[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> P, Re [2015] EWFC B70 (25 March 2015) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2015/B70.html Cite as: [2015] EWFC B70

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

In the FAMILY COURT
Sitting at NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE

		The Quayside Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 3LA
		25th March 2015

RECORDER TAYLOR

1. The Background: This case concerns AP, born on 19^th July 2013, who is nineteen months of age. A was placed with foster carers on 23^rd June 2014 and made the subject of an Interim Care Order on 4^th July.
2. The first respondent, mother, is JDW, who was born on 11^th October 1994 and is aged 19. The mother had experienced an unstable and emotionally abusive and neglectful childhood, later engaging in self-harm, aggressive behaviour and excessive alcohol consumption. She was admitted to foster care in 2009 and into supported lodgings in 2012. Due to her behaviour, she was evicted from those premises on several occasions.
3. The second respondent, father, is V "B" P, born on 11^th December 1978; he is aged 35. The father came to this country in 2005; he has currently no right to remain here but this status is under review, pending the outcome of these proceedings.
4. The parents met in September 2012 and began cohabiting in December. The mother, at that time, was pregnant and the local authority concerns were around the age disparity between the parents, the risk of sexual exploitation and an allegation made by the mother that she had been held by the father against her will. A was subject to an unborn child protection plan, under the category neglect.
5. The local authority issued an application for a Care Order on 22^nd July 2013, shortly after A's birth. She was placed in foster care upon discharge from hospital. This therefore is the second set of proceedings concerning A. Following assessment, A was rehabilitated to the joint care of both her parents in February 2014. The proceedings were concluded, thereafter, with the making of a Supervision Order on 2^nd May.
6. On 6^th May, only four days after the initial proceedings were concluded, the mother telephoned her friend, KB. The mother was in some state of distress, alleging that she and the father had argued and that she had been assaulted and needed help. KB called the police on the mother's behalf. When the police arrived at the property the mother was present, however the father was not. The mother told police that there had been no violence, nothing of concern had occurred and she asserted that her friend, KB, must have misunderstood the situation.
7. The father later returned to the property; the mother and KB were both present. The father went to the upstairs bedroom to collect his belongings. It is undisputed that the mother followed the father upstairs and into the bedroom. The mother alleges that father refused to let her leave the bedroom; they were arguing and he assaulted her. A, she says, was in the bedroom next door, crying. Meanwhile, KB had phoned the police. The mother then managed to leave the bedroom and joined her friend outside of the house when the police arrived.
8. The father was arrested and spent the night in custody, although no charges were brought. A number of police officers confirmed that the mother had no visible signs of injury; the mother moved to a refuge the following day, although returned home after a short while, retracting her allegations against the father on 9^th May. The parents have, therefore, lived separately since that incident, although the mother alleges that the father would return to her property regularly and spend time with the mother and A, something which the father denies.
9. On Saturday 21^st June A was seen by friends of the mother to have a large bruise to her cheek. The mother indicated that this must have been caused when A had fallen on a toy the day before at toddler group. On Monday 23^rd June A was collected for contact and the bruise was noted and A was subject thereafter to medical examination, the conclusion of which was that the bruise was most likely caused by an adult nipping the child's cheek. Child protection measures were invoked and A was placed in foster care, where she remains. Both parents now accept the medical findings; there is no dispute that this was an injury which was caused to A; the issue to be determined, if possible, is the identity of the perpetrator.
10. Each parent complains of violence and harassment by the other. Save for accepting that he grabbed the mother by the arm on the evening of 6^th May, in order to remove the mother from blocking the bedroom door, so that he could leave the property, the father denies all allegations. The mother, for her part, asserts that she has been the victim of considerable violence at the hands of the father, before, after and during these proceedings.
11. The mother and father have each filed a schedule of allegations, setting out incidents in which they say they were the subject of violence and/or harassment by the other. The mother was on bail in respect of an allegation of common assault against the father, said to have occurred on 8^th August 2014. The trial of that matter was due to be heard on Monday 23^rd March, therefore during these proceedings. However, I have today been informed that although the father was present and ready to give evidence, the case was dismissed by the Magistrates, due to consistent failures by the Crown Prosecution Service to comply with directions and with procedure.
12. This Hearing and the Position of the Parties: The local authority has filed a schedule of findings, dated 30^th June 2014. In short, the issues raised concern the relationship between the mother and the father; the mother's allegations of domestic violence and subsequent retractions; the mother's attention seeking behaviour, which the local authority contend includes the mother presenting A to medical professionals stating that the child had suffered a fit when nothing untoward was observed. Most particularly, the local authority cite the injury to A's cheek, which it is alleged occurred whilst in the care of the mother, or the father, or both.
13. In the hearing before me, the local authority has adopted an entirely appropriate stance. They have pursued the findings regarding the bruising to A's cheek; however, with the regard to the issues of domestic violence between the parents, the local authority has indicated from the outset that it is for the mother and the father to each substantiate the allegations which they have made against the other. The local authority in the circumstances of this particular case, like the court, need to establish, so far as possible, where the truth lies and is not in a position to put a case for or against either parent.
14. The mother has filed a schedule of allegations dated 3^rd September in which she raised eight specific allegations of violence; one committed in February 2013, the remaining seven between April 2014 and August 2014.
15. The father's schedule, dated 12^th September, raises the allegations relating to the bruising sustained to A's cheek and the assertion that the mother is the perpetrator; the fact that the allegations made by the mother as against the father to other professionals are untrue and that he was the victim of an assault at the hands of the mother on two occasions, 23^rd July and 9^th August.
16. These therefore are the issues which fall to be determined in this finding of fact hearing.
17. The Law: The burden of proof is as determined in the House of Lords, now the Supreme Court decision of Re B (Children) (Care Proceedings:Standard of Proof) [2008]UKHL 35. It is the civil standard of the balance of probabilities. I remind myself that neither the seriousness of the allegations, nor the seriousness of the consequences, makes any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. If I find that something is more likely than not to have taken place, then it is treated as having taken place and, conversely, if I find that something has not taken place, then it is treated as not having occurred.
18. I accept that in cases of injury to a child there may appear to be pressure upon a carer to give an explanation and I caution myself against inadvertently reversing the burden of proof by requiring a parent to prove that there is an innocent explanation, as opposed to the local authority proving that there is not. In this case, both parents accept they have lied to professionals; failed to keep to the terms of the written agreement; and the mother accepts that she has lied to the police in retracting allegations of violence which she has made. The mother and the witness, KB, both accept that they have lied to this court in the course of giving their evidence, an issue to which I will refer later in this judgment.
19. In this case, I give myself a Lucas direction, therefore, and remind myself that it is common 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 many reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters, does not mean that he or she has lied about everything. This is particularly pertinent to the evidence which I have heard in this case.
20. The expert evidence is clear and undisputed; that is that the bruising caused to A's cheek was as a consequence of being nipped by an adult hand. In determining, if I can, the identity of the perpetrator, I take into account all of the evidence which I have heard and which I have read in reaching my conclusions. I adopt the same approach to the findings which each parent invites me to make with regard to the issues of allegations of domestic violence between them.
21. The Evidence: There is a wealth of information in the court bundle, in addition to the statements, reports of witnesses and police disclosure information. I heard oral evidence from Lynn Thornton, the social work assistant, whose primary involvement was to supervise contact, initially between A and her father; then, following A's injury, between mother and A also. In her statement of 10^th July 2014, Ms Thornton records attending mother's property at about 2pm on 22^nd June in order to facilitate contact between A and her father, in the community. She immediately noticed a bruise to A's left cheek which she described as being approximately 2 inches in size and the shape of a broken circle.
22. The mother was clear that she did not know what had happened; that she had put A into her cot on Saturday night, and the child had woken on Sunday with the red mark that had turned into a bruise. Mother said there was nothing in the cot that could have caused this, and although A had fallen at playgroup on Friday, there was nothing which had happened over the weekend to have caused the injury to A. Mother informed Ms Thornton that she had sent photos of the bruise, via text, to the father on Sunday and that she had tried to get a doctor's appointment on Sunday afternoon. Ms Thornton attended Sunderland hospital with the social worker, Rachel Hatch, the mother and A. The mother appeared agitated, repeatedly telling Ms Thornton that she had done nothing to hurt A.
23. Subsequently, on 2^nd July, Ms Thornton supervised a contact visit between the mother and A; mother appeared agitated and told Ms Thornton that she wanted to tell the truth, that there had been domestic violence in the relationship with father from the beginning; that father had obtained a key to the property several weeks ago from the builder and had been visiting the property. He had stayed over on the evening of 20^th June. She believed that father could have got out of their bed during the night, went into A's bedroom while she was sleeping and hit A. Mother had shown Ms Thornton the photos of the bruise which she had taken on her phone and sent to father on the Sunday. Mother said that father was with her when she sent the photos; he made her do it, in order to make it look as though he had not been in the family home.
24. Ms Thornton told me that she had realised the importance of what the mother was saying and therefore had made a note of exactly what the mother had said, which she checked with the mother at the time, to confirm its accuracy. Ms Thornton had the impression that the mother's account was not a first hand account of what the mother had seen but speculation by the mother as to what may have happened.
25. Andrea Solomon, the social worker's evidence is that the mother has given inconsistent accounts as to the cause of the bruise. These include that she, the mother, simply did not know how it had occurred; that it may have been the result of a fall on the Friday at playgroup; that it could have been a bump as she was sleeping in her cot; or as a result of sleeping on her dummy. The mother has also told this witness that she noted the red mark on the Saturday whilst bathing A and that by Sunday it was turning to a bruise. The mother quickly altered this account to say it was on the Sunday that the mark had been noticed and that by Monday it was a bruise. There was therefore no clarity as far as this witness is concerned as to when or how the injury had come about.
26. Rachel Hatch, the key social worker since June 2014, had frequent, almost daily, contact with the mother from May until November, when the mother left this area to live in Birmingham, where she now resides. During these proceedings, photographs showing bruising to the mother's face, arms and hip were produced. These photographs were taken on 7^th May, leading professionals to believe that these had been caused by father in the incident which had occurred the previous evening. Ms Hatch confirmed her written evidence that the mother had later admitted that she, the mother, had caused this bruising to herself by banging into furniture and that she had done so, because threats had been made against the father by the mother's friend, KB, and that the father would be seriously harmed and deported.
27. On 26^th June, the day after the first court attendance in relation to these proceedings, the mother requested that her contact with A should take place jointly with father. When this was refused, the mother cancelled the contact. She later stated that she would join in with father's contact; she sounded furious and frustrated and was reminded that contact was for A's benefit and not to enable the mother to see the father.
28. That same day the mother apologised. She also indicated that she needed social work visits to help her with her own emotional needs. When this was discussed, the mother indicated that she needed help with everything, specifically A's tantrums, describing how the child would kick off, if she does not get what she wants. The mother was reassured that this was normal behaviour on A's part and was referred to her leaving care worker for support.
29. Ms Hatch refers in her statement of 2^nd July to a phone call with the mother on 30^th June, which is recorded as follows:

"On 30^th June the mother rang Rachel Hatch stating that she had something to tell her. I needed to see her. The mother went on to say that the father had stayed at the property on Friday 20^th June. When asked if the father was alone with A, the mother replied that he was and that the father had put A to bed and she was crying. The mother went on to say that she had wanted to tell the social worker, but that the father gets aggressive when she tells him what she is doing and the mother said that she was really scared of what the father will do. She said he could do anything, domestic violence, or take A to India. She confirmed that there was domestic violence within the relationship."

30. Ms Hatch told me in her oral evidence this was the first occasion on which she became aware that the father was alleged to have stayed at the property overnight, on 20^th June, and that her understanding, up until that time, was that the parents were no longer in a relationship. Approximately one hour after this conversation, the mother telephoned Ms Hatch again, informing her that she did not want this information that she had given in the earlier conversation to be communicated to anyone. She wanted things left the way they were and retracted her earlier allegation that the father had been there in the property on the evening of Friday 20^th June.
31. The mother appeared frustrated and flustered by the fact that Ms Hatch was to inform her legal department and the mother was concerned as to how this would reflect upon her. She did not want the matter taken any further and did not want anyone else to be informed. The mother did not say that the allegation that the father had stayed there, was true or not.
32. On 2^nd July, the mother called Rachel Hatch again saying that the father had keys for the property, that the builder had given him a key a couple of weeks ago, but she did not want any contact with the father any more and requested that the social worker ask the father to delete her telephone number and not to contact her again. Approximately one hour later, the mother, in contact, informed the contact worker that since their separation the father had gone to the mother's property any time that he wants to.
33. The fact of the father having a key to the property does not sit with the evidence that at the time of A's examination in hospital the mother had to arrange for a key to be given to the father in order that he could attend the property to collect some things for the child, or on the occasion when he subsequently when a key had to be obtained so that he could collect his own belongings from the property, accompanied by a local authority worker.
34. Ms Hatch also indicated that despite frequent contact with the mother over a period from May until November of last year, at no time did the mother indicate that there was any doubt in her mind that Mr P may not be the father of A. The first the social worker was aware of this was in the mother's statement of 4^th March 2015. I have had the benefit of reading the results of the DNA analysis, carried out by Dadcheck, dated 16^th March 2015, which confirms without any doubt that Mr P is A's father. Despite this analysis and the mother being given the opportunity at court to read the report, the mother continued to deny that Mr P is A's father. Her basis for this is that she says that she had sexual relations with the father's brother, prior to engaging in a sexual relationship with the father. The father, for his part, indicated in his evidence that there has never been any doubt in his mind that he is the father of A and that whilst he does have brothers they remain in India.
35. It is important to note that the mother raised doubts about A's paternity only when it became apparent that the local authority, depending upon the outcome of this hearing, intend to further assess the father as a carer for A.
36. Ms Hatch also confirmed that the mother has, on two or three occasions, admitted to her, Ms Hatch, in telephone conversations, that she, the mother, is the one who was responsible for causing the bruising to A's cheek. During these conversations, the mother has presented as frustrated and angry and has subsequently withdrawn these admissions. It was clear in her oral evidence that Ms Hatch did not set much store by these apparent admissions and that she simply did not know whether they were true or not. The witness confirmed that the mother can present as angry, argumentative, sometimes hostile and agitated. In contrast, it is accepted, the father has been respectful, fully engaged in the court proceedings and in the assessment process. The oral evidence of these three witnesses on behalf of the local authority was not challenged by cross examination at all, on behalf of the mother.
37. The mother's attendance at this hearing was secured by means of a witness summons. The mother accepted in evidence that she has in the past lied and fabricated allegations, but denied that she had done so in relation to these proceedings, or in respect of the findings that she invites me to make against the father. Where she had retracted allegations, it is the retractions which she says are false. Her reasons for repeatedly retracting allegations against the father are equally puzzling. She says that she has retracted because he told her to do so. Her reasons for complying with this request to retract what are serious allegations are given as the mother is afraid of the father and what he may do to her, albeit that the mother has clearly sought to put herself in close proximity to the father's property. Alternatively, that she wanted A to have a family which included A's father; a father whose paternity the mother has called into dispute.
38. When questioned at some length about the specific allegations, the mother was completely unable to give a consistent account. Her evidence was contradictory and confusing. I agree with the submission made on behalf of the father that the impression is of the mother simply making her evidence up as she goes along, without a thought as to the accuracy or impact of her assertions. My concern was such that I have repeatedly, throughout the mother's evidence, stressed upon her the importance of giving an accurate and truthful account.
39. In her oral evidence in chief the mother gave yet another account of events of the night of 20^th June. She said that the father had gone into A's bedroom during the night and that she had witnessed the father touching A in a sexual manner, his hands between the baby's legs. The manner in which this fresh account came about is in itself unusual, in that I was informed by mother's counsel, that the mother had made a fresh disclosure but that the mother wanted counsel to inform the court of it, in her absence. I declined this request but indicated that I would hear from the mother directly as she continued giving her evidence
40. The mother's demeanour in giving this evidence was quite bizarre in that she presented, initially, as calm and composed, quickly became tearful and distressed and, thereafter, recovered her composure and presented as I have previously described, even when being asked about these new allegations. No one, save the mother herself, invites me to make a finding that father has sexually abused A.
41. At the conclusion of the first day of this hearing, I explained to the mother the importance of not discussing her evidence with anyone and warned her that she must not do so. This was particularly pertinent as the mother's friend, KB, was due to give evidence the following day. The mother had asserted that there had been no direct contact between her and KB, save for one text message received from K enquiring how to get to court. The mother was left in no doubt, as she left court, of the importance of not contacting or discussing her evidence with KB.
42. It became clear, during the course of the hearing, that mother had lied about her contact with KB; there had, in fact, been frequent text messages between them over the days leading up to and including that very day of the hearing, in which the mother had indicated to KB that she did not think that things were going well for her. This only became apparent when KB produced her telephone to the court during the course of her evidence and at my request. It further became clear that the mother had spent that very evening, after leaving court, with KB, a flagrant disregard by the mother for the court and the court process.
43. The mother also produced in court for the first time a recording which is of a conversation between the mother and the father, recorded surreptitiously by her friend, N, when the mother and the father met by chance on the street, in Sunderland, on 9^th July. Counsel have had an opportunity of listening to this recording and a transcript has been prepared which is agreed, save for the father's response to one question. The mother invites the court to consider that the conversation is an admission by father that he was at the property on 20^th June and that he had caused the bruising to A.
44. The mother's evidence has been described by her counsel in closing submissions as, at times, "bizarre", an observation with which I entirely agree. She presented at times as impatient, not waiting for a question to be completed before interjecting, despite several requests not to do so; she was at times truculent; she was unable to give a consistent account of events. However, when asked questions about less contentious matters which were put to her, for example, by Ms Moulder on behalf of the local authority, particularly about the nature of the proceedings and the court process, the mother's responses and demeanour were remarkably different. The answers were precise, considered, and appropriate, leaving me in no doubt at all of the mother's understanding.
45. KB's attendance was secured also by witness summons. She had filed a statement and confirmed that she had read this at court and the contents of both the typed and handwritten statements exhibited to it were true. She told me that the father did not approve of her and did not like the mother associating with her. She gave an account of a phone call which she said she had received from the mother on 6^th May, in which the mother was so distressed that she, KB, could hardly make out what she was saying, other than she understood that the mother had been arguing with father and had been assaulted. She denied hearing a slap as contended by the mother in her evidence and was of the opinion that the father had already left the property when the phone call took place. KB telephoned the police and later attended the mother's home. She was there when the father returned. She describes the father as being very angry and swearing at her. She confirms that the mother followed the father upstairs and the door slammed shut. She recounts going up the stairs and hearing shouting; she recalls the mother shouting "get off me" and heard a slap. She then went downstairs and outside and called the police. KB confirms that the mother was not injured following this incident, save for a red mark on one arm.
46. I am invited by the local authority to accept KB's evidence of hearing a slap, on the basis that the witness's evidence, on the whole, was measured and considered. I disagree. I found that the witness's account of where she was in the property, in relation to the bedroom where the argument occurred and was continuing, was confusing and it is unlikely, in my view, that a slap which left no mark or sign of injury would be heard above the commotion which was going on at that time.
47. KB initially also lied about the contact she had had with the mother leading up to this hearing and only revealed the extent of that contact when asked by me to produce her telephone. She could give no reason for telling lies, other than to say that she knew that if the extent of the contact between her and the mother prior to an during this hearing became known then she and the mother would be accused of discussing the case and, by implication, concocting their evidence, both of which she denied.
48. The father gave evidence. It was clear at the commencement of these proceedings that the father has at no time indicated that he required an interpreter, but rather that he had a good command of English and did not see that an interpreter was necessary. However, I caution myself with regard to the interpretation of the father's evidence and his understanding of the niceties of grammar, particularly when asked a question by his own counsel regarding the DNA testing results. The father expressed himself twice as being "surprised" by the result, when in fact he clearly meant that he was not surprised and had always understood that he was the father of A; that there had never been any doubt in his mind in this respect at all.
49. The father told me that the relationship between him and the mother had occurred a few weeks after the mother had first come into the shop. He was vague about this evidence and only when pressed by Ms Moulder, in crossexamination, did he indicate that it was probably two weeks, but he could not remember. He has been consistent throughout his filed evidence and in his oral evidence before me that he was not at the property on the evening of 20^th June. His account of the relationship between himself and the mother was that he realised that she was younger than him, but at first she seemed to be a mature person. It was not until he got to know her better that he realised how immature the mother was. He described the mother to me as being someone who, if she did not get her own way or things were not going as she planned them to be, then she would consistently make allegations against him, which would subsequently be retracted. He did not quite understand the description of "volatile", but did indicate that he understood that the mother could behave in such a way.
50. It became clear to me very shortly after the mother commenced her evidence that she is a vulnerable and immature young woman and therefore it is quite astonishing that the father should indicate that he, at the age at which he is of 36 now, 34 I anticipate when the relationship began, did not become aware of the mother's immaturity and vulnerabilities very quickly. I do not accept that part of his evidence.
51. The father also told me that with regard to the incident on 6^th May in which he is alleged to have assaulted the mother, in fact the account of what happened in the home when the father returned, is subject to little dispute. The father returned; he accepted he was angry, as KB alleged; he went upstairs, the mother followed him upstairs. What happened thereafter behind closed doors is this. There was an altercation; the father was annoyed; the mother was clearly upset. An altercation took place in which both were shouting at each other. It is clear that the father went too far in grabbing hold of the mother by the arm. I do not find that there was a slap or that the mother was assaulted in any other way.
52. The father indicated that on 6^th May, after that incident and his arrest, he had in his own mind determined that the relationship was at an end. He had indicated that as far as he was concerned he had had enough of constant allegations and retractions and that he could not continue in this way. He said that subsequent to that, however, on 19^th May, at a meeting with the local authority at which the mother was present and at which certainly the father and, I anticipate, the mother was represented, and upon his instructions the local authority were informed that the father wanted to be considered with the mother as a couple and further assessed. It was suggested, therefore, to him that in fact he had changed his mind about ending the relationship on 6^th May and was intending to resume his relationship with the mother.
53. His evidence about this was this, that he, at this time, became aware, or he knew in fact that the mother was not able to care for A herself, that she could not manage. Therefore, the only hope of A remaining in the family was if the parents could effectively care for A together as a couple. He agreed that following that meeting in May that it was agreed, as is recorded, that there would be joint parenting assessment sessions and he told me that a number of those sessions did take place; his recollection was two or three. He denied, however, that the relationship with the mother recommenced at any time following 6^th May. He confirmed what he had accepted in his written evidence that the written agreement that he should not have contact with A, other than that supervised by and facilitated by the local authority, was breached. That between 9^th May and 20^th June, he had seen A in Mowbray Park, he says on one occasion, and had bumped into the mother, with A, coincidentally, in Sunderland on a few occasions and spoken with A for a few minutes.
54. It was put to the father that he was in possession of at least two mobile phones; a contention which the mother had made and that she, the mother, had shown the social workers WhatsApp messages on her phone indicating text messaging contact with the father. The father's account of these WhatsApp messages still being received on a phone, which he accepted was a replacement telephone, him having changed his telephone number on 2^nd July and handed in his phone to the police on 9^th July, his account of how those WhatsApp messages could still be received by him was not convincing. His account of being unable to block the mother's messages again was unconvincing, but I accept that there is no evidence placed before me by the mother of text messages received by her from the father.
55. The father was asked about the recorded telephone conversation, which, as I have indicated, became available only during these proceedings and during the course of the mother's evidence. He was asked why that conversation did not give any indication by the father that he was denying being present in the property on 20^th June, when he was constantly asked by the mother to admit that he was there, and the constant pleading by the mother for the father to make that admission. He still makes no denial. The local authority say it is inconceivable that firstly the mother would be asking those questions and recording it, had it not been true that, as the mother asserts, the father was present. Or, more particularly, that the father would not have denied it.
56. The father, for his account, indicates that although he did not know that the conversation was being recorded as the recording was taking place, he did know immediately afterwards. But in particular he was concerned that this conversation was taking place on the street, close to his place of work, and that his knowledge of the mother was such that in effect, in order to placate her, it was easier to agree with her , in the hope of avoiding a scene, rather than to tell her what he is inviting me to regard as the truth by emphasising the fact that he was not present in the property.
57. The father when pressed by counsel for the local authority about the injury to A and asked if, as he was stating, he was not present in the property, who did he think had caused the injury, how did he think it had it occurred. The father was incredibly reluctant to state what, to most, would appear to be an obvious position and certainly one that he did not shrink from quoting in his schedule of allegations, which indeed was that it was the mother who had caused the injury. The father indicated that he could not say who had caused an injury when he was not there. He had knowledge, he said, of the mother previously being out of the home and leaving A in care of others, which was the first time that he had made such a statement. Therefore, he was not prepared to go so far as to say that the mother had caused the injury.
58. What the father was very clear about was, that A being placed in care following her birth and subsequently being removed from the parents' care, was the fault of the mother. He accepted no responsibility for this situation arising at all, indicating that he had done his best to care for them and provide for them as a family. It is right to record that the father is, despite his status in this country, clearly a hard worker. He works long hours. But if he was not aware of the mother's vulnerability immediately on meeting her, I am certain that by the time of A's birth he would be well aware of the mother's immaturity and vulnerabilities. It is somewhat astonishing that he did not understand the pressures placed upon the mother when he spent long hours at work, leaving the mother alone to care for A, in circumstances in which, as I have indicated, he must have known by that point the mother's own vulnerability.
59. Conclusions: It is apparent that during the course of these proceedings, all of the lay witnesses have told lies; some of those lies have been admitted. The mother and KB have admitted telling lies in their oral evidence. KB has lied about the contact that she had with the mother during these proceedings and during the trial prior to giving her evidence. The father admits that he has lied to the local authority about the contact that he was having with A between 9^th May and 20^th June, in breach of the written agreement. The mother accepts that she has lied in the past; that she has made untruthful allegations in the past, involving persons other than the father, and it is perhaps helpful to set out briefly the nature of those allegations that are supported by the documentation which I have read and which have not been challenged to any meaningful extent.
60. The mother has alleged that her own mother assaulted her when her sister was witness to the fact that this was impossible. She has detailed conversations about the death of her mother who was still living. When challenged about this fact, the mother tried to indicate that she was simply saying that she wished her mother was dead and the witnesses were wrong. The mother has claimed she has been raped, but during discussions with the police, admitted it was all lies and that she had done it to get back at an ex-boyfriend. She was described as being completely unfazed, and found it amusing. She has claimed to have been held against her will twice, all without substance. She has claimed to have been assaulted and pointed to a bruise, which was in fact described as a love bite. She has claimed to have been pregnant over the course of the summer and autumn of last year, despite repeated pregnancy tests being negative. She has claimed to have ingested 150 paracetamol tablets, which was not true.
61. With regard to these proceedings, the mother has clearly, in my view, lied about the paternity of A. Despite several warnings during the course of this hearing, the mother has lied about her contact with KB and for the first time in court on Wednesday afternoon she announced that she had witnessed the father sexually abusing A. This evidence was not credible and I find that it was a lie. The mother has also distanced herself from these proceedings and has not returned to court, having given her evidence, despite being advised of the importance of doing so. I have reminded myself of the Lucas direction. I also acknowledge that the mother is a very vulnerable young woman who has had a troubled start in life.
62. I am urged by counsel for the mother and the local authority and the Guardian that the assertion that the mother makes that the father was in the property on 20^th June is the truth and can be relied upon. The factors, they say, which make this reliable, are that the mother has always been consistent about this since she first disclosed that this was the case; the fact that the mother was telling workers at the toddler group that she and the father were a couple; the fact of the recorded conversation that the father is not heard to deny being at the property on the night that A was injured; the WhatsApp messages, suggesting that there was far more contact between the parents than is acknowledged by the father. All of this, it is said, confirms the mother's account that the father was present and therefore that he remains in the pool of perpetrators.
63. It is submitted that the mother's allegation of sexual abuse, which no one invites me to find credible, can be regarded in a different category to this part of the mother's evidence that the father was present in the property. I disagree. To accept these submissions would, in my view, lead me to elevate undoubted speculation and suspicion to the status of evidence. The mother has proved herself not only unreliable, but an incredible witness, who is prepared to lie deliberately and consciously. One interpretation of these lies is that she has been prepared to do all she could to destroy the father's chances of caring for A in the longer term. I do not speculate upon her motives. She is a young, vulnerable woman, damaged by her life experiences and it is difficult not to have sympathy for her. But it is clear from all that I have heard and read that the only consistency in the mother's evidence is its inherent unreliability and that unreliability pervades the whole of her testimony.
64. Findings: Dr Lawson, consultant paediatrician, filed a report dated 25^th June; his opinion that:

"A has unexplained bruises on her left cheek, this is in an unusual place to have accidental injuries, the marks are in a configuration which suggests that an adult may have inflicted a nipping mark to the cheek, no explanation has been offered and so, at present, I must regard them as being most likely non-accidental in nature."

65. This opinion is undisputed. I find therefore that A has suffered two concentric bruises, approximately one centimetre long to her left cheek; the bruising was caused sometime between Friday afternoon on 20^th June 2014 and A attending toddler group car boot sale on Saturday morning and was caused by a nip from an adult hand;

that the mother had the sole care of A at the relevant time and that the mother caused the injury to A.

The mother has given inconsistent accounts of the injury and has sought to blame the father for causing the bruising.

I find that the evidence does not substantiate a finding that the father was at the home on 20^th to 21^st June, therefore I find that the father was not at the home at that time.

66. The father did not sexually abuse A.
67. There was an altercation between the parents on the evening of 6^th May, which occurred in the bedroom; both parents behaved inappropriately, were shouting, and the father grabbed the mother by the arm with sufficient force to leave a mark. A was present in the property and was woken by the disturbance and was crying and distressed.
68. The mother has displayed attention seeking behaviour in the refuge, on or around 7^th May 2014 and by seeking medical attention for A, unnecessarily, on 13^th March, 26^th April, 6^th May, 9^th May, 15^th May and 27^th May 2015.
69. I find that the mother followed the father and pestered him on 22^nd July 2014, despite requests to stop; that the mother attended father's property on 9^th August, an altercation occurred during which the mother bit the father.
70. Both parents have deceived the local authority in that they were in breach of the written agreement.
71. There have been frequent arguments between the mother and the father in A's presence, which have caused her distress.
72. That the mother has blamed the father for causing injuries to her person which she had in fact caused to herself, in or around 6^th May 2014.
73. Those are my findings.
End of judgment

We hereby certify that this judgment has been approved by Recorder Taylor.

Compril Limited