IN THE FAMILY COURT AT BARNET
Case No:  ZW15C00286

St Marys Court
Regents Park Road
Finchley Central
London
N3 1BQ

Tuesday, 3rd May 2016

Before:
HER HONOUR JUDGE MAYER 

B E T W E E N:  

A LOCAL AUTHORITY – Applicant

and

VH (1)
ME (2)
FB (3)
A, L AND R (4-6)
by their Guardian, Claudia Gross

Transcript from a recording by Ubiqus
61 Southwark Street, London SE1 0HL
Tel: 020 7269 0370

MISS J SPOONER appeared on behalf of the Applicant Local Authority
MISS C GEORGES appeared on behalf of the First Respondent Mother
MR G WILMOT appeared on behalf of the Second Respondent Father
MISS N WATSON appeared on behalf of the Third Respondent Father
MISS S KOTHARI appeared on behalf the Children, through the Children’s Guardian

JUDGMENT
(Approved)
HHJ MAYER: 

1.	I am concerned with three children: A, who is aged six, born on 21 December 2009 and L and R, twins, aged 21 months, born on 27 July 2014.  They are the fourth to sixth Respondents to this application, represented by their Guardian, Claudia Gross.  All three are the sons of VH, the first Respondent.  A’s father, the second Respondent, is ME.  The father of the twins is FB, the third Respondent.  I shall refer to the two fathers by their names.  On 20 July 2015, they applied for Section 31 orders.

2.	There has been an inordinate delay in this case, not least because FB did not join the proceedings until November of 2015.  He did not know about their existence.  Additionally, the children, who were initially in the care of their mother under an order, were removed by me in December of 2015.  This caused some delay in the planning.

3.	This hearing was to deal with the allegations of violence the mother made in respect of both fathers and with the future of A, either on an interim or a final basis.  The twins’ case is subject to my findings in respect of their father and to the conclusion of an assessment of him and their paternal grandparents.  The maternal grandparents have been negatively assessed in respect of caring for any of the children and did not formally – and by that I mean procedurally – seek to object to this assessment.

4.	The position of the parties is as follows: the mother requested the return of all the children to her; alternatively, to her parents in Slovakia.  The fathers propose that each of them cares for their own children and, if that is not accepted, their respective parents should be put forward as carers.  The Local Authority, supported by the Guardian, plan for A to live with his father.  The future of the twins is as yet undecided.

The Law

5.	In respect of facts, the burden of proof is on the party who makes the allegations.  It is not reversible and it is not for the other party, or parties, to establish that the allegations are not made out.  Very importantly, the court must remember the direction given to juries in the case of R v Lucas [1981] QB 720.  It is not uncommon for witnesses in these cases to tell lies in the course of their investigation and the hearing.  Witnesses may lie for different reasons, such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress.  The fact that the person has lied about one thing does not mean that he has lied about everything.  I have to be satisfied that the lie is relevant to the finding sought.

6.	In respect of welfare decisions, I have to have regard to Section 1(3) of the Children Act.  When carrying out the assessment of evidence, the court invariably surveys a wide canvas.  It must take into account all the evidence and, furthermore, consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence.  It should exercise of a view of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion of whether the case put forward by any of the parties, including the Local Authority, has been made out to the requisite standard of proof.  I have regard to the Checklist in Section 1(3), even though I do not deal with each factor separately.

The Background
7.	A comprehensive chronology was prepared by Miss Spooner, representing the Local Authority.  I incorporate the chronology into my judgment for all its terms and effect.

8.	The parents are aged, respectively, 29, the mother; 36, ME; and 38, FB.

9.	The mother is Slovakian.  She came here aged 18, apparently following in the steps of a boyfriend.  ME is Egyptian.  He has been here since 2006.  His five‑year residence permit expired in October 2015.  He has applied for indefinite leave to remain and his case is being considered by the Home Office.  I was told this morning that his leave has been extended until October 2018, at which stage it will be reviewed.  FB is Argentinean with an Italian residence permit.  He has no immigration issues.  He has lived here for the last 15 years, I believe, although at times he lived out of the jurisdiction.  All three parents speak good English and did not require interpreters. 
 
10.	The mother and ME met in 2007, were married in 2009, with the mother attending Egypt alone and marrying ME by a proxy.  A wedding party took place in Egypt in 2010.  A was born on 21 December 2009.  He was registered by his mother in the absence of his father.  Although they were married, she clearly did not inform the registrar that she had a husband.  She registered him in her name.  ME has parental responsibility by virtue of their marriage.  A was a guest at the wedding party in 2010.  This was the first and the last time he saw his paternal family.  He was circumcised on this visit to Egypt.

11.	On ME’s evidence, which I accept, the parties first separated shortly after A’s birth.  The reasons are not entirely clear.  The mother contends in these proceedings that ME has been violent to her, both physically and mentally.  She complained to a Local Authority about domestic violence two days after A’s birth, but withdrew the allegations shortly after.  These allegations are denied.  ME says that the reasons for her returning to hospital the day after the birth was that she needed a blood transfusion.

12.	ME’s case is that the maternal grandmother disapproved of him and that she came here after A’s birth and that the mother distanced herself from him.  The parties later reconciled but separated again and, I believe, finally, in May of 2011.  ME continued to have regular (weekly or fortnightly on his account, less frequent on the mother’s) contact with A.  The mother said she was forced to permit contact.  ME says that she participated often.  In April of 2013, ME took A on a three‑day holiday in North Wales with the consent of his mother.

13.	In November 2011, the mother met FB and their relationship commenced in June of 2012.  By December of 2013, the mother was pregnant with the twins.  It was at this time that she ceased to allow ME to have contact to A.  It is accepted that it was one of the bones of contention between her and FB, who could not understand why she stopped contact and did not approve of it and, indeed, actively promoted it.

14.	According to the mother, her relationship with FB was marred by physical violence and controlling behaviour.  They both accepted their relationship was on and off.  They cohabited fully from the summer of 2014.  When I say ‘fully’, it will be seen that FB told Dr McClintock that they never lived together more than three to four months, but even prior to the summer of 2014, FB stayed there many nights.
  
15.	In February of 2014, ME applied to this court for contact with A, who he has not seen by then for some two to three months.  The first directions hearing was on 7 May.  District Judge Johns made an order for contact on alternate Saturdays, and also a prohibited steps order, forbidding either party to remove A from the jurisdiction.  ME was to provide results of a urine test because of the mother’s allegations of his cannabis use.  He did.  The report was negative.  A Section 7 report was ordered by the district judge.

16.	I digress for a moment to deal with Section G in the bundle, which contains the private law proceedings.  Although there has been one Section 7 report and two Section 37 reports, neither parent has filed any statements.  It is clear from the various orders and reports that there has been no complaint about ME being violent to the mother.  The complaints she raised before the district judge were in respect of him smoking hashish.  Whereas serious complaints and concerns were expressed by her and others about her relationship with FB, complaints about violence, verbal or physical, by ME first emerged in the current proceedings.  It was also in the course of the private law proceedings and pursuant to the Section 37 report that the Local Authority indicated that they are about to commence a PLO work, and Sue Francis, who gave evidence before me, became the family support worker in February of 2015. 

17.	I return to the chronology.  Within days, or according to FB, even before the hearing on 7 May 2014, the mother removed A to Slovakia, either without telling the district judge or in breach of the court order.  To me she said that she found the twin pregnancy difficult and could not look after A properly.  She did not tell the district judge this.  Indeed, she agreed to fortnightly contact.  She placed A with her parents, who do not speak English.  A understood Slovak, but his primary language was English.  When he returned after six months, he could not speak English.  He had no contact with his maternal grandparents after his return to this country.  The mother’s indication to me was that they have concluded their contribution and it was not necessary.  The mother also gave conflicting information about how much contact she had with A when he was in Slovakia.  Although to me she said it was very frequent, she clearly said to Dr Jones that it was infrequent, since she thought that A would be upset. 

18.	A arrived at his school in November of 2014, two months after the start of the school year.  Having apparently been bullied in Slovakia for not being able to speak the language and for his Muslim paternity, he took time to adjust to the new school.  The school reported, nevertheless, that he settled within some weeks and was a popular member of the class.  His behavioural problems were evident at home only.

19.	The twins were born in July of 2014.  When A returned in November of 2014, he found his half‑brothers, aged four months, at the home he left six months earlier.  His mother was preoccupied with the babies.  He has lost his contact with his father.  It appears from the evidence I have heard that the mother did not consider any of the changes in A’s life as being detrimental to his emotional welfare.

20.	In November of 2014, FB was accused of having sexually abused his older daughter from his marriage to another.  X, his daughter, was nine at the time.  On 28 November 2014, the mother signed an agreement with the Local Authority not to allow FB to stay in her home or have unsupervised contact.  She breached the agreement, having told me she did not agree with it, despite having signed it.  It was a condition of his police bail, granted on 29 November 2014, that FB does not have unsupervised contact to anyone under 18, including his own children.  The bail expired on 29 March 2015.  In a telephone call on 4 March 2015, between ME and Sue Finch, the author of the first Section 37 report, he told her that FB told him that he hides in the wardrobe amongst the clothes when people visit.  This was not canvassed during the hearing, but in my view it is just possible that not only was the mother in breach of the written agreement, FB was in breach of his bail condition.  For the avoidance of doubt, I cannot and do not make a finding about this.

21.	An initial child protection conference took place on 18 November 2014.  All three children were made subject to a child protection plan under the category of physical abuse.  This related to the allegation about FB by the mother and, also, to then-existing allegations in respect of his abuse of his daughter, which were not pursued by the police or anybody else after 29 March, when the bail conditions were discharged.  FB has not seen his daughter since.  There is information about this in Section J of the bundle.  Nobody sought to question FB about it, and it therefore formed no part of this case.

22.	In February of 2015, FB took A to see his father in Tesco.  Both men say that A was very pleased to see his father.  A was told not to tell his mother about this meeting.  It transpired during FB’s evidence that clandestine meetings between A and his father took place more than once, but these were prior to December of 2013. 

23.	As a result of concerns expressed by Sue Francis about the mother’s parenting and about her implacably hostile attitude to ME, at the child protection review conference on 6 March 2015, all three children remained on the child protection plan, perhaps somewhat surprisingly under the category of physical abuse.  Emotional harm was not mentioned.

24.	On 14 July 2015, FB was arrested, following an allegation by the mother at a child protection conference on the same day.  The mother alleged physical and verbal abuse by him against her.  This was an assault of which FB was convicted, I think in November of 2015, and which he is apparently appealing.  I have heard evidence about this and deal with it below.  FB was bailed on conditions that he does not contact the mother directly or indirectly.  At the beginning of this case, I was told that this was the last the parties had a relationship, although it had become clear in the course of the hearing that this was not so.

25.	Prior to these proceedings having been issued, and despite the various orders of the district judge, the mother refused to permit contact between A and ME, making further allegations against the latter.  For example, on 20 May 2015, when contact was supposed to take place, supervised by the Local Authority so as to report to the court, the mother told the social worker that ME telephoned her at 1.00am the night before.  She gave a crime reference.  When checked, nothing came up.  She did not repeat this allegation in the course of these proceedings and I do not believe this happened.

26.	On 20 July, the Local Authority issued the Section 31 application.  At a hearing on 11 August 2015, the first CMH, District Judge Johns consolidated the two sets of proceedings and discharged the orders in the private law proceedings.  The Local Authority could not find FB to serve him.  The mother refused to be represented.  The case was transferred to me.

27.	The case first came before me on 21 August 2015.  The mother was still unrepresented.  I encouraged her to get legal advice and informed her that contact between A and his father was an inevitability.  In light of the Local Authority’s serious concerns about A, who was seen to be violent to his mother and pushing all boundaries she tried to put in place in the home, I have ordered a psychiatric assessment of her and a child psychologist’s assessment of A.  Both reports were filed in time.  Neither expert was required to give oral evidence.
   
28.	During September and early October of 2015, the mother continued to breach the contact orders I made in respect of A and his father.  I have told her that should she continue to refuse contact, I will make an interim care order, in order for the Local Authority to remove A for the purposes of contact.  A contact session took place with an overall positive outcome, although the mother told A previously that his father was dead.  A overcame his initial shyness and interacted well with his father.  Another positive contact took place on 19 October.

29.	Contact was to be observed by the independent social worker, Anna Gupta, in the course of her preparation of her parenting assessment.  The mother deliberately undermined this contact, shouting in front of A, ‘You don’t want to have contact, do you?’ whilst on the way to the contact centre.  She also made most inappropriate remarks in front of A that his father was diseased and that he smells and needs a shower, telling A not to let his father touch him.  Miss Gupta, consequently, was unable to see father and son together and relied, in her assessment and final evidence, on the reports of others.

30.	On 16 November, the mother refused to produce A for contact yet again.  The Local Authority applied for an interim care order on 20 November and for the removal of A for the purposes of contact.  This was, incidentally, the first hearing which was attended by FB, who returned from outside the jurisdiction and was finally served with the proceedings.  Because of his late participation, I extended the time for the proceedings and ordered an assessment of the grandparents in Slovakia, Egypt and Argentina.

31.	Contact was arranged by the social worker to take place on 4 December 2015 at A’s school.  A message to that effect was left on the mother’s answer phone the day before.  She apparently found it only on the day itself.  Whilst contact was progressing well, the mother barged into the classroom, pushed the social worker, grabbed A by the arm and pulled him out of the classroom.  At a hearing about this before me, I made findings in respect of the mother’s conduct.  I have also told her that contact will take place on 9 December and adjourned the hearing in respect of the Local Authority’s interim care order application, part heard, to 10 December.  Very careful arrangements were made in respect of this contact, especially enabling the mother not to miss A’s nativity play.  I further made orders for the mother to lodge the children’s passport with her solicitors.
  
32.	The mother disappeared with the children on 9 December.  A failed to attend school.  When the social worker attended the home, there was no sign of her or the children.  I made a recovery and collection order.  The children were recovered on 10 December when the mother reappeared saying that she spent a night in a hotel since her door to her home was broken.  She said A had not been well and, therefore, did not go to school.  She said she could not find A’s passport.  It emerged later then she sought to get a travel permit for her friend to take A out of the country, despite the prohibition in the existing orders.

33.	ME alleged that on 11 December the mother came to his place of work, created a scene and assaulted him, demanding of him to give her her passport, which he denied having.  The mother denied this altogether.  The complaint was made to the police on the same night and I prefer the father’s evidence about this incident.  It all fits together: the mother’s application for her friend to remove A, her not being able to find the passport, her desperation in the light of the court’s persistence that A sees his father.
 
34.	Having heard some evidence on 10 December 2015, and disbelieving the mother on the issue of the contact not taking place and her intention to remove A from the jurisdiction, I made an interim care order in respect of all three children and ordered that they are removed into foster care.  I gave a short judgment, which I incorporate into this one.  I am satisfied that the mother, who put a tracking device on A’s iPad, knew the address of his foster carers.  Within some days a heart was drawn on the pavement outside their home with the word ‘A’ written inside and the family moped has been tampered with.  Although the mother denied that this was her doing, I do not believe her.  Consequent upon this, A had to move placement as a matter of emergency within 10 days of him coming into the first foster placement.

35.	On 8 December, I made various orders in respect of FB, including ordering a psychiatric report and disclosure of papers from the criminal proceedings in which he was convicted of assaulting the mother.

36.	  On 23 February 2016, I conducted the IRH in this case and came to the conclusion that A’s case was ready for a hearing and it could be heard separately from the twins’ case, even if I were not able to make a final order about where A should live.  By then the Local Authority’s plan based on various assessments and all other evidence in the case supported A’s move to live with his father.

37.	FB’s assessment has not concluded.  He has not had any contact with the twins, despite orders to have some, and his parenting assessment has therefore not progressed.  Prima facie the mother’s allegations against him were of a different nature and quality than those against ME.  I therefore considered that in his case it would be prudent to deal with the allegations of the mother before the assessment is concluded.  In any event, the Local Authority failed to carry out a viability assessment of his parents in Argentina despite my order.  An incomplete and unsatisfactory assessment was filed on day three or four of this hearing.  I understand that the full assessment is progressing satisfactorily now and, indeed, both parents of FB are in the UK now and in court listening to this judgment.

38.	Mr Ivan Zachar, Consul to the Slovak Embassy, attended the IRH.  His position is reflected in my order of that day.  I invited him to attend this hearing.  He did for the last two days.  I am grateful to him for the assistance he provided me with in helping in respect of passport applications at the Slovakian Embassy.  I regret that he missed the mother’s evidence.

39.	All parties agreed that this court has jurisdiction to deal with the case, all three children being habitually resident here.  I gave the mother permission to consider a transfer pursuant to Article 15.  She has not made this application.

40.	The hearing commenced on 4 April.  The evidence and submissions lasted five days.  I heard from Sue Francis, Anna Gupta, the social worker Michelle Beech, the mother, both fathers and the Guardian.  I gave my decision in respect of A on 8 April after submissions.  I continued the interim care order in respect of him with a direction to implement a transition plan to live with his father.  I did not conclude his proceedings on that day since I was not satisfied with the Local Authority’s conduct.  I considered the plan in respect of ME’s accommodation and Section 17 support incomplete.  The interim care order expires today and will be replaced by a child arrangement order.  I also deal today with findings in respect of FB.

The Evidence

41.	On behalf of the Local Authority I heard evidence from Michelle Beech, the allocated social worker, and Sue Francis, the family support worker.  Sue Francis started working with the mother in February of 2015 and remained the family support worker until the children were removed.  She visited once a week for about an hour.  She confirmed that the mother was always polite and welcoming, but was unable or perhaps unwilling to implement the parenting techniques Miss Francis sought to teach her.  Miss Francis told me that the mother was negative about A saying that he would not live elsewhere because nobody would want him because he is not normal.
  
42.	She threatened A to be taken away by the police if he was naughty.  She made other threats which she could not realise and promises of rewards she could not realise either.  Miss Francis told me that she had seen no praise and no affection between the mother and A.  This observation was reiterated by the social worker and, to some degree, by the independent social worker.  She also told me that the mother explained why she would not copy the work modelled by Miss Francis.  She thought that she had no right to control A’s life.  The mother apparently admitted to her that her feelings for A are affected by her feelings for his father, which in the circumstances was extremely worrying.  Sue Francis was the professional who saw the family regularly and more often.  I found her a sensible and sensitive witness and I accept her evidence.

43.	The evidence of Michelle Beech confirmed observations by others in respect of the mother and her relationship with her children.  She did tell me that once the children were removed and the mother had separate contact with A a more positive relationship and physical affection were observed.  However, the contacts were overall A‑led.  The mother found it difficult to say no and boundaries were implemented so long as they suited A.  The social worker told me that A’s relationship with his father progressed well, that his father was emotionally attuned to A, was taking things at A’s pace, and that she was positive about the prospective rehabilitation of A to his father.

44.	She explained that contact between A and his mother will be monitored and supervised by the Local Authority once a month subject to seeing whether the mother is able to accept A’s placement with the father.  She was not optimistic.  She gave evidence before the mother.  I was told in submissions that she was much less optimistic after the mother’s evidence.

45.	Assessments in respect of the mother and A – the mother was assessed by Dr Rachel Jones, an adult forensic psychiatrist, and by Anna Gupta, an independent social worker who carried out a parenting assessment.  FB was assessed by Dr McClintock and A by Elizabeth Taggart, a child psychologist.
 
46.	 Anna Gupta is an experienced Guardian and independent social worker.  She saw the mother on four occasions at her home with the twins being present on each of those and A on one. 
 
47.	Her report is dated 10 November 2015, about a month before the children were removed from the mother.  Even at that stage, she expressed grave concerns about the mother’s attitude to ME, her antipathy towards him and her inability to understand the impact on A.  Her conclusions were reaffirmed by the mother’s behaviour since the report was filed.

48.	Anna Gupta dealt with this in her oral evidence.  Although she considered that the mother could care for A’s basic physical needs, something nobody doubted, she considered that the mother was unable to exercise boundaries for A.  She felt controlled by him despite his young age and failed to appreciate the impact of her behaviour on A.  She was powerless vis‑à‑vis A, as powerless as she was vis‑à‑vis FB; see below.  The mother also made it clear that the concerns expressed by the Local Authority were exaggerated.  She did not share them and that she had no intention of changing her practices with the children, something she confirmed to me in oral evidence.

49.	Miss Gupta wondered whether the mother was projecting on A her dislike for his father, whom he very much resembles physically.  This was confirmed to Miss Francis by the mother.  Miss Gupta considered that the mother has difficulties avoiding relationships where she is controlled by others.  Her relationship with FB was characterised, according to the mother, by him controlling her.  She refused help from domestic violence organisations and, more importantly, refused help from her GP for her depression and for some treatment, such as cognitive behaviour therapy, to help her to come to grips with the difficulties she had both with the men in her life and with her elder son.
  
50.	Miss Gupta thought that the mother was unlikely to change.  She was right.  Before me the mother made clear that not only has she not changed, she had no intention of seeking any of the help offered.  Miss Gupta came to the conclusion that the mother is unlikely to be able to meet A’s emotional needs both due to her implacable hostility to his father and due to not be willing to understand her shortcomings in her parenting of him and not willing to change.  The fact that the mother was unwilling to tackle her depression and receive some help in organising her emotions in respect of men who control her life was of particular concern.  Miss Gupta’s report was written in November.  The mother has not shifted her position in any way by April of this year.

51.	Miss Gupta saw ME four times, three times at his home and once at the children’s centre.  She did not see him with A, as I said.  She considered ME an intelligent, sensible and sensitive man.  He made it clear to her that if the mother received some help and permitted contact between him and A he would not have wished to remove A from her.  Miss Gupta considered that ME’s account of his childhood and family life was positive.  She did not know at that stage that the viability assessment of his parents in Egypt was positive.  She could see no inhibition to ME becoming A’s carer subject to resolving practical issues, such as accommodation, financial support and immigration status.  ME made it clear to her, as he did to me, that if his application for leave to remain here fails he would take A to Egypt, where he was satisfied that he would get a job after some nine years in this country and where he has immediate family to help him with childcare.

52.	Dr Jones is a forensic psychiatrist with over 20 years’ experience in dealing with people with psychiatric disorders.  She is an experienced expert witness.  Her report was not challenged and she did not give oral evidence.  She assessed the mother in her home on 1 October 2015.  The mother told her that her own father binge drunk, but other than that there were no other problems in her childhood.  She described her childhood as happy, living with loving parents and lots of cousins living nearby.  This is in complete contrast to her account to Anna Gupta, to whom she said that she had nothing from her mother, who taught her wrong things and was very critical of her.

53.	In the Section 7 report, there is also reference to a childhood which was not happy.  In her oral evidence the mother described the maternal grandmother’s violence to have been such as to break her – the mother’s – finger, when the former tried to hit her.  She described a serious physical fight with her sister.  Both fathers described disharmonious relations between the mother’s parents, her sister and the mother, which included violent rows, for example her father threatening FB with a pistol and she and ME leaving Slovakia for Egypt for their wedding ceremony, which was originally supposed to be in Slovakia, after a major family row with her sister.

54.	The mother described to Dr Jones an incident where she threw the father’s cigarettes out of the window and ME apparently threw her on the bed, hit her in anger and broke the bed.  This incident was neither mentioned in her statement, nor in the schedule of allegations, nor in her oral evidence.  Dr Jones diagnosed the mother as suffering from a moderate depressive disorder as classified by the ICD‑10 classification of mental and behavioural disorders.  She did not probe into the mother’s attitude to ME and seems to have accepted the mother’s allegations of violence, (paragraph seven under opinion and recommendations in her report).  I had wondered what she would say in light of the mother’s later behaviour, including allowing her children to be taken away rather than permitting contact, the blackening of ME’s face on the wedding album, telling A that his father was dead and declaring quite clearly, knowing what the recommendations in this case were, that she would never permit ME to see A and will undermine any effort of this happening.  In any event, the treatment Dr Jones recommended, antidepressants and a course of CBT, was rejected by the mother out of hand throughout the case and in evidence before me.
  
55.	A psychological assessment of A has been carried out by Elizabeth Taggart, an experienced and appropriately qualified child psychologist.  She considered that A’s attachment to his mother was adequate.  She diagnosed A as being normal in his development, but being behind in numeracy and literacy.  She could not attribute this to one factor.  In my view, the upheaval of going to Slovakia for six months and not speaking English there must have had some impact on A’s literacy and numeracy.  Hopefully, he will bridge the gap with consistency in education.

56.	She noted that A’s behaviour was dependent on the context.  At school he was compliant and well behaved, with good social skills, whereas at home with his mother he used aggression, shouting or throwing things, as well as hitting, kicking and biting her to get his own way.  The psychologist did not hear the mother’s evidence about A banging his head against a wall until he bruised himself if he could not have the iPad, on which he spent at least three hours a day, or running into the road and nearly getting himself killed when the mother refused to let him sit on the twins’ buggy.  Even without this information, her view was that A’s difficult and noncompliant behaviour will get worse if her recommendations were not acted upon.  Although she considered that A did not need therapeutic intervention, she thought that the mother would benefit from engaging in parenting support and education about the needs of a young child.  The mother’s view was that she did not need any help and was not going to engage in any parenting courses in support.

57.	The mother filed three statements.  The first was in January of this year instead of August of 2015, the second, undated, but I believe filed on 21 March of this year and her last and fuller statement was filed on the day before this hearing.  It was some three and a half weeks late.  This would appear to have been a combination of her solicitor having difficulty distilling information from her despite a number of meetings, with the solicitor not being available some of the time.  That said, the mother added information about violence by her partners as she gave oral evidence and said that although it did not appear either in the schedule or in her statements, she told her solicitor about it.
  
58.	Her solicitor was asked by me to check this and informed the court in writing that she has dealt with all the allegations the mother made to her in the statements and the schedule.  Asked about specific new allegations, the solicitor confirmed that she has no independent recollection of these and they do not appear in her notes, although she confirmed that the mother repeated that both men were violent all the time.
  
59.	The mother, in my judgment, was at times unreliable and at times outright dishonest in her oral evidence.  Here, I distinguish between her evidence about ME and about FB.  Her hatred – and I use the word advisedly – of ME was palpable throughout the hearing.  She could barely bring herself to say his name.  I am satisfied that she has been inconsistent about her allegations against him and that her behaviour on the ground was not consistent with the allegations she now makes.  ME denied physical violence towards the mother.

60.	I find that the allegations regarding physical violence against him are not proved.  I prefer his evidence to that of the mother on the facts which are disputed between them.  I do, however, find that it is likely that there have been verbal arguments between them where indelicate language, including swear words, were used, possibly on both sides.  I am satisfied that after A’s birth the relationship was disharmonious.

61.	Insofar as FB is concerned, I am afraid I found him to be untruthful about his relationship with the mother.  I have come to the conclusion that even if the mother exaggerated some aspects of her allegations, she told the truth about his controlling and aggressive and abusive behaviour to her at times and at times to A.  In these circumstances, it is surprising and very worrying that even following his conviction for assaulting her in I think November of last year she has continued a sexual relationship with him until this hearing.  This information, incidentally, came out, to light, almost at the very end of his evidence.  The mother, in her evidence, said that the last time she had sex with him was seven months before this hearing.  This was clearly untrue.

62.	I turn to analysing some of the details of the allegations.  I deal with ME first.  In the schedule the mother makes two allegations of violence, one in 2008, corrected in oral evidence to 2009, and one in 2013.  There is also a generic allegation in terms of ‘he was violent to me all the time’.  I am satisfied that very shortly A’s birth the mother went to Social Services and alleged that ME assaulted her.  She was accommodated in a bed and breakfast place, but within two days retracted the allegations and returned home.

63.	This allegation is missing in the schedule, but it is dealt with in the mother’s first statement, where the mother’s account does not disclose any violence on the part of ME, but rather alleges that the flat where the parties lived was untidy and ill equipped for her and the baby to return to.  I accept that it was likely to be so and I find that the mother’s attending at Social Services was possibly to find new accommodation, which would not be shared accommodation (with other tenants), as the one they were living at, and would be possibly tidier.

64.	In my judgment, the mother was not honest when she told Social Services that ME was violent to her, though I accept that she may well have been unhappy with the state of the room.  Nor was she honest about this in her oral evidence.  The police reference to this incident specifically states that the mother said that she was never physically abused.  That is to be found at J94.
  
65.	Her evidence about the cannabis trees, two meters high, is inconsistent.  In her first statement she talked about one cannabis tree.  In her second statement she talked about six to eight trees.  She said it was the summer of 2008 when she was three months pregnant with A.  That was impossible since A was born in December of 2009.  She corrected it to 2009 in her oral evidence.  She talked again about six to eight trees.  She was vague as to how she identified the plant.  She said she saw it on television.  She said that the father smoked cannabis all day every day except when he was working.  He apparently dried the leaves between pages of a cookery book he stole from a charity shop.

66.	I am aware that the father held a fulltime job and that the urine test he took in the course of the private law proceedings produced negative results.  The mother said that the father attacked her after she pulled the trees out, pushed her and swore at her.  When asked why she did not inform the police about the plants, she said that she thought it was the landlord’s responsibility.  Similarly, she said that she did not tell the police because she did not speak good English.  This had not stopped her from complaining to the police before.

67.	The father denied growing and smoking cannabis and denied the incident.  The mother’s evidence was inconsistent and, in my judgment, she embellished it as she went along.  I prefer ME’s evidence to hers.

68.	The only other incident of physical assault specified by the mother relates to allegation number two, December of 2013.  She dealt with this in her second statement.  She said that the father was ringing the bell at her home.  They had by then been separated for a couple of years, but ME had been having regular contact with A.  She stopped the contact arbitrarily without giving a reason either to ME or, indeed, in oral evidence to me.  She said that the following day he followed her and A in the street, grabbed her by the hair and dragged her to the ground.  She managed to get away and took the bus to Barnet House.  Apparently, ME shouted at her on the bus, calling her totally unacceptable names in front of all the other passengers.  When she got to Barnet House, she asked for protection from the security man there.  She said ME stayed around for some two hours and then left, at which point she returned home.

69.	ME was telephoned by the police on the same day and was asked whether he followed the mother.  He explained that which he explained to me, that he wanted to talk to her about seeing A and that he was worried that she would remove him to Argentina.  He denied any physical violence in the street or verbal aggression on the bus.  He heard no more from the police.  There was no mention by the police of an allegation of physical assault when they spoke to him, which would probably explain why they did not follow this complaint up.

70.	I find that the mother exaggerated the incident.  There is no corroboration from the police, the security man at Barnet House or anybody on the bus to support the mother’s account.  On balance, it seems to me that had ME ranted and raved on the bus somebody would have tried to intervene and protect a mother with a child.  Equally, I would have thought that if the mother had been assaulted she would have mentioned it in Barnet House.  Again, I accept the version of events as proffered by ME.
 
71.	I do not profess to have a full picture of the relationship between the mother and ME.  I am satisfied that it was not a harmonious relationship at times.  It clearly did not last.  However, the mother was so dishonest when she talked about it, it is difficult for me to know just how volatile it was and why she hates ME so much.  She told me that, in 2008, or 2009 perhaps, she went to Egypt to visit ME’s family.  There, she said she was made to sign documents which turned out to be a marriage certificate.  She said she was duped into this.  She nevertheless stayed for eight weeks with his family.
  
72.	When asked about a wedding, she said there was not one.  She was then asked whether she ever wore a wedding dress, which she denied.  It was then put to her that she tried to sell her wedding dress on Facebook.  She still denied it until the picture was shown to her.  FB then produced a wedding album of the mother and ME where she is dressed up to the nines with both ME and A clearly dressed for a wedding.  That she did not mention it in her statement is one thing.  Denying it in the face of clear evidence is another.  She finally admitted reluctantly that there was a party, but denied everything else as if it actually happened to somebody else.

73.	In my judgment, this piece of evidence renders her evidence about ME unsafe.  I should add that the face of ME is blackened in every photograph in the album in a rather sinister way.  I hope that A, who was told by his mother that his father was dead – she said it was a joke – has not seen it.  ME explained that they went to Slovakia for a wedding celebration, having married some time earlier by proxy in Egypt, but there was a family row at which stage he, the mother and A left and flew to Egypt and used all their finery to have a party there.  I accept his evidence.

74.	Other than the issues of domestic violence, the rest of the mother’s evidence was also concerning.  She did not see anything wrong about her relationship with A.  She thought that the Local Authority was too prescriptive.  She said to the Guardian that professionals have sought to make her adopt an unreasonably authoritarian approach and said she did not want to discipline him as if he was in the army.  The biting, kicking, the head banging described by her, to her mind they were symptoms of A being a bit cheeky (her words).  She did not really try to implement the methods used by Sue Francis because she thought that A may not love her.

75.	She denied that A spent a lot of time on the iPad, though earlier she said he spent on it about three hours at a time.  If not allowed, he apparently banged his head, bruising himself.  She said that she hated ME so much that she would rather have A adopted than live with him.  When asked why she said sorry to A at contact, she said she apologised to him for choosing ME to be his father, sorry for everything, concerning ME being in his life.  She conceded that she said to A that he was not normal, but said he did not understand what she meant.

76.	She attended four out of eight sessions of the Safer Families programme, a course dealing with domestic violence in the home.  She found excuses not to attend the others.  When offered another opportunity after her children were removed, she refused to attend.  This is very much in line with her overall perception, as observed particularly by the Guardian and by me when she gave oral evidence, that she needs to change nothing in her parenting and wants the authorities out of her life.  She was adamant about this.
 
77.	What she did not tell me was that ME was having regular contact with A until December of 2013.  She did not tell me that he paid regular maintenance for A from 2012 to 2013 and then again from May 2014 until October 2015, when he lost his job as a result of his immigration status changing.  The payments were between £70 and £190 a month depending on his earnings.  They were regulated by the Child Support Agency or their successors.  This is hardly the behaviour of a man wanting to control her finances.

78.	She did not tell me that ME took A on holiday in Wales in the autumn of 2013.  Her claim that the only reason ME wants a relationship with A is to secure his immigration status here simply does not hold water.  I remind myself that all ME wanted, both in the private law proceedings and at the start of the public law proceedings, was contact with A.  He did not want to undermine the mother’s status as primary carer.  His position only changed when it was becoming clear that the mother’s problems were so grave that she was likely to lose the care of A irrespective of the issue of contact.

79.	I was satisfied, having watched him give evidence, that he was overall truthful, although, as I say, I accept the relationship was at times volatile and that raised voices went both ways.  ME filed seven statements.  Their general tenor is conciliatory towards the mother, her family and her religion.  The mother complained that at the hearing before me on 8 December 2015 ME stared at her in a frightening manner, saying that this was the reason for her leaving home with the children that night.  I do not accept this.  I am very aware of the parties’ behaviour in the well of the court.  I believe that if there was anything untoward in A’s father’s behaviour I would have noticed it or at least the mother would have mentioned it to her legal representative.  Overall, I agree with the assessment which describes ME as intelligent.  I do not, however, accept the mother’s contention that he is clever enough to pull the wool over everybody’s eyes.

80.	I turn to deal with FB.  I dealt with some of the relationship between him and the mother in the background section.  It is clear that the relationship was volatile.  It was also interspersed by contemporaneous complaints to the police.  FB was assessed by Dr McClintock, forensic psychiatrist.  Just as Dr Jones, he, too, was disadvantaged by not having had findings of fact made by the court.  He did not carry out an assessment on a contingency basis, i.e. what if a finding was made that some or all the mother’s allegations were found to be true.  He did not hear the recording of the incident of 13 May 2015.  I am not sure why.  I am not sure whether he saw the police evidence in respect of the X allegations and the text FB was alleged to have sent her to a PIN‑protected mobile phone.  Neither those representing the mother, nor the Guardian, pursued this.  I accept that on the information Dr McClintock had before him he could not go any further with his diagnosis and I accept that FB does not suffer from any form of illness and that his past reaction to stress was within the normal bounds. 
 
81.	Just like with A, in the twins’ case, too, the mother failed to tell their father that she was going to register the children’s birth.  In his case, however, this deprived him of parental responsibility.  Despite the fact that he worked as a bus driver and a lorry driver in the course of their on/off relationship, he never made any payments in respect of the children.  He told me that his view was that since he did not have parental responsibility he would not pay.

82.	I am satisfied that FB supported ME in having contact with A and did all he could to actively promote it.  The two men, I find, became quite friendly at one stage, especially around the autumn/winter of 2013.  ME was invited to the mother’s home by FB.  He did some cooking there and FB helped him to compose a CV.  I speculate that this friendship caused the mother to stop contact between ME and A in a completely arbitrary and irrational way.  I see nothing sinister in the relationship between the two men, though I am concerned about the clandestine contact in Tesco and A encouraged to lie on that occasion.  There is no evidence that this happened more than once after January of 2014.  I accept that the relationship between them now appears to have cooled. 
            
83.	I turn to the schedule of allegations.  I start with the incident of 13 May 2015, to which I shall refer as the milkshake incident.  This is an incident which was recorded by the mother and, as I understand it, was played to the magistrates in the course of the criminal hearing, although it did not refer to the incident they were dealing with.  The incomplete transcript of the incident can be found in the police evidence at page 83 onwards and I do not repeat it.

84.	Two things are missing from the transcript.  Firstly, that A was present during at least part of the incident for FB is clearly heard saying to him, ‘Tell her to unlock it’, and A’s voice is clearly heard telling his mother to unlock the phone.  The mother, incidentally, was not honest about A’s presence in the course of the incident.  She said that he was in his room, but she had to concede that he was actually there because of the recording.  The transcript, similarly, does not convey the menacing and threatening quality of FB’s utterances.

85.	I have taken into account that the mother knew she was recording and, consequently, may have been more restrained than she otherwise would have been.  However, the fact that FB did not know he was being recorded does not undermine the clearly received impression of his persistence, firstly, to get his milkshake and, secondly, for his persistence that the mother unlocks her phone.  I am satisfied that he called her ‘bitch’ twice and that there was a physical assault at the end of the incident as per the mother’s evidence, although it is quite possible that A, who was on the stairs with her, was not assaulted by FB but rather hit the wall when the mother, who was holding him, was pushed.

86.	In my judgment, this recording gives the flavour of FB’s alleged controlling attitude and gives significant credence to some of the mother’s other allegations.  I am satisfied that FB had debts and sought to control the mother’s finances.  Allegations number nine, 12 and 16 – or perhaps 18 in the new schedule – all deal with the mother’s allegations in respect of financial control.  I accept her evidence that FB created an application on his phone, as well as her phone, which gave him access to her account, since he was the one who devised the password.  I also accept that he borrowed money from her and sometimes against her will.  Interestingly, that was one of the matters she complained to ME about when she was still on speaking terms with him.

87.	Finally, I accept the mother’s evidence that the combining of the job seekers’ allowances at the beginning of 2014 was not because they started living together but because he wanted access to her money.  Evidently, the mother did not agree with this since she managed to reverse it within a month.  The allegation about FB insisting that the mother has varicose veins repaired is so bizarre as to ring true.  In my judgment, this is further evidence of FB wanting to control the mother.

88.	Having made findings that the mother exaggerated her allegations against ME, it is not possible for me to accept all her evidence about FB without expressing some doubt about it.  It is possible that she exaggerated some incidents.  It seems to me, however, that if contemporaneous reporting to the police, although it is, of course, self‑serving, is to be given any weight then I need to examine two of the mother’s allegations in respect of which she did complain to the police.

89.	The incident of December of 2003, the finger incident, was reported to the police within hours.  The mother told me that in the course of 30 December 2013 A caught his finger in a ladder and cried.  It seemed to her that since there was no blood and no external signs of injury it was not necessary to take A to the doctor’s.  FB, however, insisted.  An argument ensued, as a result of which they all got dressed and took the bus to hospital.
  
90.	When they got off the bus, FB asked the mother whether she liked his friend, the bus driver, with whom he was conversing in the course of the journey.  When she replied in the negative, he asked A the same question and A copied the mother and replied that he, too, did not like his friend.  At that, apparently FB got hold of A and smacked him at least five times across the bottom.  A ran away and hit a wall.  The mother then ran away with A, flagged an ambulance and went into A&E.  FB arrived after her, sat next to her and interacted at the triage.  When the mother was finally called into the treating room, she refused for FB to come with her and he left to go home.  There was nothing wrong, incidentally, with A’s finger.
  
91.	Once the police were called and informed about this incident, they sought to find alternative accommodation for the mother and A and sought help from Social Services.  FB was questioned by the police but not arrested.  He was nevertheless asked to leave the home.  The mother eventually returned home.  

92.	FB’s account is quite different.  He denies that he smacked A.  He denied that the mother ran away and flagged an ambulance.  He said this was a fantasy and denied that she ran into A&E.  His explanation for the mother’s extreme reaction is that she was cross with him for making her to go to hospital and for helping ME to write up his CV.

93.	When A was interviewed by the police, he did not disclose any smacking by FB.  Indeed, when asked who were the people living in his home he did not even mention FB.  However, A’s reports about events happening to him are systemically unreliable.  Michelle Beech, the allocated social worker, reports that A will not share his emotions and not give account of things he did or that happened to him.  This was clearly observed in his foster home.  I, therefore, do not place too much weight on A not saying that he was smacked by FB, although he was able to say that he did not like him because he always shouted and made much noise.

94.	In my judgment, when cross‑examined about the milkshake incident, both in his statement of 5 April 2016 and in his oral evidence, FB minimised his conduct.  In the circumstances, I prefer the mother’s account on this to his in respect of the finger incident.  What is clear is that despite her allegations about FB and despite the unwarranted smacking of A, (she emphasised to the police that this was not a disciplining smacking but provoked by anger), she resumed her relationship with him.

95.	One other incident where complaint to the police followed immediately was the incident of 14 July 2015.  The mother said that she and FB were arguing and he insisted she unlocks the phone.  She refused.  He hit her with the phone and she ended up with a red mark on her stomach, having taken a photograph of it.  She fell on the ground.  Having taken a photograph of it, she was pushed, fell to the ground and winded.
  
96.	This was the incident in respect of which FB was convicted of common assault and received 120 hours of unpaid work, £400 of cost and £150 compensation to the mother.  This is the conviction he is appealing.  Although he denied the incident, he admitted apparently saying that he threatened her with the words, ‘I’ll stamp on your face.  Try again and you’ll never be able to open your mouth again’.  That conviction stands until it is successfully appealed.

97.	I do not propose to deal with any other allegations of the mother.  I am satisfied that her relationship with FB was significantly more volatile and more physically abusive than her relationship with ME.  As I have already said, despite everything, she was unable to separate from him.  She returned to him even after her children were removed and continued a sexual relationship with him until this hearing.

98.	FB’s evidence, other than his denials of any physical evidence to the mother, concerned his view of her mental health.  He told me and told Dr McClintock that in his view the mother suffers from bipolar disorder which Dr Rachel Jones failed to diagnose.  He researched the subject on the Internet.  When Dr McClintock tried to convey to him that home diagnoses on the Internet were unsafe, he was very reluctant to accept it.  He described the mother’s mood to be inconsistent and extreme.  He told me that the reason he always went back to her was because he felt sorry for her because he realised she was afflicted with a mental health disorder.

99.	I am satisfied that, although all concerned with the mother described her flat affect and low mood, nobody, including Miss Francis, who saw her regularly, described anything approximating a manic episode.  I find this aspect of FB’s evidence rather concerning.  He is applying for sole care of his boys, believing that their mother suffered from a bipolar disorder, and yet he continued having a sexual relationship with her since the children were removed from her.  I am not sure what to make of it.  I remind myself there is still a criminal appeal pending, and wonder whether the mother will continue her testimony against him.  I find it all rather disconcerting.

100.	I turn to deal with the Guardian’s evidence.  The Guardian’s final analysis in respect of A is dated 31 March 2016.  Her analysis is thorough, carefully balanced, fair and informative.  I accept it and I accept her recommendation that A lives with his father and that there is a supervision order for 12 months.  She also recommended, having heard the mother’s evidence, that there should be a three‑month suspension of contact and a careful reintroduction, only if safe.  In my judgment, she considered both the positive and negative in both parents’ personalities and parenting and considered carefully the separation between A and his primary carer, as well as his siblings.

101.	She told me that the mother did not see any reason for continuing statutory involvement and was wholly dismissive of the input provided by the professional network so far.  She was not willing to attend a parenting programme.  Although she said in her last statement, signed after the Guardian submitted her analysis, that she will cooperate with contact to ME, she said to the Guardian she would only allow it ever in a contact centre, supervised.  To me she said she would stop at nothing to prevent A living with his father.  The Guardian’s view is that contact is likely to be unsustainable unless the mother completely changes her attitude, which the Guardian thought unlikely.

102.	The Guardian considered that the mother had no understanding of the emotional harm she caused A by imparting to him the highly negative information about his father.  It was to the Guardian that the mother said that telling A that his father was dead was a joke, although she could not explain the humorous side of it.  From reading of the assessment of Anna Gupta in the contact notes, the Guardian considered the mother’s parenting functional rather than spontaneous.

103.	She explained that because the mother was no longer parenting fulltime she could now show some affection in contact and considered that A’s parenting before the twins were born was likely to have been good enough and that he internalised love during his first few years.  She accepted that at contact at times the mother can apply boundaries, but does so reluctantly, fearing losing A’s love.  She considered that the mother was inconsistent with A.

104.	I asked whether the mother was as adamantly negative when speaking to her, the Guardian, about every help and work to be done to improve her parenting and her health as she was in the witness box.  The Guardian confirmed to me that she was.  She considered that every effort has been made with the mother to help her to keep her children.  She considered that if contact between A and his mother cannot be effected because of her behaviour, it will be an enormous loss to A.
  
105.	She endorsed Miss Gupta’s assessment of ME.  Her own impressions in her interviews with him were that he had been entirely child‑focused and empathetic to A’s needs.  He demonstrated a sincere consideration of the impact on A of his formative experiences, not only prior but also since his removal from his mother and separation from his siblings.  She was confident that ME would be able to nurture A’s educational attainment and social skills and support A’s positive sense of self.  She believed ME when he said that he would ensure that A was familiar with his mother’s religion and her country’s history.  He presented to her as having no anger towards the mother.

106.	The Guardian was concerned about the implications of the practicalities of ME’s immigration status, his inability to work and the possibility of him having to return to Egypt with A.  She was concerned that he would need considerable assistance from the Local Authority.  She considered that ME was somewhat overoptimistic in respect of how difficult A’s transition to him may be, but considered him able to cope and become realistic with time.

Discussion
107.	: I am satisfied that the mother loves her children, certainly in the way she interprets love.  The children wanted for nothing physical.  After they had been removed, she brought their belongings to Social Services.  Those included three iPads.  They were never physically neglected.  The psychiatric report commissioned on behalf of the mother indicated a diagnosis of depression.  It seems to me that the mother suffers from wider problems.  It is not easy to discern the truth from all the statements she made to different people, but I am satisfied that the childhood was not altogether happy and perhaps was emotionally lacking. 

108.	She seems to be lacking in confidence, attaching herself to people who are not good for her, is either submissive or irrationally antagonistic.  One of the more puzzling aspects of this case is her profound, unrelenting hatred for ME, who even on her account, let alone in my findings, has been significantly less abusive to her and controlling of her than FB.  Whereas she does not object to FB, or did not object to him having contact with the twins – indeed, she appears to have continued a relationship with him until this hearing – her objection to ME having contact with A cost her the care of her children.

109.	Sadly for this mother she is unable to recognise her difficulties and problems and is unwilling to obtain help for the same.  More importantly for the purpose of this case, she has been unwilling to recognise her own serious difficulties in parenting, especially of A, and refused to accept help for those.  I am satisfied that if A stayed with his mother he would suffer significant emotional harm.  I pause to say that I have not dealt separately with the threshold in this case, but I am entirely satisfied that it is crossed as per the Local Authority’s statement.

110.	I am satisfied that the mother’s problems with him as described in the body of my judgment go well beyond him being cheeky and well beyond the boundary pushing of an average six‑year‑old.  The description of his kicking, screaming, head banging, biting, running into the road in defiance all indicate a serious problem in the mother and child relationship.  Her impotence and powerlessness and defiance in the witness box bode very badly for this little boy’s emotional future.  Whether her feelings towards A are intertwined with her feelings for his father is something on which I am unable to comment fully, but on her own account it is quite likely.

111.	I am satisfied that if A were to stay with her he would have no relationship with his father, which I find is important to and beneficial for him.  I have considered Section 1(3) and have given particular consideration to A not being brought up with his siblings.  I accept the psychologist’s view that A would possibly become more involved with his brothers when they would become older and that his indifference towards them, interspersed by resentment, commented on by a number of people, may be a temporary phenomenon.  I accept that ideally siblings should grow up together.  However, in cases where sibling’s parentage is different other considerations apply.  A’s growing up with his siblings is outweighed by his other needs.

112.	From everything I have heard and read about ME and from observing him in the witness box, I am satisfied that A’s welfare will be more than adequately promoted in his care.  I believe ME when he says that he will attempt to maintain A’s contact with his maternal family, although I do not regard it an easy task, and not because of the father’s attitude.  I considered it ironical when, in submissions on behalf of the mother, her counsel complained about the father being unlikely to promote A’s knowledge of his Christianity and relationship with his maternal family, when the mother not only did not promote his relationship with the father or Islam, she openly made negative and disparaging remarks about both.

113.	I, therefore, make a child arrangement order, which will discharge the interim care order I continued on 8 April.  A will live with his father.  I was very concerned to hear the mother’s extreme attitude to the possibility of A living with his father.  Consequently, I accept the Local Authority’s plan, supported by the Guardian, to suspend contact for three months.  Sometimes in the course of this hearing I almost felt that the mother had not grasped the likely outcome of the case, despite all the assessment.  She told the Guardian that she will appeal and go to the European Court of Human Rights.
  
114.	It is just possible that when this part of the case is over she will reflect on what has happened and seek some help.  It is possible that contact may be reinstated as per the Local Authority’s care plan.  This will be at the father’s discretion; he will be advised by the Local Authority under the auspices of the supervision order which I make for 12 months.  The future of the twins needs to be decided as soon as possible.  I will deal with the timetabling of the final hearing shortly.

115.	Finally, I need to deal with a document handed to me by Mr Zachar, the Slovak Consul, at the end of the five‑day hearing.  It is headed ‘Statement’, dated 7 April 2016, and comes from an organisation called Children Belong to Parents.  I do not propose to deal with the cases that they cite, nor with the proposition that this court has acted in breach of the International Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, mainly the right to family life, the right to a fair trial, and the best interests of the child.  It is a proposition which I do not accept.

116.	As for the request that the children are returned to the Slovak Republic and placed in the care of their maternal grandparents, I need to point out that, save for A’s visits to Slovakia, the children never lived there and, therefore, the use of the verb ‘return’ is misguided.  In any event, as this organisation will no doubt recognise, children belong to parents and A is going to live with his father.  Even if the maternal grandparents were positively assessed, which they were not, a placement of the child with his parent, subject to obvious considerations, is a priority.

Coda

117.	When I concluded delivering the judgment, Counsel for the mother applied for permission to appeal.  The reason she gave (reserving to herself an opportunity to elaborate and add reasons) was my failure to deal in detail with the question of A’s circumcision.  Perhaps I should have dealt with it somewhat more extensively.  It is clear that the mother was upset by the circumcision – probably at the time, in Egypt, and certainly now.  She said that it had been discussed with her before the surgery.  She had said she was going to think about it.  She said, if I remember correctly from my notes, that she eventually reluctantly agreed.  There was a dispute between the parents as to where it took place.  The mother said it was done in the home and that A developed an infection.  The father said that it was done in a clinic and that A was fine.

118.	I do not intend to express any expert opinion on circumcision, but I would imagine that circumcision of a nine‑month‑old child is a painful operation and that, for a while after that, the child is very uncomfortable.  It is not unknown to be taking place at that age, and in itself, I would imagine, if the mother did not get so upset about it, would not have caused A lasting damage, physical or emotional.

119.	I accept that the mother is upset about it.  I do not accept her evidence about it being done in the home and A having an infection; there is no medical or other evidence to support this, either from Egypt or from A’s GP upon his return to the UK.  Overall, I have preferred the evidence of the father and I prefer his evidence on this aspect as well.

120.	I remind myself that A was circumcised when he was some 10 months old.  The parents’ relationship continued for some time and A continued having contact with his father until December 2013, when he was four years old.  Whatever the mother’s feelings about circumcision might have been, they could not, in my judgment, explain the abrupt cessation of contact between A and his father some three years later.  It is possible that her hatred is fuelled by the circumcision, but if it is, it was quite slow coming. 

___________________