A six-year-old girl was diagnosed with gonorrhoea after “sexual contact” with a family member. Liverpool Civil and Family Court heard allegations in July that the child contracted the sexually transmitted infection as a result of abuse from her mum or uncle.
The court heard the girl and her brother saw their father beating their mother, who had a history of poor mental health as well as drug and alcohol misuse, including crack cocaine and heroin. She left the children in the care of their nan in May 2023.
The dad had a history of criminal convictions, including for battery, criminal damage, drug-related matters and possession of weapons, including for threatening the children’s maternal nan with a meat cleaver, according to the Liverpool Echo.
The family court heard the girl was diagnosed in June 2023 with gonorrhoea when she was six. Experts ruled out the youngster’s nan and her partner as being responsible because they weren’t infected. The dad was also ruled out because at the time he was in prison.
An unidentified local authority, which brought the case, alleged the mum and uncle were infected at the time and both were potential perpetrators. The children lived at their nan’s house along with their nan’s partner and uncle.
Both the girl’s mum and her uncle denied infecting her. The pair raised doubts over the testing process and said there was no evidence of abuse by either of them.
A judge sitting at the same court in 2024 previously acquitted the two of sexual abuse, but the Court of Appeal ruled there had been errors in the process and ordered the case to be heard before a high court judge.
The court heard the mum had unprotected sex with two men in June 2023. The uncle admitted to three partners in the previous month.
He tested positive for gonorrhoea and chlamydia in May 2023. He told the proceedings that after a week he continued to have unprotected sex.
In early June the girl’s eye was swollen, red and itchy and she was taken to a clinic. Tests confirmed her right eye had tested positive for the infection, a vulval swab was “weakly positive” and a urine test “equivocal” for gonorrhoea.
The mum later tested positive for gonorrhoea after throat and vulva swabs were taken on June 14 of the same year.
The local authority began care proceedings and orders were made on the basis the children remained in the care of their nan, on the condition no one else other than her partner lived at the property.
When rumours of sexual abuse started circulating in the neighbourhood, the nan and children moved house as it was no longer safe for them.
Experts agreed fomite transmission, where somebody comes into contact with a disease through contamination, was a possibility in the girl’s case, but highly unlikely. They instead found sexual contact was the most probable cause of the youngster’s infection.
High court judge Mr Justice Peel told the hearing he was satisfied the girl’s contraction of the infection “was as a result of direct sexual contact” and not from fomite transfer.
He added: “The strong likelihood is… this little girl was subjected to inappropriate sexual contact by the mother and or uncle at some point in May 2023.”
Mr Justice Peel said: “Both the mother and the uncle had the opportunity to perpetrate sexual contact during May 2023 which is the likely period for (the girl) being infected.
“The uncle lived at the house a few days each week and spent time with the children, even if there was always another adult in the building.”
He said the mother went to the house “on occasions” and slept at least one night in the children’s room. The judge added: “Both tested positive for gonorrhoea and, in my judgment, there is a realistic possibility that each of them was infected during May 2023 and, in terms of timeline, could have infected (the girl).
“Both had the opportunity to infect her in the sense that they spent time in the same house as the children. Both led somewhat chaotic and boundary-less lives. Both were, I am satisfied, on occasions incapacitated while under the influence of drugs and alcohol.”
The judge continued: “There is no evidence of a conspiracy, or a joint enterprise. However, sexual contact did take place with one or the other.
“I cannot say precisely when the sexual contact was perpetrated. I am satisfied that one of them transmitted gonorrhoea to (the girl), but I am unable to conclude which one.”
He added it would be difficult to make a specific finding as to which of them carried out the abuse in the absence of oral evidence from the mum.
Justice Peel said: “I am satisfied that both fall within the pool of realistically possible perpetrators. Unsatisfactory though it is, I have come to the conclusion that I cannot decide on the balance of probabilities which of them is the perpetrator.”
The judge concluded the threshold findings sought by the local authority had been established, with both the mum and uncle considered possible perpetrators.