It was submitted on behalf of LL and MM that they could not have foreseen the need to hoodwink this court when sending messages in June 2022. That may be so, but if LL was not pregnant and was acquiring a child or children by some other means, they – or LL alone – would want to adopt a cover story involving her pregnancy. (v) For similar reasons, if LL and/or MM knew from July 2021 that they were involved in an illegal transaction to buy a baby or babies then they would seek to cover their tracks (hence no documentary evidence beyond payments purporting to be for fertility treatment, and to exchange occasional messages that supported the pretence that LL was pregnant. Messaging about a forthcoming delivery would be part of the subterfuge. (vi) This sixth, potentially confounding factor might speak to MM’s ignorance of what happened at the NDC rather than being probative of whether or not LL was pregnant. Assuming LL was not pregnant then MM’s pursuit of a police investigation into the NDC might suggest that he was ignorant of the true state of affairs but, if he did know the truth, then he might have taken a calculated risk that the police would not find any records or Nurse PF, or that she would not reveal the truth. His having complained to the police would provide him with an argument as to his and MM’s innocence of any wrongdoing without any significant risk that the police would find out anything incriminating. Nevertheless I accept that his part of the evidence, if anything, weighs against the Local Authority’s case.

79. For MM, Mr Feehan KC submitted that evidence of payment by his client to Nurse PF supported MM’s case that he and LL believed they were receiving fertility treatment. In my judgement, the payments do no support that case. Other than MM’s late claim from the witness box that he had paid an additional N1m in cash to Nurse PF at an unspecified date, the payments were all made either at the time of the first clinic visits in July 2021 or shortly before or even during the confinement some ten to eleven months later. If Nurse PF covertly transferred embryos into LL’s uterus in July 2021, then, if there was to be a successful pregnancy, she would have expected it to have ended with delivery by nine months later in April 2022. By then she had only received N600,000 of the supposedly agreed N4m. The timing of the payments rather suggests that in May and June 2022, LL and MM were paying for something that had not yet happened rather than for any fertility treatment they had already received.

80. I have also considered why, if LL and MM were covering up the fact that LL was never pregnant with QQ, they would fabricate such a highly implausible story that she was pregnant with twins for 50 weeks and gave birth to the twins six days apart. There are various possible explanations. Even assuming she was not pregnant with QQ, LL will not have assumed that DNA testing would be performed. Why would the occasion arise? It would not have arisen but for PP’s allegations against MM. Accordingly, the date on which she visited NDC in “labour” could have been said to be nine months after natural conception following intercourse. It was only when the DNA testing was done that another explanation of conception had to be given and the only time an embryo could have been implanted was on 8 July 2021, 50 weeks before she “gave birth”. LL’s recollection that she had something inserted vaginally in September 2021 was very much an afterthought lacking in credibility. The arrangement with Nurse PF might well have been to have twins. Family and friends were told that LL was expecting twins. Perhaps something went wrong regarding a second child. LL was waiting for her to be “supplied” to her but she never came. An explanation had to be given about what happened to the second twin and why she was not “born” until days after QQ’s birth. Perhaps the baby girl was handed to LL at the NDC in June 2022 but was in a poorly state and died very soon thereafter. I must not speculate unduly but these are possible reasons for why LL has been compelled to give the implausible account she has given.

81. If LL was not pregnant with QQ and did not give birth to him or a twin sister, then there are a number of witnesses who must have lied to the court. RR, who says she witnessed the birth, and SS, TT, and VV who were involved in the race to save he twin sister and/or the disposal of her body.

82. It is possible that MM was not part of an illicit arrangement between LL and Nurse PF to procure a baby or babies. The court was told that he was not present at NDC in June 2022 other than to drop off LL and RR in his car. Nurse PF examined LL in private whilst he was waiting outside the room. He was busy with his business and away from home a lot during the supposed pregnancy. His ignorance of the arrangement might explain his instigation of a police investigation into NDC. However, (i) MM was closely involved with the agreement with Nurse PF which was reached in July 2021. (ii) MM was responsible for paying for the treatment. On the evidence provided at the hearing, the cost of the treatment was far in excess of the cost of previous fertility drugs for which the couple had paid. He must surely have realised that he was purchasing something more than a few injections and medications. As Nurse PF (if it was her) later said in a voice note, the payments were so high as to raise suspicion. (iii) He lived with LL during the months between July 2021 and June 2022. Whilst her appearance may have convinced others of her pregnancy, if she was not in fact pregnant it is very difficult to believe that he would not have known. (iv) It is surprising to say the least that with his wife well into labour, having driven her for two hours from their home to the NDC, he did not stay in the vicinity without finding out whether she was about to deliver babies whom he says he believed were their biological children within the next few hours. I accept that in his culture a father-to-be might well not attend the birth in person, but it would not have harmed his business to have stayed around for the rest of that day, for example. Why did he drive away immediately unless he knew there was to be no birth and no jeopardy to his wife? (v) MM was searching on line before the DNA results to find out whether a child might not have DNA in common with their father and what happens in the UK if there is no DNA match. On his account he had no reason at all to suspect that there would not be a DNA match because he and LL had conceived twins after having sexual intercourse.

83. One aspect of the lack of credibility of the accounts of LL and MM is that they involve a staggering level of credulousness on their part. Having tried but failed to conceive a child and sustain a pregnancy for several years they purport to have entirely trusted in Nurse PF without knowing what treatment she was giving them or how it would work. Nor did Nurse PF have the authority of being doctor. In fact, according to the only evidence available, she was an auxiliary, and so not a qualified nurse. I do remind myself that cultural differences might explain to some extent the unquestioning trust LL and MM may have had in someone they regarded as a professional, introduced to them by a respected relative, VV. However, their account requires the court to believe that they were almost unthinkingly gullible. In contrast they presented themselves to the court as intelligent and worldly. MM ran a business in Nigeria buying and selling mobile phones. LL had worked and had taken on responsibilities for her family after the deaths of her parents. Entry to the UK

84. The evidence received shows that on the balance of probabilities, KK gave birth to PP after either rape by a man who lived locally or after having been taken advantage of by that man when she was under 18. KK brought PP up with the financial help of LL and practical help from her and others in the family. Very shortly after QQ’s birth, PP was moved to live with LL, MM and their new baby. This was in August 2022. Although I was told that this move was in part to benefit PP’s education, LL and MM emigrated to England with PP and QQ in early December 2023. I was told that KK consented to her daughter’s emigration.

85. In preparation for their emigration, LL obtained birth certificates for PP and QQ. PP’s birth certificate states that her birth was registered one day after her birth which it was not. It records that her parents were LL and MM. They were not. Her place of birth is recorded as their home city which is incorrect. QQ’s birth is also recorded wrongly as having been registered on the day after his birth. The place of birth is recorded as LL and MM’s home city, not Port Harcourt where I have been told he was born. They are registered as his parents which is now known to be untrue, although, on their case, LL and MM believed themselves to be his biological parents before the DNA testing in 2024. There is virtually no accurate information on either birth certificate and, even on their own case, LL and MM knew that the information on PP’s certificate was inaccurate when the registration took place. If LL and MM genuinely believed they were QQ’s parents, they did not believe that they were PP’s parents. Curiously, in her first statement, KK says that she, not LL, registered PP’s birth. LL told the court that it is a cultural norm to record as parents those with whom the child is living and that the registrar told her that the date of registration must be recorded as the day after the birth not the date of actual registration. PP’s birth certificate has a partly handwritten serial number where the pre-printed number has disappeared.

86. I note the law on registration of births in Nigeria (above). LL’s evidence is wholly at odds with the legal requirements about registering births and the circumstances of registration of both children’s births is not compliant with those requirements: LL ought not to have been the person providing the information to the registrar in either case. Furthermore, PP’s place of birth as stated on her passport, obtained on 25 October 2023, is, as on her birth certificate, incorrect on her mother’s evidence.

87. LL and MM signed declarations to the UK Entry Clearance Officer on 3 November 2023 stating that they were PP’s biological parents. They knew that not to be true. Nor could they risk PP saying that they were her aunty and uncle when going through immigration or on arrival. I accept the evidence from PP that she was told to say that they were her parents. On 9 May 2024 LL signed a parental consent form at PP’s school stating that she and MM were PP’s mother and father. When the police officer and social worker called on LL at home on 15 July 2024, she initially told twice them she was PP’s mother before admitting the truth when questioned further. PP may have referred to them as aunty and uncle when she initially made her allegations to the school counsellor in July 2024, but there had been a collective pretence that she was LL and MM’s daughter at the time of entry to the UK. PP’s Allegations

88. MM is a man of good character with no convictions and a history of working hard in his business. There is no evidence of his having acted abusively or inappropriately in a sexual or any other context with any other person. There is no forensic evidence to corroborate the allegations made against him. There are no witnesses who corroborate the allegations of rape and sexual abuse. Everything turns on PP’s evidence. I have not seen or heard her give evidence in person. I have read the written evidence and viewed the filmed evidence of what she has said to a school counsellor and to the police.

89. PP later made allegations of sexual abuse by another man, NN, which she detailed in an ABE police interview. That man had opportunity to perpetrate abuse of her when she, LL, MM, and QQ lived with another family upon arrival in the UK and before they found a home of their own. The police have taken no action against NN.

90. There are no verbatim notes of what she said to the school counsellor when she first made the allegations nor of the 20 minutes or so of conversation that preceded the counsellor’s question, “do you feel safe at home?” which prompted PP’s allegations of sexual abuse. PP may very well have spent a couple of hours in lessons or with school peers before the police arrived on 15 July 2024. The possibility of her having been influenced by others must be borne in mind. The police notes of their initial discussions with PP at the school are not full and some of the initial questions were leading. The police begin by naming MM as involved. PP did not volunteer that MM had touched her until the police asked her whether he had touched her, and the police officer introduces the issue of PP being touched in a “sexual area”.

91. Mr Feehan KC and Ms Alexander rightly remind the court of paragraph 3.68 of the ABE Guidance: “… research indicates that witnesses’ responses to leading questions tend to be determined more by the manner of questioning than by valid remembering. Leading questions can serve not merely to influence the answer given but may also significantly distort the witness’s memory in the direction implied by the leading question. For these reasons, leading questions should only be used as a last resort, where all other questioning strategies have failed to elicit any kind of response.”

92. The forensic medical examination included questioning about penetration of the vagina, mouth and anus. The police questioning ought to have elicited the child’s account and it is problematic for a medical examiner to ask questions designed to elicit an account which has not already been given. Paragraph 2.62 of the ABE Guidance states: “When examining children, doctors should take care to avoid asking leading questions or anticipating the investigative interview. They should, however, make contemporaneous notes of any spontaneous comments by the child concerning the origins or circumstances giving rise to the evaluation or examination. On other occasions, the medical examination will be after the interview; in such cases where a medical examination is a possibility, a discussion should take place with the paediatrician or the police Forensic Medical Examiner who will undertake this to ensure that expectations of possible outcomes of the examination are realistic and appropriate.”

93. Here, the medical examination was prior to the ABE interview but PP had not made any allegation of anal penetration. Dr Dearden asked PP if there had been anal penetration and she recorded PP as answering in the affirmative. There was no follow up questioning. That is the only record of PP alleging any anal interference by MM. PP did not make any such allegation in the subsequent ABE interview.

94. There is no evidence about the planning for the ABE interview save for a written intermediary assessment. The ABE Guidance supports four phases to an interview, beginning with rapport. There is no rapport stage and the “truth and lies” exercise was very brief. As a prompt for a free narrative the officer said, “So you’ve spoken to police about things that have happened with your Uncle [MM].” This risked painting PP into a corner – she might have felt that she had to confirm what she had already said about MM.

95. I have viewed the recording of the ABE interview twice and with care. PP comes across as naïve and unsure how to express herself. She was quiet and the police officer was apparently struggling to elicit information from her. Indeed, during the interview the officer was not adept at asking simple, short questions. My perception is that the intermediary’s interventions, of which there are several, were made because she feared that the interviewing officer’s questions were not understood. Mr Feehan KC and Ms Alexander submit that the intermediary’s interventions were leading and inappropriate. I do not agree. I see the interventions as having been helpful because, unfortunately, the officer’s questioning was causing PP some confusion. I do not regard the use of body maps in this interview as being leading, They were used appropriately for a child who had difficulty expressing herself about body parts and sexual acts.

96. PP’s discussions on 15 July 2024 and subsequent ABE interview have to be understood in context. PP had been moved to live with a new family in the summer of 2023 when she was still only 11 years old. She had then been taken out of her home country in late 2024, away from her mother and half-siblings, when she was about to turn 12. She was isolated from her immediate family and wholly dependent on LL and MM. She had only fairly recently started at a new school in a new country. It was a big step for her to go to a school counsellor as she must have realised. It resulted in her being removed from the case of LL and MM so that, at the time of the ABE interview, she was separated even further from everything familiar to her.

97. PP’s hesitancy in interview suggests to me that she had not rehearsed and had not been told what to say by anyone else. Her obvious naivety about sexual matters and a natural shyness exacerbated by the circumstances, explain her hesitancy. Other than the single reference to anal penetration at the medical examination, her evidence has not developed over time. She has been consistent. She shows no signs of exaggeration or embellishment, for example she volunteers that MM did not abuse her when she was ill. She spontaneously referred to milky stuff coming out of MM. She did not have the vocabulary of an older or more worldly child, but she spontaneously described her experience. She spoke of cleaning up afterwards which is consistent with the general allegations she was making against MM.

98. When PP made her initial allegations, they followed complaints to the counsellor about LL’s treatment of her. The question about whether she felt safe at home was an open question and prompted the allegation of sexual abuse against MM. On her own account she had good reason to speak to someone at this point because she had recently “stood up” to MM and feared she might not be able to do so again. PP explained how M took the opportunity to abuse her when LL was out of the house. I am satisfied that despite changes in LL’s evidence, she was sometimes away from the home, leaving PP alone with MM and QQ, for at least half an hour at a time and sometimes an hour, when she visited shops. Also, she confirmed that she did leave the home in Nigeria for a period of time to take some exams, which PP had mentioned to police was a time when MM seized the opportunity to abuse her, albeit touching her over her clothing. The escalation in MM’s abuse over time - from touching over clothing to touching under clothing and penetration - is credible. PP’s account of what MM said to her about not becoming pregnant is also credible and not something she would have thought up for herself.

99. It is right to note that PP’s account to police was not given with emotion and PP did not describe pain, discomfort or other subjective physical associations with the alleged abuse.

100. On PP’s account, there might well have been records on devices used by LL and MM of messaging about LL being at the shops when MM was alone with the children at home. No such messages have been extracted from their devices. That does not exclude calls having been made but PP did refer to messaging. There is therefore no corroboration from the devices and the absence of such messaging weighs against the credibility of her account.

101. PP’s inconsistent response to Dr Dearden that anal penetration had taken place must be viewed in the context of PP’s naivety and the manner in which the question was asked. There was no build up to the question, no record of any exploration of whether PP understood what was being asked. Dr Dearden described her questioning as almost being like a questionnaire rather than an attempt to achieve best evidence from a child alleging sexual abuse.

102. When investigations were ongoing, MM (I am sure it was MM rather than LL) did an online search with the question, “If one is guilty of rape will him/her be arrested a home?” and “can you determine rape with symptoms of STI alone in the UK?” I take into account that evidence but MM knew he was under investigation for rape and I do not read too much into the precise wording of his searches, such as using the term “guilty” rather than “arrested”. Nevertheless, the second search question raises concern that he thought he might have given PP an STI. I have no documentary evidence as to whether he did or did not have an STI but he may have feared that he did.

103. PP had no obvious motivation to lie about being assaulted by MM. Her grievance about the way she was being treated in the home was against LL and she did not suggest that LL knew what MM had done to her. That does not make what she said true, but this is not a case in which there is a credible ulterior motive for making allegations against MM. Physical Abuse by LL

104. It is alleged that LL struck PP, slapping her and hitting her back. LL denied these allegations which were made by PP but only briefly and without scrutiny. No adequate examination of the alleged circumstances has been carried out. Conclusions

105. Having given LL all due allowances for cultural differences, stress, language issues, the fallibility of memory, and her unfamiliarity with the court and its processes, I have no doubt that she lied brazenly and often during her evidence to the court. She lied with conviction and without hesitation. Witnesses lie for many different reasons. In this case it is clear to me that LL lied to the court to cover up the truth of her claimed pregnancy, and QQ’s birth, and to cover up her lies about her and MM’s parentage of QQ for all purposes, and their parentage of PP for immigration purposes. She piled lie upon lie in order to in order to conceal the truth.

106. I do not believe that it falls into the error identified in The Popi M to proceed on the basis that LL was either pregnant with and gave birth to QQ in Nigeria or was not pregnant with him and did not give birth to him. That is not a question about which of two or more possible causes of an event is the more likely, as was the issue in The Popi M . Whilst it is fair to say that not everything can be known by the court as to the circumstances of LL’s treatment and the arrival of QQ into he world, either LL gave birth to him or she did not. If she did, then there are some extraordinary features of his conception and birth. If she did not, then some unknown woman gave birth to him close to the time LL was in the clinic in June 2022 and he was given to LL who has then represented him as her own. Having considered all the evidence in his case I conclude with a high degree of certainty, not merely on the balance of probabilities, that LL was not pregnant with, and did not give birth to QQ.

107. This is not a case in which the court has to contemplate the possibility that LL was duped by Nurse PF or the NDC into believing she had given birth. She does not say that she passed out, was sedated, or that there was a moment when she was not aware of what was happening. She has said that she pushed the baby out. I was told that the baby had a birth mark which QQ still has. Therefore there was no clandestine swap (and why would babies be swapped if she had genuinely given birth?).

108. I find that LL was party to a transaction in which, in return for payments, QQ, born of another woman, was supplied to LL for her to pretend that he was born to her. As part of this unlawful and immoral transaction LL was assisted by Nurse PF to pretend that she was pregnant and that she had given birth at NDC. She has told multiple lies about being pregnant and about giving birth to QQ in order to cover up an illegal transaction involving the purchase of a child.

109. I also conclude with a high degree of certainty that LL was not pregnant with and did not give birth to a twin girl. I cannot determine whether a baby girl was brought to the NDC in June 2022 and died soon thereafter or whether the existence of a second baby is entirely concocted, but I am sure that (i) LL was not pregnant at the relevant time, and (ii) the numerous and significant inconsistencies in the several accounts given about the baby’s death and burial reveal the multiple lies to this court about what happened in the days after QQ was given to LL.

110. I am sure that RR, SS, TT, and VV have lied to the court about events in June 2022. I am sure that RR did not witness LL giving birth either to one or two babies and that the accounts of SS, TT, and VV about the twin girl are made up to conceal the true events, because the true events involve illegal activity.

111. MM was not in Port Harcourt in June 2022 other than to drop off LL and RR at NDC and to pick up LL and QQ after they had left NDC. Whilst it is possible that he was oblivious of the charade I conclude that on the balance of probabilities he knew that his wife was not pregnant and that she did not give birth to QQ or a twin sister. He was involved with making arrangements with and large payments to Nurse PF, he lived with LL at all material times and I am satisfied that his sisters and brother in law knew the truth that LL was not pregnant. It is highly unlikely that he was hoodwinked. I find that he knew the DNA testing would show that he was not QQ’s father and he had known all along that he was not his father.

112. Not only are there fundamental problems with the credibility of an account that instead of receiving fertility treatment by injections and drugs, LL was covertly implanted with embryos in July 2021 which gave rise to a birth or births 50 weeks later, but also the facts, such as they can be ascertained, are consistent with an arrangement for a baby born of another woman and subsequently given to LL. She and MM have no records of the agreement with or treatment by Nurse PF. The sums of money paid to Nurse PF were in a total amount that far exceeded the cost of any previous fertility treatment LL and MM had received. The majority of the payments were timed to coincide with or shortly precede the “birth” rather than at the time of any fertility treatment. LL travelled two hours to NDC for the “birth” when Nurse PF had said, I was told, that she could use a local maternity hospital. XX described LL as looking “fat” a fortnight or so before the “birth”, she did not describe her appearance as being of a heavily pregnant woman. There is no evidence of any post-natal care for LL. There is no corroboration of the claim that LL breast fed QQ. One photograph shows him lying on a breast. There are no child health records of breast feeding.

113. I do not believe that XX tried to pull the wool over the eyes of the court. She struck me as a witness who, unusually in his case, was willing to help the court. She may have harboured some doubts about the pregnancy but she assumed that LL was being honest with her.

114. I cannot know the circumstances of QQ’s birth save that I conclude that he was removed from his gestational mother’s care (whether with her consent or not) and given to LL who, complicitly with MM and members of his family, presented him to the world thereafter as her own child. This was a transactional arrangement for which LL and MM paid money. QQ’s biological parents and, if different, his gestational mother, remain unknown.

115. Making due allowance for cultural differences, and in particular (i) that a Nigerian child might move permanently to live with relatives pursuant to a voluntary arrangement with her biological parent(s), and (ii) registrars in parts of Nigeria might not be punctilious about conforming with the law on registration, the evidence nevertheless firmly persuades me that LL and MM have lied about PP’s and QQ’s parentage in order to secure entry to the UK. Furthermore, I find that the birth certificates, both of them, are not genuine. They were either created by LL and MM themselves or by someone else on their false information. They were created in order to facilitate entry to the UK. The declarations to the ECO were clearly false and, in my judgment, dishonest.

116. I find that KK’s role in PP’s emigration from Nigeria to England was to knowingly abet LL and MM falsely to represent that PP was their daughter. The evidence does not persuade me that she was directly responsible for the creation of false documentation, including the birth certificates, but she knew that LL and MM were doing so. It is alleged that she “facilitated” LL and MM to obtain false documentation for PP and to procure her entry and leave to stay in the United Kingdom. She actively transferred PP’s care to LL and MM. I cannot know whether she had already obtained a birth certificate for PP which was then concealed. I prefer to express my finding as being that KK abetted LL and MM to procure PP’s entry and leave to say in the UK by falsely representing that PP was their daughter. The evidence does not allow me to find that she took active steps in relation to the false documentation, but she knew what they were doing and supported them. She could have prevented the fabrication but did not do so. She was complicit. She thereby caused or contributed to the harm to PP as set out at allegation (v).

117. Notwithstanding deficiencies in some of the questioning of PP and record-keeping, and the risk that certain questioning by the police could have led PP to give certain incriminating responses, the evidence as a whole persuades me to the requisite civil standard that MM sexually abused PP as set out in the schedule of allegations: he touched her breasts and penetrated her vagina with his penis and digitally. He ejaculated over her body and vagina. He did this when LL was out of the house and he could be sure she would not return soon. He did so on the bed in the home and he progressed to doing so with PP undressed. His motive was clearly sexual. LL was not aware of the abuse at the time. I am sure that she has had strong suspicions against MM after PP made her allegations but she chose to support MM rather than PP. Although she has formally taken a neutral position on these allegations at the hearing, she has at various times sought to undermine PP’s allegations, for example by her initial evidence about not leaving them alone in the house, and her later inconsistent evidence about her shopping expeditions.

118. I am not persuaded that the allegations of LL physically abusing PP are established on the balance pf probabilities. PP made those allegations but they were not explored with her and the circumstances are not sufficiently clear to the court to allow me to make the findings sought.

119. The conduct I have found proved against LL and MM has had profound consequences for PP and QQ, as set out in the allegations. I find that MM’s abuse of PP took place when QQ was in the home and so created the risk set out at allegation (ii) but there is no evidence that he came into the bedroom or did witness any abuse. Allegation (xiv), being in the alternative, is not applicable. I have expressed my finding against KK slightly differently from how the Local Authority has expressed it. Otherwise, I make all the findings as sought.

120. I invite the parties now to seek to agree directions for the determination of the children’s welfare.

121. Durham Police have confirmed in writing that they have no objection to the publication of this anonymised judgment.