Pose For Naked Selfie-
A 10-year-old boy was forced to carry out a sex act on his mum and pose for a “naked selfie” with her, a court has heard.
The child was subjected to horrific sexual assaults and abuse from his mum and her partner, which was branded “despicable” by a judge.
Swansea Crown Court heard sex acts performed on the victim were filmed while a man repeatedly asked him if he was watching him have sex with his mum as the boy lay on a blow-up mattress under their bed.
The court also heard the youngster was forced to use a sex toy on his parent and pose for a “naked selfie” with her.
The couple, who come from the Swansea Bay, but cannot be named to protect the identity of the child, previously pleaded guilty to a string of sex offences, Wales Onlinereports.
The mum had pleaded guilty to sexual assaults, to taking an indecent photograph of a child, inciting a child to commit a sexual act, and causing a child to watch a sexual act.
While her partner admitted sexual assaults, and to inciting a child to perform a sexual act. Both also pleaded guilty to a joint charge of engaging in sexual activity in the presence of a child.
Dean Pulling, prosecuting, said the abuse came to light “somewhat fortuitously” when a former partner of the man went to police to report concerns about his attitude to sex.
She said the man had wanted her to dress as a young girl and call him “daddy” when they had sex, and had an interest in incestuous online material.
The woman also found explicit videos on her computer which had been uploaded from his phone and which showed him talking about wanting sex with a child which the barrister characterised as “at best obscene, and in some cases described as disturbing and perverted”.
It emerged the man had been having an affair behind his former partner’s back with the mum of the boy he was abusing.
The court heard the woman downloaded the files she found onto a memory stick and handed it to the police.
Later that same day officers went to the house where the man was living with his new partner and co-defendant, and her son.
Mr Pulling said the young victim, who was 10 at the time, was initially reluctant to talk about what had happened to him in the proceeding weeks.
But in the days that followed gradually began to open-up.
The court heard the boy said his mum’s partner had touched his penis a number of times, and asked him if he could put the boy’s penis in his mouth.
He said his mother had taken a “naked selfie” of them one morning before he went to school calling it their “little secret”, and he had been encouraged to use a sex toy on her. He also said she had performed a sex act on him while videoing it on a mobile phone.
The boy said that one night he had gone into his mother’s room because he was having a nightmare.
While he lay on a blow-up mattress under the bed, the couple had sex above him. During the sex his mum’s partner repeatedly asked if he was watching them, and if he wanted a brother or sister.
The court heard the boy didn’t say anything about what was going on because he didn’t want to upset his mum, who he said loved her new partner.
The court heard a statement from the boy’s biological father in which he said the experiences had had a “catastrophic effect” on his son.
The dad said his son was now quiet and withdrawn, and was frightened of being left alone in case his abusers “came for him again”.
The statement concluded: “When he asks why they did it, I have no answer.”
Robin Rouch, for the boy’s mum, said she came from a good family, and there was no suggestion anything like the current offending had happened before she began a relationship with the co-defendant.
He said she had made full admissions to police in order to spare her son from having to give evidence.
Ian Wright, for the woman’s partner, said his client had been an industrious man in the construction sector, and though he had previous convictions there was nothing of a like nature on his record.
The barrister said that in entering guilty pleas, the defendant had accepted his wrong-doing and his need for help to address the issues he had.
Judge Peter Heywood said he wanted time to consider sentencing in the case, and whether the defendants should be considered “dangerous offenders”.
He said: “They have both behaved in despicable manner, and will have to accept the consequences.”
Matters were adjourned until January 18, and the defendants were again remanded into custody.
They were both warned they face lengthy prison sentences.