E (Children) (Non-Accidental Injuries), Re

Throughout this judgment I shall use the anonymisation code as set out in Schedule 1 of this judgment. That code will not be available in the published version.

These proceedings concern 4 children: ‘AMF’ who was born on a date in 2017 so is aged 7 (almost 8), ‘BMF’ who was born on a date in 2020 so is aged 4, ‘CMF’ who was born on a date in 2022 so is aged 3 and ‘DMF’ who was born on a date in 2024 so is aged 1.

Their mother is ‘MO’ and their father is ‘FA’. Their paternal grandmother is ‘PGM’. Their maternal grandfather is ‘MGF’.

MO has a sister, ‘AU’ and another sister, ‘NL’. AU has a son called ‘EAU’. He was born on a date in 2016, so is aged 8 (almost 9). His father is ‘UN’. AU is now in a relationship with ‘PAU’.

MGF’s former partner is called ‘HL’. They have two children together.

The local authority commenced care proceedings under S.31 Children Act 1989 in respect of AMF, BMF and CMF on 6 February 2024. DMF was born during the currency of these proceedings. The local authority commenced care proceedings in respect of DMF on 5 April 2024 and the proceedings were consolidated on 26 April 2024.

This judgment follows a fact-finding hearing that took place over 11 days in April and May 2025. Closing submissions were heard on 22 May 2025. I have received and read two substantial bundles of documents. I have watched a number of video recordings. I have received and considered extensive written submissions, supplemented by oral submissions.

This judgment was made available in draft to the parties on the morning of 18 July 2025. I am sorry for the delay. There has been much to consider and no judgment time was available during the hearing itself.

The representation of the parties at this hearing is set out at the beginning of this judgment. I am grateful to all counsel and solicitors for their detailed preparation and for their skilful and helpful presentation of the evidence and submissions.

The local authority’s allegations against MO, FA and MGF are set out in a Threshold Document dated 28 January 2025. The main allegations for determination at this hearing are that FA caused multiple injuries to his nephew EAU between 19 and 25 November 2023 and that MO and MGF failed to protect EAU from that abuse. There are separate allegations that relate to MO and FA’s drug use, domestic abuse in their relationship and the poor school attendance of AMF.

MO and FA deny the allegations that relate to EAU. FA says he is not responsible for any injuries that EAU may have sustained. MO denies the alleged failure to protect. Both rely on the fact that FA was acquitted (in February 2025) of criminal charges arising essentially from the same events.

MGF has played almost no part in these proceedings. He attended only two case management hearings. He has not filed any evidence or any response to the local authority’s allegations. At the time of this hearing, he was on remand in prison in relation to unrelated matters. He refused to attend any part of this hearing whether in person or by video link.

Having considered all the evidence and submissions, the findings that I make are set out in Schedule 2 to this judgment. These detailed findings will not be available in the published version. In summary, I find that the local authority has proved its case against FA, MO and MGF, largely as pleaded. I find that FA inflicted multiple injuries upon EAU in the period between 19 and 25 November 2023 and subjected him to physical and emotional abuse, including through the ingestion of alcohol and drugs. I find most of his injuries were likely inflicted on the evening of 23 November 2023. I find that MO and MGF were aware that FA had caused injury to EAU but failed to inform AU, the police or social services of this. All three adults delayed returning EAU to AU’s care in an attempt to create a more confused picture of what had happened. This enabled MGF to speak to EAU to convince him to blame PAU for his injuries. FA, MO and MGF have presented multiple possible explanations for EAU’s injuries in an attempt to deflect attention from FA. I shall set out in this judgment my reasons for reaching this determination.

At the time of the issue of proceedings MO and FA had three children and AU and PAU had eight children between them. The families were close both geographically and emotionally. AU had intermittent involvement with children’s services from 2010 due to domestic abuse issues with a former partner and concerns that cannabis was being grown in the house. In 2014 concerns were raised about the children’s poor school attendance and about their home conditions. In 2016 a suspicion was raised that drugs were being used and sold in the property. In 2017 AU alleged she had been assaulted by UN who was having issues with alcohol abuse. Issues of domestic abuse between AU and UN, the lack of school attendance of the children and drug use continued to be raised from 2018 to 2021. In 2021 it was said that PAU was not allowed contact with the children because he had pinched them. In September 2023 the police executed a search warrant to enter the house shared by AU and PAU. Cocaine, cannabis and a quantity of cash was found. AU and PAU were arrested. PAU was charged with supply of Class A and B drugs and sentenced to community service. He said he was depressed after losing his job and was engaging with support services. AU said she had taken drugs in the past but had been drug free for two years. The children were assessed to be well cared for and thriving.

The local authority had short term involvement with MO, FA and their family intermittently since 2019. School attendance has been a long-standing issue and there were concerns that the children were exposed to domestic abuse between the parents. In 2020 FA was involved in a violent incident at a holiday park with bats and machetes whereby he and other family members assaulted the owners of the park. He was convicted of violent disorder in 2021 and sentenced to just under 2.5 years imprisonment.

Sadly, FA’s father died, suddenly and unexpectedly, of a heart attack in November 2023. A balloon release was arranged for 19 November 2023 to commemorate FA’s father and most family members attended. EAU arrived with his mother (AU) but, by agreement, he left with MO and FA with a loose agreement that he would spend a few days with them. This was not unusual and, as he was not attending school regularly, not problematic for the families. As this was an unplanned stay, he did not take much if anything by way of clothes.

There is no dispute that EAU had no visible injuries when he arrived home with MO and FA on 19 November 2023. EAU returned to AU’s care 6 days later, on the evening of 25 November 2023. He was brought to AU by MGF. He had multiple injuries. AU describes in her evidence her shock, horror and upset at the condition that EAU was in. Almost immediately she called the police.

I have seen a number of photographs of EAU’s injuries (H277-290). The first in time were taken by PC MG on the evening of 25 November 2023. These show multiple bald patches all over EAU’s head, with visible red marks to the skin of his skull; cuts, bruising, swelling and scratches to his face; cuts to his neck; a large bruise to his right shoulder; marks to his arm; a circular mark on his back and one to his right arm; damage to the nails of his thumbs; bruises to his left thigh and other marks to his legs and foot.

Additional photographs were taken the next day. These show several patches of hair loss with broken skin underneath and his other injuries as described above.

EAU was examined in a child protection medical on 27 November 2023, conducted by Dr RS. He noted 24 injuries to EAU, which he attempted to record on a body map. Initial investigations showed no apparent medical cause for these injuries.

EAU was then referred to the Sexual Assault Referral Centre because of his genital injuries. He was examined on 28 November 2023. The examination revealed extensive purple-red bruising on the shaft or body of his penis, measuring 3 x 2.5 cm. This is described as having been caused by a blunt force trauma. It would be consistent with a squeezing injury perpetrated by an adult or with other accidental or non-accidental causes such as a straddle injury, a crush injury or being hit, kicked or stamped in the genital area. Accidental injuries would include falling hard astride bicycle bars and being hit by a cricket ball or bat.

Dr Rose, Consultant Paediatrician, was jointly instructed by the parties to provide an expert opinion on EAU’s injuries. He was not required to attend court to give oral evidence. He accepted in his written reports that 4 of the injuries identified by Dr RS were likely caused accidentally, all injuries to his legs. Of the balance, 5 were, in his opinion, non-specific so could have been caused accidentally or non-accidentally. These are the small cut above his right eyelid, the linear marks on the underside of his chin, the large semi-circular bruise to his right elbow, the linear bruises to the dorsal side of his wrist and possible scratch marks on the posterior aspect of his left calf. The remaining 15 injuries were, in his opinion, likely to be non-accidental.

In respect of EAU’s hair loss, Dr Rose considered this likely to have a traumatic cause such as the hair being pulled out. This would have been very painful. He noted the accompanying inflammatory / traumatic lesions that are evident from the photographs. In light of these, the application of hair removal cream is not a plausible explanation. He comments (in his police statement) that ringworm is a highly unlikely cause as there was no further hair loss or treatment. He noted a number of the other injuries were to fleshy areas not prone to accidental bruising. The injury to his right thumb nail was consistent with a crushing injury. He noted from the photographs circular lesions to the lower part of EAU’s back that did not appear to have been recorded by Dr RS. The shape of these would, in his opinion, be consistent with a cigarette burn. If this happened it would have been “exquisitely painful” for him. I note in this context that examination at the time considered that the circular wound to the right shoulder could be an ‘imprint’ from a circular object but was unlikely to be caused by a ‘conventional’ cigarette (H183). Dr Rose could find within the evidence no explanation for the extensive bruising to EAU’s penis. His blood coagulation studies were all normal.

A urine sample was taken from EAU for toxicology testing on 26 November. Benzoylecgonine, Carboky-THC and Etizolam were detected. The toxicology report says that the presence of benzoylecgonine, a cocaine metabolite, suggests the ingestion of, administration of or recent exposure to cocaine. The findings could be the residue of ingestion of cocaine up to several days before the sample was taken. Exposure could be through passive inhalation to smoke from ‘crack’ cocaine or by contact with someone who has recently handled or taken the drug or by contact with surfaces contaminated with cocaine powder. The presence of carboxy-THC in the urine shows the prior use or ingestion of cannabis. This could be by way of passive inhalation. Etizolam is a benzodiazepine drug which may be used for the short-term treatment of insomnia and anxiety. It is not currently prescribed in the UK but can be obtained illegally. It is also available in illicit street preparations of benzodiazepines and possibly other illicit drugs. The results suggest that EAU had ingested, been administered or been exposed to Etizolam.

HN saw EAU on the 25 November 2023. She described being appalled and upset by his condition when she observed him in the bath (see summary below). PC MG was also clearly shocked when he saw EAU that evening. He was recorded as saying “it’s the most injuries I’ve ever seen on a child”.

I am grateful to the local authority for providing a simple table setting out the digital evidence available as to the events of that week.

There is a photograph of EAU attending a birthday party at 13.06 on 18 November 2023, so the day before the balloon release. There is also a video of that party which includes EAU. His face and hair are visible and he appears uninjured (H809). There is no other evidence to suggest that he had sustained any significant injuries by this time.

There are photographs of EAU attending the balloon release at 18.26 on 19 November 2023. Again, his face and hair are visible and he appears uninjured (H292-3). Again, there is no other evidence to suggest he had sustained any significant injuries by this time.

There is a photograph of EAU taken at 1.55 am on 22 November 2023. I understand that this was taken just after he had been in the bath. There are no injuries apparent to his face. It is difficult to tell whether his hair is wet, or he has hair missing.

There are messages passing between MO and AU in the early hours of 24 November 2023. These demonstrate that MO was at hospital at that time, so not in her family home.

The 999 call made by AU in respect of EAU’s injuries is recorded as being made at

The first account given by EAU was to MGF on 25 November 2023. MGF recorded this on his phone. Although it is a video, the phone was pointed away from EAU so he can be heard but not seen. EAU talked in the recording about other children. When asked who banged him in the willy, he replied PAU. He said PAU keeps punching him in the arm. He gave him a dead arm, a dead leg and a butterfly sting. He flicks him on the ear. He said that PAU gives him ‘a wedgy’ sometimes.

The context in which this discussion took place is unclear and, as I consider below, MGF has refused to attend court or provide any evidence. HN’s evidence was that MGF was questioning EAU outside of what was recorded. In her police statement she used the word “interrogating” although she distanced herself from that word in her Crown Court evidence and in her evidence to me. HN told me she was not present when this recording was made, although it was made in her flat.

There is then a Body Worn Camera (‘BWC’) video of the police attendance at about 8 pm on 25 November 2023. EAU told PC MG that FA had hurt him. He had caused the marks to his face. He had punched him, shoved his fingers down his throat, ripped his hair out, injured his thumb nails by biting them, one of his dogs had bitten him, he caused a ‘fag burn’ to his back and had smacked him on the legs. PAU can be seen to be present when PC MG questioned EAU.

In his oral evidence, PC MG told me that the circular marks on EAU appeared to him to be burns. Nothing concerned him about the interaction between PAU and EAU. PAU was encouraging EAU to tell him what had happened. His impression was that having an adult present in the room allowed EAU to ‘open up’. They appeared close and EAU appeared to trust him. He did, however, accept it was not ideal from an Achieving Best Evidence perspective. He accepted he should have asked PAU much earlier than he did to stop asking EAU questions, but did not accept this had ‘contaminated’ EAU’s evidence. There was a close relationship between AU and EAU. She seemed very distressed about what had happened to her son.

PC MG agreed the house was busy with lots of people, and there was a lot of emotion and distress. He agreed it seemed as though EAU had already discussed with others what had happened to him. It was suggested to him that he had asked too many questions for an initial interview, but he felt that he was asking pertinent questions so as to establish the extent of his injuries and to identify potential lines of enquiry. He did not agree it was a mistake to tell EAU he was brave, there had to be a level of human interaction and rapport building. EAU showed him the injuries on his body and he took photographs. He accepted he did not advise AU or PAU or anyone in the house not to speak to EAU any further about the allegations. When he was there, UN arrived and asked them whether they were going to arrest ‘the paedophile’.

On 26 November 2023 EAU was spoken to by PC CF and an ‘out of hours’ social worker. The notes from that are illegible and it has not been possible to contact PC CF to provide any further information. A summary has been produced by FA, from the disclosure to him within the criminal proceedings. EAU said that FA had bitten his thumbs and the officer noticed marks on both. He said FA was responsible for his missing hair and that the dog had bitten him on his forehead and on his chin. EAU said that FA had thrown a dog on his lap which was a chihuahua. FA had punched him causing a bruise to his right jaw and a mark to his nose. He pointed out other bruising caused by FA and another dog bite. He referred to other marks as cigarette burns but was unable to say why other than he felt it burned. The officer questioned whether these were moles. EAU said that FA had made him drink vodka and beer and eat spicy food. FA told him to blame someone else for this (that name is redacted). He put his hands over his genital area when asked whether he had been hurt anywhere else, and said “yes”. He said it was over his clothes. He said that FA had injected him in his tooth and the officer could see a mark on his lower gum. He had also put a toothbrush down his throat and his fingers. He said that MO was present when his genitals were squeezed and was aware of his head injury and the bruising to his face

PC EV and a social worker CD spoke to EAU at hospital on 27 November 2023 when he attended for a child protection medical. PC EV recorded the interview on his BWC. EAU told him that FA had bitten his finger and ripped his hair out. FO threw a dog on him which bit him. FA was beating him up. He showed the officer some of his injuries. He said FA hit him every single day at his house. He stamped on his leg. He drowned him in the bath by sticking his head under the water. He had to swallow Orbeez. He pinched him. He showed that officer his injuries. FA didn’t want him to call the police and said he would “kill the police”.

PC EV did not appear to be aware that EAU had already given an account of what happened to him to PC MG, the previous day. If he had known he would have questioned the necessity of speaking to him again. He denied that he went too far for an initial interview. He asked open questions to elicit free narrative from EAU. He observed EAU to be clingy with AU. UN was at the hospital and was angry.

CD said that EAU appeared to her to be articulate at the hospital. He was anxious when she first arrived and was not eating much and was quiet. He had been there about an hour before she arrived and was with a number of adults including AU, PAU and UN. The injuries to his face were very obvious. AU appeared upset, appropriate with him and protective. EAU started to relax and feel more comfortable but became distressed at the intimate examination. She was the author of the S.37 Children Act report. At no stage did EAU make any allegations to her or in her presence that he had come to harm at home with AU or PAU. She saw, over time, that EAU’s hair grew back.

She noted that at times AU was trying to assist EAU in the narrative description to Dr RS of what happened to him and the doctor asked EAU to tell him himself. Ms CD’s impression was that AU was trying to persuade EAU to talk to the doctor and to tell him what happened, rather than she was trying to put words into his mouth. It was distressing for AU particularly when EAU became upset. When she was asked to step back she apologised and did so. She had recorded the doctor saying that he had extensive bruising to his testicles. She said she must have thought at the time that was what she had heard him say (there is no record of such an injury).

Dr RS said that when he saw EAU in the presence of Ms CD and AU on 27 November, EAU told him that he had been bitten on the thumbs by FA and had been hit causing bruising. FA had tried to drown him and he was forced to eat a squishy spongy ball. He was pinched and his hair was pulled. AU told him that EAU had been burnt with a cigarette and was forced to drink vodka, beer and lots of spicy food. EAU was upset thinking he would be taken away from AU and PAU and had to be reassured. AU was also upset that he had so many injuries. As I have said, he recorded EAU’s injuries in his notes and on a body map. Without central charring on the circular mark he could not confirm this was caused by a cigarette burn. He believes it was EAU who had first told him this was a cigarette burn. AU had helped EAU with his narrative at the beginning but he advised her to let him give his own version and she complied. He confirmed that the family had attended for EAU to be examined the day before but had been frustrated because the medical could not happen. They had then attended on the morning of the 27^th but he needed to wait until after his ward round before he could see EAU.

EAU was interviewed under the achieving best evidence guidance on 28 November 2023. He had attended the interview with AU, PAU and UN (but they were not present during the interview itself). EAU said that FA had drowned him in the bath and caused bruising. He had tortured him. He had made him drink vodka and beer, ripped his hair out and let his dog bite him. He pinched him and had burnt him in the back with a lighter. He had made him swallow poisonous Orbeez. He kept stabbing his fingers down EAU’s throat. He called him “the C word”. FA told him that he didn’t want anyone else to know because he did not want MO breaking up with him. When FA was drowning him in the bath he banged his eye on one of the handles and that is why he had a black eye. FA had thrown the dog at him and it bit him in the neck and on his foot. He described FA being angry. He made him vape and smoke and he made him smoke a bong. He did not want to do any of those things. He spat in his mouth with phlegm. He hurt his ‘privates’ through his clothing – and he spoke about the police officer taking pictures of this. He said he had told MO what happened but she said to him FA didn’t do it. He had told FI who had been staying in the house but he didn’t do anything. He spoke about FA giving him a gold bracelet to “keep me quiet” and said to him “can you shut up now because you’re annoying” and he spoke about MGF taking him to the skate park. He said MGF had not asked him questions about what had happened.

My impression of EAU from the ABE interview, and the earlier BWC videos that I have watched, was of an articulate boy able to listen to and understand the questions he was being asked. His answers appeared clear without being rehearsed. The questioning was mostly open and much of the information given was provided by EAU through free narrative. It is unfortunate that the police officer questioning him did not explain to EAU the importance of telling the truth until part way into the interview (about 15 minutes in) but when she did so it did not make any noticeable difference to the account that EAU gave. He commented immediately when she started explaining this that “it was the truth”. He corrected the police officer when she accidentally called him the wrong name. He did not appear to have any difficulty with the difference between truth and lies.

EAU was further ABE interviewed on 1 February 2024. He again did not demonstrate any difficulty understanding the difference between truth and lies. He told the officers that he likes AU because she is always nice to him. PAU makes him laugh and flicks his ear as a joke, it does not hurt. This is what PAU refers to as a ‘butterfly sting’. He jokes around with him. There is nothing he does not like about him but he can be annoying by using EAU’s Xbox. There is no-one at his house that makes him feel scared, angry or frightened. He was asked about the last time he saw MGF, which was after he had been at FA’s house. He was asked whether anything happened at MGF’s house and he said nothing had happened but he had put him in the bath. He said he had told MGF that FA had hit him, but MGF did not believe him. MGF said that he thought he was dreaming. This was at FA’s house. This was also what MO had said to him. They had gone to the skate park after being at MGF’s house. FA had given him the electric scooter to keep him quiet because he did not want him to tell the police. He had threatened to hurt him more if he did tell them. He described seeing a gun at FA’s house. He said he wants FA to go to jail for what he did to him. He repeated that FA had pulled out his hair and said his hair had never fallen out before. As before, EAU presented as an articulate boy capable of understanding the questions he was being asked.

I watched the s.28 cross examination of EAU undertaken on 19 April 2024. He was clearly restless and reluctant to be in the building. He was kept waiting for a considerable period of time, which should not have happened. Nonetheless, EAU did answer many of the questions asked of him. His account was consistent with his ABE interviews. He denied having any accidents or otherwise being hurt at the skate park with MGF. Nothing that I saw from that cross examination significantly undermined or discredited his account

Ms CD provided some further background information about AU, PAU and their family. The injuries to EAU had triggered a s.37 investigation. She noted that EAU appeared to have a close and loving relationship with his parents AU and UN and his stepfather PAU. Their household was clearly a busy one, but the general observations of professionals over some years of involvement with the family had been that there was an emotionally warm and affectionate family atmosphere. EAU’s school had confirmed to her that hair loss had never been an issue for him and his hair subsequently grew back. When the results of the toxicology evidence were provided to AU in April 2024 she was very shocked and distressed, she cried and said they could have killed EAU. He had told her that he had been given a bong and a vape by FA and about being injected in his gums. She said she will always blame herself for allowing EAU to stay with MO and FA and had always had her reservations about this.

Ms CD was asked about the September 2023 police raid on AU and PAU’s home. Crack cocaine, cannabis and drugs paraphernalia had been found. PAU had claimed that he was holding this for his brother. PAU accepted he had been using cannabis and cocaine. He was suffering from depression and had lost his job. AU had asked to be drug tested but that had never been taken up by the local authority. AU had never presented as under the influence of drugs. AU had told her she was protective of her children and did not want them exposed to drugs, but Ms CD accepted that they were living in a house where drugs were being consumed so there was the potential for exposure. AU had claimed that FA had kidnapped a nephew of his because of a drug debt. She was unable to say whether that was true or not. AU had never had any doubt in her mind as to who had injured EAU. Emotions were running very high in her household in November 2023 and everyone was angry. There had probably been a lot of conversations in the household and the children would have overheard that. She accepted that the narrative had been set in the AU / PAU household from the very beginning that FA was responsible for the injuries to EAU.

AU provided statements to the police about what happened on 28 November 2023, 18 December 2023 and 1 February 2024. She also gave evidence at FA’s Crown Court trial. She describes a close relationship with MO, although she says there had been ‘issues’, ‘normal sister arguments’, over the last couple of years. They had become close again in the days after FA’s father’s death as MO needed her for support. It was normal for EAU to stay at MO’s house. She describes the balloon release on 19 November. EAU was having a great time and did not want to go home, so she agreed he could stay with MO. There was no agreement as to how long EAU would stay but she knew it would be a couple of days at least. When she left EAU he had no bruises or injuries and a full head of hair. He does not have alopecia or any other hair loss problems. She had seen him in the shower on 18 November and he did not have any bruising to his penis at that time.

AU spoke to MO on Monday 20 November. On Tuesday 21 November she told MO she would pick EAU up on Wednesday 22^nd as he needed to go back to school. However, that evening EAU told her on the telephone that he wanted to stay longer. MO told her FA had bought him an electric scooter. AU spoke to MO on Thursday 23^rd and MO was unwell and needed to go to hospital. Whenever she asked during conversations whether EAU was okay MO would say yes. She planned to collect EAU on Friday 24^th as he was spending time that weekend with UN, but in the event her arrangements to collect EAU fell through and she let him stay another night, “as there was no rush”. On Saturday 25^th UN was trying to make arrangements to collect EAU but she was unable to get through to MO or make any firm arrangements with FA. At 4.45 pm she left her house to collect EAU and knocked on the door of their property but there was no answer. As they were standing outside, she heard a car beeping and it was MGF. EAU was in the back of his car. She could see his face was swollen and she knew just by looking at him something serious had happened. She said “What the fuck has happened to his face” and MGF said “Oh he has fallen over in the bath”. HN was also in the car as were their children. MGF was asking her to get into his car as he needed to talk to her but she just kept asking EAU if he was alright. She got into the car but was shocked and worried. MGF told her that he and EAU “have been having a little chat and he had been telling me a few things”. As they got out of the car at HN’s home EAU’s hood came down and she could see clumps of his hair had been pulled out. She could tell he was traumatised, he had not said a word at this point. He looked like he had been in a car crash. She was shouting at MGF wanting to know what had happened to her son. MGF said he had got in the bath and got some hair removal cream. She knew this was a lie. She kept shouting who has done this to her baby. MGF said he had recordings saying PAU had done this but also FI. He had also said two boys had done this to him. AU said she was calling the police. She knew any recordings would be a lie and she did not understand why MGF had not sought medical help for EAU. She did not trust him. As she left with EAU MGF shouted at her “I picked him up from MO’s this morning and this is how he looked”. On their way home AU asked EAU who had done this to his face and he said “FA done it”. When she got home she picked up EAU and carried him indoors. Everyone there started crying as they could see how bad EAU looked.

MO and FA telephoned AU when she got home. FA was unhappy that things were being said about him. He said he would never have let any harm come to EAU. He sent her a message saying “I wouldn’t lay a hand on ur boy not in a million years”. MO was suggesting she should ‘google’ the symptoms of alopecia. AU rejected this suggestion, “how has he developed alopecia in 6 days?”. She challenged them about his bruising. She stripped him off and noted all his injuries. When she saw his penis, she “freaked out. I could (see) his penis was completely black and bruised”. She then called 999. EAU was quiet and timid, not his usual self. He was saying “FA done it to me”. She spent “every minute of every hour with EAU after this trying to get answers from him”. EAU told her what FA had done including putting an injection into his mouth and that FA put his head under the bath. On 27 November she received a message from HN saying when she saw EAU on 25 November she “told your dad to contact you as it looked like he had been grabbed round the face but he kept telling me he was going to talk to you later then I saw him in bath (discretely) I said the same thing that he should contact you… but he was having none of it and wanted to talk to you face to face”.

In her oral evidence, AU confirmed that EAU was uninjured when they went to the balloon release on 19 November. He had never suffered from ringworm. She confirmed she had told the Crown Court that on the night EAU came home she spoke to MO and told her that she had called the police. Her reply was “what about my kids”. AU said, “what about my baby”. MO turned to someone else and said “she has rung the police, we need to get everything out of this house”. AU did not know what she meant by that. They have not spoken since.

She was asked about the video taken by MGF. She suggested it was “staged” and that EAU had been manipulated. She could not understand why MGF was bathing EAU or why MGF had not attended to give evidence at the Crown Court or engaged in these proceedings. Her son was naked in the bath during the video and extremely vulnerable, “I wasn’t there and couldn’t read the room. I don’t know what torture he had been through and what mental and emotional state he was in”. MGF was saying that he had picked EAU up from MO’s and this was how he had looked. Her expression that she had questioned EAU “every minute of every hour” was an exaggeration. She denied the suggestion that she was trying to influence him or “drum” things into his head. She just wanted to know how he had lost his hair and got these bruises. He was not exposed to family members talking about this ‘non stop’. She “was grieving my sister, my father, my nieces because I knew nothing would be the same”, she “was in total shock”. She denied leading him but had never been in this situation before and had not been given any guidance. She accepted that EAU could invent things, like all children can, but this would be “super heros” or “batman came down” but not that someone had hurt his willy. She believes that what happened to EAU was when MO was not there. MGF had let him down “massively” “I know that lies were told”. He had told her “my hands are tied”. He was acting weird. He always looks scared, he is a junkie. She believes MGF is scared of FA and in quite a lot of debt with him. Even if he knows what happened to EAU he may be afraid to say. If she thought PAU had done this then she would have called the police. She accepted she had taken drugs, cannabis, cocaine and MDNA, particularly when younger. She was telling the truth when she told the social worker she had not taken drugs for two years. She denied taking drugs in the house. She found out that PAU had been taking drugs in September 2023. She knew he was a user of cannabis but it was not to be brought into the house. After the house was raided, she gave PAU an ultimatum, to do something about it or leave. He then sought help. She does not believe that the drugs in EAU’s system came from her house. Her 15 year old daughter was smoking cannabis, she conceded, but this was not in her house. They were experimenting. FA had bought gifts for EAU before, so the gifts were not unusual. She did not know what had happened to EAU until he told her. She accepted she was crying. She screamed when they pulled his trousers down, “I couldn’t believe what I saw”. She was shaking and hysterical. EAU told her the burn had been caused by a cigarette and then he said it was a cooker lighter. It was to his back so he would not have seen what happened. “No child could have made up these things”.

In my judgment, AU probably did know more about drug use in her home during 2023 than she has admitted to. On PAU’s account she was questioning him about his use of drugs in the lead up to September 2023. The quantity of drugs found, the drug paraphernalia and the photographs and pictures of others using drugs in her home strongly suggest she knew more than she has admitted to in evidence. However, her dishonesty on this issue does not impact significantly on my overall impression of her evidence. Just because she has been dishonest in her evidence about drug use does not mean she is being dishonest about everything. On other issues she appeared to me to be a genuine and credible witness. She clearly was shocked, upset and angry about the injuries that EAU has sustained. She was largely able to keep her emotions in check during her evidence, but they were not far from the surface. I accept her evidence that she genuinely mourns the loss of her relationship with her sister. Despite extensive and skilful cross examination, she did not present to me as someone who would deliberately manipulate her son to make an untruthful allegation. I accept that she wants to know the truth about what happened to him.

PAU provided a statement to the police on 26 June 2024. By that time he had been in a relationship with AU for about 4.5 years. He said that there were no marks on EAU before the balloon release on 19 November 2023. The first he knew of any issues with EAU was when AU called him on the way home from collecting EAU on 25 November. She sounded “proper upset and frantic”. She told him something bad had happened to EAU and FA had hurt him really badly. When he came into their home the first thing he noticed was that EAU had clumps of hair missing. He felt so upset and shocked he broke into tears. EAU was shocked and quiet. He could see bruises and black fingernails. They rang the police. He had never hurt EAU. They play a game called butterfly stings where they flick the top of each other’s ears but this is never hard and is in play.

In his oral evidence PAU denied that there was any domestic abuse with AU, just rows with verbal aggression but no physical aggression. He accepted having used drugs, but this was in the pub not in their home. He does not do that now. He accepted the police had found drugs in his house in September 2023 and at the time he was quite a heavy cocaine user. The drugs in his shed were not his, he believed that they were his brother’s. He thought that AU would have had some idea that he was using drugs before September 2023 as she “is quite a clever girl”. She would see him coming in late and see it in his eyes. She did challenge him but he denied it. He is still under investigation by the police for the supply of drugs. He was still coming off the drugs in November 2023 when EAU was injured. He was shown a picture of a man snorting cocaine in his shed. He said he did not know about this at the time. EAU would not be allowed in the shed. There is also a video of a young girl smoking cannabis. He was not there at the time and would not allow that in his house. He does not know if AU was aware. He had been violent to a previous girlfriend and had gone to prison for this, these were “silly mistakes”.

He thought that the video taken by MGF was “staged”. He denied banging EAU in the willy and denied punching him. He did not give him a dead arm or leg. He accepted asking EAU questions about what had happened to him, “I wanted to get to the bottom of it”. He denied prompting or coaching EAU. He accepted the questioning may not have been in EAU’s best interests but “I cannot turn back time”. He denied staging the conversation or putting thoughts into EAU’s head. He denied suggesting to EAU that FA had pulled out his hair. If the police had asked him not to question EAU, then he would not have done so. He was concerned, he agreed, “they were trying to pin it on me”. He accepted saying to EAU “did he make his dog bite you?” and that he should have kept that thought to himself. His questions were limited to that day because afterwards “I did not want anything else to do with it”. He agreed he had said to EAU that FA had given him the scooter and bracelet, “to keep his mouth shut”. He was so angry that he was just saying out loud what he thought. He denied there was any prospect of EAU being exposed to cocaine or cannabis in their house.

I found PAU’s evidence about his drug use and the source of the drugs found in his home unconvincing. The quantity of drugs found (in more than one location), the drug paraphernalia and the photographs and pictures of others using drugs in his home, indicates to me his use of cocaine and cannabis was extensive in 2023. He minimised his previous domestic abuse, particularly his conviction. I am aware that others, such as MGF and HN had formed an unfavourable view of PAU. However, as with AU I found much of his evidence credible and reliable. I accept he had a good relationship with EAU. He was clearly angry at the suggestion he could have hurt EAU and defensive, but neither is surprising. It was not put to him by anyone that he could have been a perpetrator of the majority of the injuries sustained by EAU. It is common ground that PAU did not see EAU between 19 November and when MGF and HN and then AU saw the injuries on 25 November 2023.

UN did not give evidence at this hearing. I was told that he could not be traced. There is a police statement from him dated 8 February 2024. He describes there a great relationship with his son, EAU and no concerns about AU’s parenting of him. He had seen EAU on 16 November 2023 and spent the day with him. He had no injuries and appeared to be happy. He had wanted to see EAU on 25 November but AU told him that he was still with MO. He tried to call MO but she did not pick up or come back to him. He thought MO and FA were being difficult but left AU to deal with this. Later that day PAU called him to say that EAU had been hurt. He rushed over to AU’s home. He was shown EAU’s penis which was black. He saw that his face was bruised and he had chunks of hair missing, “he was just a mess”. Out of the blue EAU told him “I wasn’t even scared when FA was pulling my hair out”. He knows when his son is telling the truth and there was no doubt this was what was happening. He was really angry about what had happened to his son. EAU does not suffer from any medical conditions that he knows of. It is nonsense to suggest he suffers from alopecia. MGF sent him the video he had made of EAU on the night of 25 November. At that point he knew nothing about what had happened to EAU. He rang MGF later and said he had not been able to

The social worker in the case is EB. Her initial statement is dated 6 February 2024. MO was arrested on 25 November but FA could not be located by the police until 27 November. He was remanded in custody until bail was granted by the court on 17 January 2024. Since the allegations were made AMF, BMF and CMF have lived with their PGM, under an interim supervision order. MO is seen to be attentive to her children in contact, responsive to their needs and supportive to PGM. She has accepted that AMF’s school attendance was not satisfactory. There had been a more limited opportunity to observe FA’s interaction with his children but historically this has been noted to be positive. Ms EB’s second statement is dated 4 April 2024 following the birth of DMF. On 26 April 2024 I granted an interim care order in respect of DMF with a care plan for DMF to remain in the care of MO in a parent and child foster placement. They have remained there since that time.

In the chronology to her initial statement Ms EB referred to a s.47 visit where AMF had said that EAU had hurt his genitals at the park when he slid over and had been pinching himself. This appeared to have been said twice, once to AMF and once to an ‘out of hours’ worker. During the course of the hearing there appeared to be some doubt as to whether this had been said by AMF twice or once. As I indicated what is potentially of significance is that it was said by AMF, not the number of times that AMF said it.

FI is a nephew of both AU and MO. He was living with MO and FA as at November 2023, in the loft space. He has previously lived with AU. In his police statement dated February 2024 he described FA in positive terms, someone who gives him advice and as a peace maker, “He is kind, caring and generous. He is like a father figure to me.” He said MO is “a kind, loving and caring person”, a mother figure to him. He said FA was quiet after his father died, the balloon release and EAU coming to stay with them. He provided a short chronology of the week, helping with funeral arrangements on the Monday and an early night, staying in on Tuesday, MO and FA taking BMF to hospital on the Wednesday with an earache and EAU remaining at home with him. They stayed at home on Thursday but at about 10.30 or 11 pm FA took MO to hospital, getting back about 4 am. On the Friday FA took EAU and AMF out to buy electric scooters and some clothes and toys. That evening EAU had a bath. He was fine in there. FI noticed a couple of bruises on the top of his arms and EAU told him he had been fighting with some boys at the park where he lives. He said he got a bumblebee and stabbed the boys in the eye with the sting. FA was again out making funeral arrangements and when he got back, FI asked EAU this time in front of FA what happened to his arms. This time he said that PAU had pinched and punched his arm and given him a dead arm. On Saturday morning MO was having a go at him for not tidying up. EAU, AMF and BMF went with MGF to the skate park. Later that evening the police knocked on the door looking for FA. They searched the house. Other than the marks to EAU’s arms, he didn’t notice any marks, bruises or cuts. Having lived at AU’s home, and as EAU is one of 8 siblings, he knows the children fight with each other and there is “a lot of drinking and partying in the house”.

In his oral evidence FI said that MGF was not staying at the property in November 2023 but he was there a lot during the week. He did not notice anything unusual during that time with EAU’s hair. He denied telling lies for FA. He was seeing someone at the time so did go out quite a bit and was also working on an occasional basis. FA was struggling at the time, he was crying and spent a lot of time in his room. He did not notice anything particularly wrong with EAU on the morning of 25 November but did not look at him “in any great detail”. He accepted he had been smoking cannabis in the loft space but said he did not do so in the house. MO and FA did not know he smoked up there. EAU had a bath 2 or 3 times. He was “pretty certain” FA took MO to the hospital on 23 November. She was pregnant and had some aches and pains. He was not aware of any time that EAU was sad or scared. He knew there was a crossbow in the house, it was there for show and hidden away most of the time.

It was put to FI on behalf of FA that he might have been mistaken about his chronology of events that week, and he readily accepted that. He could have “misremembered”. The shopping trip “may well have been on the Tuesday”. “It may have been” that MGF took MO to hospital and not FA. He said “I think I got the days mixed up”. He said that his memory is better now about the events of November 2023 than it was in February 2024.

FI’s evidence lacked any credibility in my view. He was very obviously keen to be positive about FA (and MO) and did not want to say anything critical of them. His timeline was unreliable and unravelled as soon as a different sequence of events was put to him on behalf of FA. I do not accept that his memory now can be better than it was in early 2024. Indeed, I do not accept that by February 2024 he would have remembered much about the detail of what happened between 19 and 25 November 2023. His recollection, for example, that FA took MO to hospital on 23 November is clearly wrong. I can accept that FI was in the house at times but consider it likely that he was out on many occasions (either at work or with friends) or spending time smoking cannabis or playing video games in his room. I doubt he was paying very much attention to EAU. The impression I formed was that he had come to court to assist FA rather than to help find out what happened to EAU. In my view I can place no weight on his evidence.

VW was also staying at the property during this time. He was sleeping on the sofa. He would have been 15 in November 2023. He is a close friend of FA’s younger brother. He made a statement to the police on 19 February 2024 and said that he could not remember many of the details of that week in November 2023. He noticed no marks or injuries on EAU or any change of behaviour. FA was grieving the loss of his father. On the Tuesday or Wednesday he remembers MO asking EAU about a bruise. He then heard EAU reply “PAU did it”. “MO was shocked”. EAU told MO how PAU gives him dead arms and MO said to FA “have you seen this’. FA and MO were not sure whether to believe EAU or not. On the Thursday MGF took MO to hospital because she had a strange lump on her hand. MO returned “well before midnight”. She showed them her hand, they all laid down and watched films together and fell asleep. On the Friday they had a tidy up. EAU was riding his scooter around the house and hit the coffee table a few times which sent him flying. He was enjoying himself and happy. On the Saturday MGF took EAU, AMF and BMF to the skate park. Other than the bruise on his shoulder, VW was not aware of any other injuries to EAU during that week or any change in him. He did not notice any drugs apart from “maybe FA smoking a joint at some point”.

VW gave evidence at FA’s criminal trial. He did not, it appears, spend much time with EAU during that week. He confirmed he was not aware of EAU having sustained any injuries during that time.

On 1 April 2025 I refused the local authority’s Re W application for VW to give evidence at this hearing, for the reasons set out in the ex tempore judgment I gave on that day. An independent social worker had provided a Re W assessment which drew my attention to a number of factors specific to VW. VW’s parents were both reluctant for him to give evidence. VW himself was clear he did not want to give evidence again, having done so at FA’s criminal trial. The social worker questioned the value of his evidence given he was struggling to remember specific events on specific days.

NL also provided a statement to the police, on 7 February 2024. This was because she had spent time at MO’s home during that week in November 2023. She is also under 18, and would have been 15 or 16 at the time. She described the sleeping arrangements in the house. She was in a room with AMF, BMF and CMF. EAU either slept in the same room as them or on a sofa in MO and FA’s room. She gave a timeline of events that week, as best as she could remember them. She was present when MO asked EAU about a bruise on his arm. She saw him point near his shoulder. EAU told MO that it was from PAU punching him and giving him a dead arm. PAU also gives him dead legs. She did not see EAU with any injuries. There was no application for NL to give evidence and she did not give evidence at FA’s criminal trial.

MO has provided three statements to the Court (26 June 2024, 26 September 2024 and 21 March 2025) and she was interviewed by the police under caution on 26 November 2023 and 11 January 2024. She also gave evidence at FA’s criminal trial.

MO denies causing any injury to EAU and says she is not aware of anyone else having done so. FA’s father died on 15 November and the balloon release was on 19 November. EAU had stayed over with them many times and was close to AMF. They spoil EAU and buy him presents as they do their own children. The decision for EAU to stay with them was made on the spur of the moment, as it often is, “She (AU) often sends him without clothes and provisions. Her life is chaotic and so too is EAU’s”. EAU stayed in different places around their house. The house was full and they were all out of routine. EAU seemed his normal self during his time with them. He is independent and gets himself dressed, “he has to be adaptable because of his life at home”.

MO provided her timeline of events from 19 November. FA went out on 20 November to make funeral arrangements. EAU stayed in the house and watched TV with the others. On 21 November FA took EAU to get some new clothes and a pet fish. They could not buy a fish and FA bought EAU an electric scooter instead. When they got home he was ‘whizzing around’ the house on his scooter. He had a bath late Tuesday / early Wednesday between 12.30 and 1 am. She took a photograph of EAU in his new pyjamas (see above). He bathed himself and she popped in from time to time to check on him. When he came into the bedroom after the bath she noticed a bruise near the top of his right shoulder. It was dark and purplish in colour. EAU told her that PAU gives him dead arms and legs. He also had a mark under his left eye. When she asked him about this he said he had slipped over in the bath. She said, “I took what EAU said at face value but with hindsight wish I had enquired more”. On Wednesday 22 November she took BMF to the doctor because she had an earache. On one occasion she told BMF off because BMF bit EAU. This left marks on EAU’s foot and face. She says that BMF has been known “to pull hair and scratch other children”. BMF was “going through the terrible twos”. EAU told her that BMF had bitten his foot. On Thursday 23 November she had an infected cut or mark on her hand and started to feel unwell late in the evening so MGF took her to hospital. She got home around 6 am. EAU was asleep in bed with NL. She thought that FA had popped out to see his brother that evening.

On Friday 24 November she was not happy with the state of the house and told everyone they needed to pull their weight and help out. She was tired and fed up. She and FA “had some words” and she went to a neighbour’s for 10 minutes. She went out to get some antibiotic cream for her hand and left the children with FA for about 40 minutes. During the evening she spoke to MO and gave her an update. When she was on the

On Saturday 25 November EAU had breakfast and then MGF got the children dressed to take them to the skate park so that EAU could test out his scooter properly. Later that afternoon FA received a call from MGF saying he (FA) was being accused of hurting EAU. She saw missed calls and messages on her phone so she called AU. She then received a call from her neighbour to say the police were at her home. She returned home and was arrested.

She knows EAU well and had not noticed any change in his behaviour over the week. FA had been down and subdued. He slept a lot of the time and only went out a couple of times. They have a small chihuahua dog and a ‘staffy’. She does not remember EAU complaining of being bitten by either dog and she did not see that happen. He was wearing FA’s gold bracelet because he had been playing with FA’s jewellery and they had forgotten to take the bracelet off of him. This had not been given to him. She had been mistaken when she said at the criminal trial that it had.

She is shocked by the injuries “EAU seemed to have sustained”. She would never try to hide the fact that a child has been hurt. EAU never told her that FA had hurt him. EAU “is not well cared for” by AU. AU “deals in drugs” “and I think there is very little routine”. She has videos of AU’s older daughter smoking cannabis and messages saying AU gave her daughter a joint and thought it funny. When they were growing up, AU let MO smoke cannabis. She drinks and takes drugs. AU and PAU should be drug tested because the drugs found in EAU will be found in them. AU has a suspended sentence for shoplifting.

She was aware during that week that EAU was scratching and picking a lot. He is a fidgety child so this behaviour seemed to her to be normal. She gave him a fidget toy at one point to calm him down a bit. On either the Thursday or Friday she noticed EAU had a scratch on his chin that he was picking at. On Friday she saw a reddish mark in the shape of a line on EAU’s face and remembered thinking it was likely to develop into a bruise. After the incident when she had been on the phone to MO she said to EAU “what’s going on, what you done to your face” or similar words. She saw a small mark on EAU’s chin and recalls thinking that was going to bruise. EAU said he had done it on the stairgate.

She accepts that, “historically” there have been “features of volatility and domestic abuse” in her relationship with FA with “immaturity and bad behaviour on both sides”. She said “I have to accept” that FA had slapped her on a number of occasions during arguments and on one occasion he held a knife to her throat. On Christmas Day 2018 he pulled her about by the hair, “causing clumps of hair to be pulled out”. These episodes had been “fuelled by alcohol”. They went through “a rough patch” in 2021 and she accepts messaging AU to complain about FA’s behaviour. However, “some of what I said to AU was exaggerated, to get her on side”. An incident occurred on 7 May 2022 when FA had been drinking and called her a slag which was witnessed by BMF. Both attended domestic abuse courses as a result of this. She describes the time since November 2023, and the separation from her children, as “heartbreaking… There are no words for the stress that I feel as a mother”.

In her March 2025 statement MO mentioned another person with the same first name as FA. She says “it may or may not be significant but I make the point that there is another X in EAU’s life. I am not pointing fingers and I am not deflecting but it is information that should be before the court.” She refers to someone else who she says was called “a whore” by PAU and she did not feel safe with him, she says “I mention these things because I think there are elements of risk in EAU’s life that still need to be considered”. The only substantive reference in any of her statements to MGF is in the last paragraph when she says she spoke to HN in January 2025 who described MGF having “really lost it” with his younger children. MO asked whether he had hit them and she said no, but if it had been someone else’s child “he would have gone for them”.

In her oral evidence MO said she does not believe FA would ever hurt EAU. He has had “altercations” with adults and was sent to prison for 2.5 years for violent disorder. She accepted there had been domestic abuse in their relationship including an incident involving a knife. He bruised her arm in 2019 and pulled her hair in 2018, “he pulled my hair and pulled me back. He pulled me around”. However, she denied that he had pulled her hair out “by the root”. She could not remember what had caused that argument. She accepted “it would have hurt” but said “I cannot put myself back to 2018. I remember parts of it but I don’t remember every single event”. FA had slapped her in the past, “I couldn’t tell you how many times… I cannot give you a precise number.” She said she did not fully remember and “I don’t want to say what people want to hear”. When he had refused to return their daughter, she may have exaggerated to the police “a little bit” how many times he had slapped her. It could have been 30 to 50 times, it could have been 10 to 20 times. The last time was in 2019.

She agreed that AU had been a supportive sister. She reported to AU bad behaviour from FA in May 2022. He had called her a “mongrel” and “a dirty slag” at 3 am and they were arguing. She had messaged AU. She said she cannot remember what they were arguing about. He had been a bad person to leave her children with because of the way he was driving and the name calling. She had said in the message she couldn’t trust FA with their children but “I didn’t think he would harm them”. In July 2022 she had messaged AU again about FA. What was not fair, as set out in the message, was that she and the children were living in a household where there was domestic abuse. Again, she could not remember what had happened, “he said something to a midwife I was not happy with.” She said she could not remember much about this and “I could have been over thinking it". When asked whether AU had continued to be supportive during this time she implied that she should have done more to help her, “If it was my little sister I would report it to the police”. She distanced herself from what she had said in her March 2025 statement. She had not exaggerated matters to her sister and was not trying to get AU “on side”, she said “I am mystified”. The reports from neighbours in September 2022 were not about them. The police arrived and made her show the children at the front door. Nothing was happening in her home.

She accepted she had been a cannabis user in the past, in about June or July 2023. She was taken to hair strand drug test reporting showing the active use of cannabis between October 2023 and May 2024. She believes this to be inaccurate and that it was a feature of the cannabis “dropping out of my system”. She denied using cannabis when pregnant with DMF. Testing also demonstrated a metabolite of cocaine during this period which she interpreted to mean that she had been exposed to it at one point or another. This would not have been from her home address and could have been from family members or another place e.g. a holiday park. FA was taking cannabis in the lead up to November 2023 but she did not know how much he was smoking, “I don’t watch over what he is doing”. They had never discussed this. It would be in the evening after the children were in bed. He had used cocaine previously. It is possible he could have been using cocaine and she would not know. She knew he had used cocaine in prison.

MO denied protecting FA and said she would always protect EAU. EAU had always been a bubbly and happy boy and well behaved. She agreed he was a loveable innocent boy and not someone with an agenda to get someone into trouble. Although she could explain some of the marks on him, she could not explain them all, “I want to know as much as anyone”. She didn’t believe PAU had caused the injuries to him. Some bruising had happened in the house, with the stairgate and from the bath. MGF had told her that he had alopecia. There was some hair missing but not to the extent shown on the photographs, “he is not the little boy that left me”. He was not covered in bruising when he left her. She was “100% sure” someone had injured him and “I don’t understand why my dad is not here. He should be here answering to this”. She denied there was a shared strategy with him. AMF did not say anything when AMF returned about MGF hurting EAU. MGF must have told EAU to say that FA had hurt him and then made the video, “I know it sounds silly, I cannot explain it, I wish I knew how to explain it".

She agreed that FA was devastated about the loss of his father. He was down, sad and withdrawn. He slept a lot. He was processing the loss of his dad and looking at photographs. She would not let him out on his own because she was worried about him being on his own and being sad. She did not hear FA tell EAU to shut up or that he was annoying, she agreed EAU was not an annoying child. He did not get on FA’s nerves that week. If she found he had hurt EAU then “I would leave, that would be the end of me and FA”. She had never made a link with her own hair being pulled out. The picture of EAU’s hair from the police photographs “is completely different from what I saw on the Friday night”. She did not think that AU would get EAU to make false allegations about FA. She does not think FA disappeared when the police were looking for him because he had something to hide. She did ask him if he had done something to EAU when she saw him, she wanted to hear him say it with his own mouth.

She accepted that there was a bad sleeping pattern in the house and EAU was in the bath after midnight. He or AMF had an accident, had wet the bed. She was telling the truth when she recounts EAU saying that PAU punched him on the arm and gives him dead arms and legs. She didn’t tell AU about this and does not know why she didn’t. She did tell her about EAU slipping in the bath. When she went to the hospital on the Thursday night FA was looking after the children with NL. NL was mistaken when she said she left on the Thursday, it was the Friday. NL told her that FA had gone out that night, but she was not aware of this when she was interviewed by the police. The argument on Friday was about the state of the home and not about EAU. The house was a mess and she was shouting, no one was pulling their weight. When she saw the bald patch on EAU that day it did not have bits of red in it. Some of EAU’s injuries had occurred through play on the scooter. She has no idea where the bruising on his penis came from. She did not think FA would do that. EAU did not tell her that FA had hurt him and she did not say she did not believe him. She was brought up by AU and “I know how they live, I am trying to give people a picture”. She did not say ‘we need to get everything out of this house’, AU could have misheard her or is making this up. FA has a crossbow but it is for display, it was on their bedroom wall at one point. She did see BMF bite EAU’s foot and does not know why she told the police she didn’t. She denied trying to obscure the picture by giving so many different explanations.

She was taken to a series of emails between DC HG and HN in January 2025. HN had said “Just off the phone to MGF as his (sic) still at the solicitors with FA and MO…”. When the officer asked why, she said “I have no idea he goes with them all the time… can hear MO in the background…”. MO denied that they were ever at the solicitors with MGF or that HN had heard her in the background when speaking to MGF. There was, she said, opportunity for MGF to injure EAU in her house but most of the injuries had occurred after he left, “We don’t know if dad pulled up in the yard and left the children somewhere else”. She described FA as “amazing with children, the kids absolutely adore him. He is very playful, kind and funny”.

It was MGF that had suggested EAU had alopecia. She knew that was not right but he convinced her of this at the time. He has a good relationship with some of his grandchildren and had developed a good relationship with her children more recently. She last spoke to him at the time of the criminal trial (February 2025). She said “I ended up blocking his number, I don’t know why. Some things freaked me out, I had been listening to the video”. She said she does not hate AU, “I want to cuddle her”.

I found MO to be an unreliable witness, deceitful and manipulative. Her loyalty throughout her evidence was plainly with FA, and her strong desire to reunite her family. She significantly minimised the domestic abuse she has suffered at the hands of FA and has minimised both her own and FA’s drug use. At times she distanced herself from her own written evidence, as if it was someone else’s responsibility. It was very difficult (as she acknowledged) to make any sense of what happened to EAU from the timeline of events that she gave. She provided a wide range of explanations as to how EAU might have sustained some injuries. I found it surprising, as I commented during her evidence, that there was little mention in her written evidence of MGF and she demonstrated no hostility towards him. If the only rational explanation, to her, was that MGF had injured EAU and he was therefore the cause of these proceedings and the criminal process I would have expected that to be obvious from her evidence. I was left with a strong sense that she would do or say anything to protect and defend her family, as she saw it. Even if that meant lying about or allowing harm to come to others. I did not believe much of what she told me.

FA has filed four statements in these proceedings, on 28 February 2024, 25 June 2024,

In his written evidence FA set out some background information including the circumstances of his conviction for violent disorder in 2021. There had been “an altercation” in 2020 when he was threatened and defended himself. He felt his family were at serious risk of harm “and I reacted in a way I now know I shouldn’t have and regret”. He denies being a drug dealer. He accepts he has a conviction, in 2018, for possession of cannabis with intent to supply, but this was a long time ago and related to a small amount. He accepts that when his home was searched by the police on 25 November 2023 they found drug paraphernalia namely multiple bongs and a ventilation system. He says, “I did not know they were there”. The ventilation system was in the loft and had been fitted by FI. He would never have permitted him to use cannabis in the house and he (FA) has never smoked cannabis around the children.

When EAU was staying with them, there were a number of people in the house “coming and going at different times” and the house was crowded. He was never alone with EAU. He set out a timeline of events. He went to make funeral arrangements on 20 November. He went shopping on 21 November. On 22 November he took BMF to the doctor with MO. On Thursday 23 November he went out with his brother. This was when MO and MGF were at the hospital. He left the children with FI and NL. He stayed in on Friday 24 November.

EAU arrived at their house on 19 November “with some injuries”. There were several bruises on his legs and a bruise on his arm. At one point EAU collided with a stairgate when on his scooter. At some point one of his children told him that EAU “had come off his scooter and bruised his ‘boy parts’”. “Needless to say the scooter was confiscated, and I think that this was towards the end of the week”. It was possible that injuries might have been caused accidentally at home or in the skate park. He did not see the mark to his face or the injury to his chin but these could have been caused in collisions with the stairgate or by the dog, “but I didn’t see it, and the dog is well behaved”. EAU is old enough to bath himself and he did not see EAU’s penis. He had nothing to do with EAU’s hair loss. MO showed him “a slight bald patch”, there were no marks there at the time. MGF said that EAU suffers from alopecia although he cannot say whether that is correct. “What I can say is that I have, on occasions, seen EAU pulling his own hair out”. They noticed the bruise on EAU’s shoulder at bathtime. He said this was a dead arm from PAU. He suggested that the marks on EAU’s feet might have been caused by BMF, “I don’t like to say it of our own children, but kids can be spiteful”. It is “quite possible” that BMF caused them. He treated EAU the same as he did his own children. They had gone to buy EAU a fish, but when they couldn’t (because the shop had recently treated the water) they went to buy him a scooter instead. He didn’t give EAU this to keep him quiet. He did not give him any jewellery but he was allowed to wear this when playing. He was unaware that EAU had taken the bracelet home.

FA said he has “concerns about EAU’s experiences at home” and that this “is not a safe environment”. EAU has a vivid imagination. He has been “brought up in an environment where there is drug use”. He denied making EAU swallow drugs or alcohol. He sometimes works with MGF “fixing up cars for profit”. MGF does not owe him money.

In his oral evidence FA maintained that he had been under attack in 2020 “by 6 or 7 travellers” and had been physically assaulted first. He accepted he was carrying a baseball bat and hit someone over the head with it. The crossbow was not hidden in his home. He did not show EAU this, but “perhaps he saw it”. It could relate to his description of a gun and he could have seen it when FA was playing with it in the garden. However, he did not use it to shoot nails. It was put to him that the police found a zombie knife at his home in March 2025. This was a ceremonial knife from his father and was in a safety sheath.

FA was taken to his written response to the threshold allegations on the issue of domestic abuse. What is alleged is that the relationship between MO and FA is volatile and has featured domestic abuse which has taken the form of physical violence and emotional abuse. Examples are given of FA calling MO abusive names, driving dangerously to scare her, slapping MO, holding a knife to her throat and grabbing her by the hair and dragging her around, causing clumps of her hair to be pulled out. In his written response he had accepted calling MO “names in the past” and “that he has (on occasion) behaved badly”. He described the difficulties in the parents’ relationship as “historic”. He suggested in his oral evidence that what had been written was “written by my legal”, but “yes” he accepted that he had done all the things alleged against him. It was “more than likely” he was driving fast to scare MO. He has physically assaulted MO. He lost control. He agreed this was a “horrific” way to treat his partner. But he would never hurt a child, “there is a big difference between harming a child and harming an adult”. MO would “come at me but that doesn’t make it acceptable”. He accepted someone has hurt EAU. He cannot say who did, only that he didn’t. He can say who has not hurt him, but “the only person I haven’t known is MGF”. He could have been a defence witness or a prosecution witness (he did not give evidence at all at the criminal trial). He denied that MGF ever attended any meetings with his criminal solicitor. He had not suggested that MGF caused injury to EAU because “I didn’t want to make accusations, I didn’t want to be pointing fingers”. When it was suggested to him there was no anger in his response, he said “maybe I am blocking out a lot of anger. I don’t believe anger is going to help – he has done this, in my house or when he left with EAU”. The evidence was “pointing towards MGF”. He has “a lot of unanswered questions”. He has not seen MGF hurt EAU. MGF had contacted him last year, before the criminal trial. “He was trying to make excuses and said you’ll be fine, we know you’re not guilty”. He would like MGF to be standing in a criminal trial “because he could then answer questions”. He accepted that if it was not him, then MGF “is the one who done it, every path leads to him… It could only have been MGF possibly plus other people”. He explained, “I haven’t wanted to say that”. “Maybe I don’t want to believe MGF hurt him under my roof, maybe I feel partly to blame”. MGF had left with the children some time between 9.30 and 11.30 on 25 November. FA said goodbye to EAU. There was no plan to delay EAU going home. He was not aware that MGF was a drug user.

FA accepted he was struggling with the loss of his dad in November 2023. He had never lost anyone as close to him. His children gave him the motivation to carry on. EAU did not do or say anything to ‘wind him up’. He was sad and reflective, rather than angry. He did not “disappear” from 25 to 27 November. He was waiting for MO to be released so he knew his children would be safe, he then handed himself in with his solicitor. He knew his children were with his mother, but she was not their mother. He maintained that EAU “does do a lot of picking” but accepted there is a difference between this and self harming. He was not causing cuts and bruises to himself or pulling his own hair out. He would “pick at it” not pull his own hair out by the roots. He could not explain why he had raised this as an explanation in his statement, “it was an error between me and my solicitor”. He only saw a tiny red mark on his skull. He denied hurting EAU in the bath. He denied hurting EAU when MO was at the hospital with MGF. He did not make him smoke, vape or use a bong. He denied smoking cannabis with MO but then said, “I was aware MO had a puff of my joint”. He denied being a regular user of cocaine. His positive drug test for cocaine dated 24 May 2024, which suggests the active use of cocaine during the period of some months up to that date, was explained by his use of cocaine once in prison. He has not used cannabis since March 2025. He was using cannabis heavily during his criminal trial. He did not make EAU eat spicy food or cause the circular marks on him. He did not grab and squeeze his penis. He could not explain why EAU would say it was him. MGF had said he had banged his penis at the skate park. AMF had never told him that MGF had hurt EAU. He was as puzzled as everyone, “I cannot make sense of things”.

FA is clearly a powerful person not afraid to use violence when the situation, in his view, merits it. There were times when he showed emotion during his evidence although, in my view, those moments were largely feigned. As with MO, I found his evidence to be unreliable, deceitful and manipulative. His answers to many questions were evasive. He minimised both his violence against MO and also his own drug use. I have no doubt he was a significant user of both cannabis and cocaine in November 2023. The drug paraphernalia found in their home clearly belonged to him. The weapons that have been found are deliberate markers, to those that see them, of his power and potential for violence. There was an inconsistency between his attempt to cast blame on AU, particularly in his written evidence, and his marked hesitation to blame MGF for the injuries caused to EAU. As with MO there was no sense of anger when he spoke about MGF despite the obvious conclusion that if he had not injured EAU then MGF must have done so. He has raised many potential causes for the injuries to EAU, but in my view this was in an attempt to deflect rather than assist. He is right when he says that just because he exhibits violence towards adults does not mean that he would be violent towards a child.

As I have said, MGF has played no part in these proceedings save for attending court on two occasions. He has given no reason for this. He was in prison during the fact- finding hearing for unrelated matters and declined every attempt to produce him at this hearing. Initially he claimed he was unwell (despite being certified by staff as fit to attend), but eventually he confirmed that he was choosing not to attend.

The only evidence available from MGF is from his police interviews of 4 January 2024. He told the police there that he had wanted to give a voluntary interview because they had arrested FA and MO for causing the injuries to EAU but “I think it’s all wrong. I don’t actually think that they’ve harmed him… Because EAU himself had actually told me that someone else had harmed him… PAU”. He told the police he had been at MO and FA’s house on and off for the week when EAU was staying. He saw EAU and that he had a cut to his eye. MO told him he had slipped in the bath and banged his eye. FA was “in pieces” because of the death of his father. MGF was running around trying to help. FA told him EAU had wet the seat in his car. FA had told him off for that. MGF had taken MO to hospital on the Thursday. On the Friday MO and FA “had words, erm, about something or other.” He spoke to MO and FA “sorted them both back out”. He stayed the night on Friday and then offered to take EAU out on his scooter on Saturday 25^th. It took time to get the children dressed that morning and he wanted to go, “I wanna go, erm, my girlfriend was getting the ‘ump, I hadn’t seen her hardly all week, I told her I was taking her and the kids out…”.

MGF took the children to Sainsbury’s and then HN’s home and then “I went to EAU, you need to jump in the bath, go jump in the bath quick… I undressed him, bubbled the bath… as I picked him up I could see bruising… like stomach area, top of his leg, and it looked like bruising on the bottom of his willy”. He didn’t want to look and shock EAU so he asked HN to take a towel into the bathroom and “without making it too obvious, just glance and tell me what you can see”. On the Friday he had noticed some marking on his face. When in the bath EAU started talking to him about boys and “butt flick or something” so he got his phone and started recording “he just opened up and just started telling me that, erm… PAU had been punching him in the arms, punching him in the legs…”. He took EAU to McDonalds and then to the skate park. By then was getting late and he decided to take EAU home, “just see what she (AU) thinks about all this, because to be honest with ya, it went through my head shall I ring the police”. He saw AU, as she had described, who “started going off her head” “I said look, I said EAU’s told me a few things, obviously I’ve got a video I want you to listen to”. Before he had a chance to explain “she went off her head, FA’s done it, FA’s done it…”. “I was like, he hasn’t told me FA’s done it, he’s told me PAU’s done it…”. He said, “it’s actually a total disaster, it has, it could wreck everyone’s, everyone’s life is wrecked, everyone, and I can tell you it’s not gonna get no better”. He said he wants to find out what happened. EAU is “totally open with me… why would he sit there and tell me PAU’s done it”.

When he first saw EAU on the Wednesday he was “a bit upset” because FA had told him off for wetting the car, “you know FA, he’s a big lump, he’s loud, if he shouts, he’s probably shouted at him for screaming in the car”. He thinks FA has shouted at EAU and scared him but not hurt him. He noticed some hair loss to EAU’s head. He was aware of another one of AU’s children having “alopecia or something”. He sent UN the video he had made, “cos obviously I wanted his opinion on it as well”.

MGF told the police when he made the recording of EAU there was no one else in the room. When the recording was replayed to him in the interview he said “someone’s definitely hurting him and don’t know who.” He says he has a second video (which has never been produced). He said he had been told there was a bottle of hair removal cream missing. He denied there were cuts to EAU’s head when he saw him or there were marks on EAU’s skull, but later he said “I haven’t got the best eyesight in the world… I cannot see anything in front of me”. He denied having caused the injuries to EAU himself. He said he wasn’t aware of any drug taking at MO and FA’s home. He knew that FA smokes weed. He admitted to taking cocaine himself, “a long time ago”.

HN gave a statement to the police on 7 December 2023. She has two young children with MGF. She described their relationship as “on and off” “due to how argumentative he is and how little time he spends with our children”. On 25 November 2023 MGF came to her flat with EAU, AMF and BMF. He said that FA had been unwell and MO was pregnant, so he wanted to get the children out of the house for a few hours. MGF had planned to take their children to the skate park. MGF quietly asked her to have a look at EAU’s face and she noticed it looked bruised, as if someone had grabbed it hard. There was bruising to his cheek and jaw area. She also noticed he had some patches of missing hair. She told MGF to call AU “but he would not, he said he would talk to her face to face”. He said he did not know who had done this but “he had concerns it may have been PAU so didn’t want to address this over the phone in case he heard and caused issues”. They went to Sainsbury’s and when they returned MGF ran EAU a bath as he was noticeably dirty. MGF again asked her to look at EAU and at the bruises on his body. She did have a quick look and noticed bruising of different ages. She saw a bruise on his penis which was black and blue in colour. She said “I was appalled and upset by this and left the room. I told MGF he really had to phone AU and let her know, which once again MGF did not”. She told him to call AU “multiple times” throughout the afternoon and evening. She checked AMF and BMF for bruises but did not see any. She did not see MGF making any videos but “when I left the bathroom he had pulled the door to so I couldn’t see what was happening inside”. She described MGF as “interrogating EAU almost, asking who had been touching him and who had caused the bruises. MGF had been asking EAU whether it was PAU or whether it was FA”. She recalled hearing EAU saying that PAU hits and punches him in the willy. They took the children to McDonalds and then to the skate park. It was dark by the time they got to the skate park. She was not aware of EAU being injured in the skate park and he did not complain he had hurt himself. She described meeting up with AU and her noticing the bruising to EAU’s face. AU was fuming and said she was going to call the police.

After AU left with EAU, MGF went to see MO and FA. He left AMF and BMF with HN. At about 10 pm he called her to get the girls up as FA wanted them brought to his mother’s house. He returned to the house and went to bed but then the phone rang and he said he was going to find FA. She went to see MO on 30 November and MO told her she “had lost the girls”. PGM had found MGF and someone else doing cocaine and ketamine in the kitchen. MO told her the hair loss on EAU could be the result of ringworm. HN asked her if there was any hair removal cream in her home and MO said yes and that the bottle was empty. She knows MGF uses cocaine. She has noticed that every time MGF goes to MO and FA’s he has money and he is able to use drugs when he is with them. He is “a very good liar”.

In her oral evidence she described EAU as quiet on 25 November 2023 whereas normally he is happy and bubbly. EAU did not mention MO that day at all. When she was checking AMF for bruising AMF asked why and HN mentioned bruises on EAU. AMF told her that he was flying around the house on a scooter. She did not hear MGF coaching or threatening EAU. She described PAU as “not a nice man, he shouts at the kids and chucks things around the house. He swears at the kids”. There was no definite plan for MGF to come round that day and he had never come round like that before to take the children out for MO and FA. She described how appalled she was when she saw the bruise on EAU’s penis, “I looked in the mirror pretending to clean and had to walk out…”. She did want to tell someone what had happened, if this had been her son she would want to have known. After telling MGF for the 5^th or 6^th time to call AU he started to get annoyed. She was scared to call the police herself.

She was asked about the relationship between MGF and FA. She described them as “best buds”. They have always got on. She was hesitant about describing in her oral evidence about drug use at MO and FA’s house, she had just assumed what she had written in her statement. She was angry with MGF when she wrote it. When MGF comes back from MO and FA he always has money and “I assumed that’s where it comes from”.

In some ways HN was an unsatisfactory witness and I treat her evidence with some caution. I bear in mind that she has had an ‘on / off’ relationship with MGF and that he is the father of her young children. In her oral evidence she pulled back from some of the comments she had made in her statement about drug use by MO and FA. Nonetheless, the basic account she gives of her involvement on 25 November is corroborated by MGF and AU. I found her evidence as to being appalled and upset by the injuries to EAU compelling as was her evidence about telling MGF he had to contact AU and his resistance to doing so.

The legal framework for this fact-finding process is well established. Most of the applicable legal principles are not contentious and do not require the citation of authority. I will deal in more detail with issues that have been the subject of submissions from the advocates below.

The burden of proving the allegations made rests upon the local authority. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities. There is no burden or pseudo burden upon a parent or other carer to prove a negative case. Findings of fact must be based upon the evidence, including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence, and not upon suspicion or speculation. The evidence has to be evaluated in its totality including the relevance of the various strands of evidence to each other. The roles of the court and the expert are distinct. Whilst appropriate attention must be paid to the evidence of the medical experts, their opinions must be considered in the context of all of the other evidence. Experts advise but the court decides. In assessing expert evidence, the court must be careful to ensure that each expert keeps within the bounds of their own expertise and defers, where appropriate, to the expertise of others.

In every case of alleged non-accidental injury, the court has to be alive to the fact that unlikely events do occur. Medical science may not provide a definitive answer to each and every case. Today’s medical certainty may be discarded by the next generation of experts. A consideration of unknown cause has to be factored into every decision- making process. It is not always possible to identify the cause of injury to a child. There will always be ‘outlying’ cases where the answer to what has happened is simply unknown or, to put it succinctly, is not capable of proof on the balance of probabilities.

The court will place considerable weight upon the evidence of the parents and other carers and the impression it forms upon them, their credibility and their reliability as witnesses. Questions of credibility, memory, recall and reconstruction and reliability are of great importance in these cases. Peter Jackson J (as he then was) observed in the case of Lancashire County Council v The Children [2014] EWHC 3 (Fam), at paragraph 9:

“... where repeated accounts are given of events surrounding injury and death, the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of any reported discrepancies. They may arise for a number of reasons. One possibility is of course that they are lies designed to hide culpability. Another is that they are lies told for other reasons. Further possibilities include faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress or when the importance of accuracy is not fully appreciated, or there may be inaccuracy or mistake in the record-keeping or recollection of the person hearing and relaying the account. The possible effects of delay and repeated questioning upon memory should also be considered, as should the effect on one person of hearing accounts given by others. As memory fades, a desire to iron out wrinkles may not be unnatural – a process that might inelegantly be described as ‘storycreep’ – may occur without any necessary inference of bad faith.”

There have been a number of civil cases discussing the fallibility of human memory and the need for care when placing weight on a witness’s demeanour. These authorities were considered in detail by the Court of Appeal in the case of Re B-M (Findings of Fact) [2021] EWCA Civ 1371 where Peter Jackson LJ approved, with an emphasis on the word ‘solely’, what Macur LJ had said in Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147:

“It is obviously a counsel of perfection but seems to me advisable that any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely by virtue of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so.”

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, and the fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything. It is essential that the court weighs any lies told by a person against any evidence that points away from them having been responsible for harm to a child. In Re H (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator: Lies) EWCA Civ 1261 Peter Jackson LJ said:

“20.

Lies, where they are admitted or alleged, will form just one part of the overall evidence in family proceedings. The underlying purpose of the Lucas direction is to ensure that proven lies are assessed with a sense of proportion. In relation to welfare, it has been said that they should not be allowed to hijack the case…

21.

The same discipline applies to fact-finding. The court's view of a witness's overall credibility and reliability will naturally contribute to its evaluation of whether it can accept their evidence on the critical issues. If it concludes that lies have been told, it will consider what weight, if any, should be given to that aspect of the matter, after due consideration of any explanations that have been offered. That is part of the normal process of sifting and weighing the evidence, and explaining the result. The family courts encounter many forms of bad behaviour and they are used to assessing their true significance for the issue in hand. There is no special rule of evidence for lies.”

Authorities were cited to me on the inferences to be drawn when a party or witness fails to attend court to give evidence. In Re K (a child) (death: failure to give evidence) [2020] EWHC 2502 (Fam), [2021] 2 FLR 349 Williams J considered the existing authorities but suggested “a more nuanced approach which takes account of the circumstances of the refusal or failure to give evidence and the nature of the issue and the evidence which is given by other parties”. He said at paragraph 43, “These are inquisitorial proceedings rather than adversarial, where the welfare of the children is at stake and where the authorities on fact-finding require the court to survey all the evidence and to avoid compartmentalisation.” In some cases, the court may take “a bright line approach”, refuse to place any weight on their evidence and might draw inferences that any allegations made against them are true. In other cases, the court will need to consider the circumstances of their failure to give evidence, any explanations offered or which present themselves, the evidence itself and the issues it goes to. In other words, the relevance or effect of any failure to give evidence may itself be fact specific, as may the inferences to be drawn from that failure.

In analysing the Achieving Best Evidence interviews conducted with EAU, it is important for the Court to consider the extent to which the ABE Guidelines (last reviewed in 2023) have been complied with.

In AS v TH and others (False Allegations of Abuse) [2016] EWHC 532 (Fam), Macdonald J considered the application of the ABE guidelines and the implications of a failure to implement them. With particular reference to interviews conducted by the police, Macdonald J said this at paragraphs 50 – 52 of the judgment:

“50.

The courts have further endorsed a number of the general principles set out in the ABE Guidelines. It is desirable that interviews with young children should be conducted as soon as possible after any allegations are made (Re M (Minors)(Sexual Abuse: Evidence) [1993] 1 FLR 822). Where a child has been interviewed on a number of occasions the court may attach diminishing weight to what is said in the later interviews (Re D (Child Abuse: Interviews) [1998] 2 FLR 10). The court will wish to see responses from the child which are neither forced nor led (Re X (A Minor)(Child Abuse: Evidence) [1989] 1 FLR 30). It is normally undesirable for a parent to be present during an interview with the child (Re N (Child Abuse: Evidence) 1996 2 FLR 214 and see the Cleveland Report para 12.35). In Re S (A Child) [2013] EWCA Civ 1254 Ryder LJ confirmed that the guidance set out in the Cleveland Report at paragraph 12.34 with respect to interviewing children remain good practice.

51.

It is of note that guidance from the Children Act Advisory Committee concerning the Memorandum of Good Practice which preceded the ABE Guidelines, made clear that: “Any joint child abuse interview conducted by police and social services must follow the memorandum of good practice. Otherwise, not only is the resulting interview of no forensic value, but it may impede or contaminate any further assessment of the child ordered by the court.”

52.

Where there has, as in this case, been a failure to follow the interviewing guidelines, the court is not compelled to disregard altogether the evidence obtained in interview but may rely on it together with other independent material to form a conclusion (Re B (Allegations of Sexual Abuse: Child's Evidence) [2006] 2 FLR 1071). However, where the court finds that no evidential weight can be attached to the interviews the court may only come to a conclusion that relies on the content of those interviews where it has comprehensively reviewed all of the other evidence (TW v A City Council [2011] 1 FLR 1597)’.

The principles were again considered by Macdonald J in Re P (Sexual Abuse – Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27. The judgment includes a comprehensive review and analysis of the relevant guidance and issues which can arise where children make allegations of (in that case, sexual) abuse, in particular at paragraphs 570-604 and 853- 859 of the judgment.

The relevant authorities were further reviewed and the key principles summarised by the Court of Appeal in Re JB (a child) (sexual abuse allegations) KB v A local authority and others [2021] EWCA Civ 46, [2021] Fam Law 484, as follows:

If the Court is satisfied that EAU’s injuries were caused non-accidentally then it must go on to consider the question of identification of the perpetrator or perpetrators of those injuries. When seeking to identify the perpetrators of non-accidental injuries the test of whether a particular person is in the pool of possible perpetrators is whether there is a likelihood or a real possibility that he or she was the perpetrator (see North Yorkshire County Council v SA [2003] 2 FLR 849). In order to make a finding that a particular person was the perpetrator of non-accidental injury the Court must be satisfied on a balance of probabilities. It is always desirable, where possible, for the perpetrator of non-accidental injury to be identified both in the public interest and in the interests of the child (Re K (Non-Accidental Injuries: Perpetrator: New Evidence) [2004] EWCA Civ 1181, re-affirmed by the Court of Appeal in Re A (Children) (Pool of Perpetrators) [2022] EWCA Civ 1348).

As set out by Peter Jackson LJ in Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator [2019] EWCA Civ 575, the concept of a pool or list of perpetrators “does not arise at all in the normal run of cases where the relevant allegation can be proved to the civil standard against an individual or individuals in the normal way”. It is a “departure from the norm”. A decision to place a person ‘within the pool of perpetrators’ is not a finding of fact in the conventional sense. That person is not a proven perpetrator but a possible perpetrator. Such a conclusion presents the court with a particularly difficult problem. The concept should, therefore, encroach only to the minimum extent necessary upon the general principles underpinning s.31(2). The proper approach, following Re A [2022] above is that the court should determine:

This is a case where the local authority alleges that, in addition to the perpetration of injuries, the Court should consider whether MO and / or MGF failed to protect EAU from harm. In Re L-W (Children) [2019] EWCA Civ 159 the Court of Appeal overturned a finding of failure to protect, where it had not been shown that on the facts of that case, the mother should have identified a risk to the child. At paragraph 62 of the leading judgment Lady Justice King said:

“62.

Failure to protect comes in innumerable guises. It often relates to a mother who has covered up for a partner who has physically or sexually abused her child or, one who has failed to get medical help for her child in order to protect a partner, sometimes with tragic results. It is also a finding made in cases where continuing to live with a person (often in a toxic atmosphere, frequently marked with domestic violence) is having a serious and obvious deleterious effect on the children in the

household. The harm, emotional rather than physical, can be equally significant and damaging to a child.

63.

Such findings where made in respect of a carer, often the mother, are of the utmost importance when it comes to assessments and future welfare considerations. A finding of failing to protect can lead a Court to conclude that the children's best interests will not be served by remaining with, or returning to, the care of that parent, even though that parent may have been wholly exonerated from having caused any physical injuries.

64.

Any Court conducting a Finding of Fact Hearing should be alert to the danger of such a serious finding becoming 'a bolt on' to the central issue of perpetration or of falling into the trap of assuming too easily that, if a person was living in the same household as the perpetrator, such a finding is almost inevitable. As Aikens LJ observed in Re J, "nearly all parents will be imperfect in some way or another". Many households operate under considerable stress and men go to prison for serious crimes, including crimes of violence, and are allowed to return home by their long-suffering partners upon their release. That does not mean that for that reason alone, that parent has failed to protect her children in allowing her errant partner home, unless, by reason of one of the facts connected with his offending, or some other relevant behaviour on his part, those children are put at risk of suffering significant harm.”

In G-L-T (children) [2019] EWCA Civ 717, Lady Justice King again gave the leading judgment, granting an appeal against a finding that a father had failed to protect his son in circumstances where findings had been made that a mother had fabricated or directly caused many of a child’s significant illnesses and injuries. Identifying the judge as having fallen into the trap of making this very serious finding as a ‘bolt on’ to the substantive issues in the case, Lady Justice King said:

“I repeat my exhortation for courts and Local Authorities to approach allegations of 'failure to protect' with assiduous care and to keep to the forefront of their collective minds that this is a threshold finding that may have important consequences for subsequent assessments and decisions.”

I commend Mr Larizadeh KC and Miss Adamson (for MO), and Miss Howe KC and Mr Poole (for FA), for the highly skilled and effective way in which they have advanced the respective cases on behalf of each of these parents. They have put their cases persuasively and with force. No-one could have worked harder on their behalf.

They rightly remind me that the burden of proof in respect of all allegations falls upon the local authority. MO and FA have to prove nothing. They do not have to establish who, if anyone, injured EAU. It is open to the Court to say that the cause of his injuries is unknown.

I acknowledge that FA was acquitted by a jury, in February 2025, of harming EAU. I also acknowledge that it may appear strange to a lay person that, having been acquitted in a criminal court, this father should face almost identical allegations in a family court. However, there are material differences between the two processes, driven by their different purposes. This court’s role is to make factual findings relevant to an ultimate welfare determination of what should happen to AMF, BMF, CMF and DMF. A criminal acquittal does not resolve those factual issues. A jury does not give reasons for the decision it has reached and it is not helpful for me to speculate on why they acquitted FA. My decision is based on a different standard of proof, ‘the balance of probabilities’ as opposed to ‘beyond reasonable doubt’. I also survey a wider canvas of evidence than will have been available to the jury. It is for this court to decide whether the LA has discharged its burden of proof in respect of each of the allegations it makes.

Standing back from the extensive evidence that I have read, heard and watched, and taking into account all of that evidence, it has not been difficult for me to reach firm factual conclusions about what happened to EAU.

Dr RS and Dr Rose have identified extensive injuries to EAU, Dr RS by examining EAU and Dr Rose from the medical records and photographs. I accept Dr Rose’s conclusions about those injuries, indeed those conclusions were not challenged in the evidence. A large number of those injuries were likely to have been caused non-accidentally. Other injuries could have been caused accidentally or non-accidentally. The LA has properly excluded from consideration those bruises (all to his legs) that were likely to be caused accidentally.

Of particular note are the obvious facial injuries that EAU sustained, his hair loss with associated red marking to his skull, the circular markings to his back and shoulder and the extensive bruising to his penis.

I accept the toxicology evidence that demonstrates that EAU had ingested, been administered or had been exposed to cocaine, cannabis and etizolam. Again, that evidence was not challenged.

The photographic and witness evidence strongly suggests that EAU was mostly or totally injury free when he left AU’s care on 19 November 2023. As an active young boy he may have had some minor bruising, but he did not have the extensive injuries identified on his return on 25 November 2023.

EAU did not have any medical condition that would have caused or contributed to the injuries he sustained. All testing that took place in the days following his return showed normal results. There is no evidence of ringworm or alopecia from his medical history,

I accept HN’s evidence as to the extensive injuries she saw on EAU during the day on 25 November 2023 and I accept AU’s evidence as to the extensive injuries she saw when she was first reunited with EAU that evening. Again, those accounts were largely unchallenged. In any event, I found them compelling. I accept that HN was shocked by what she saw and urged MGF to tell AU. I accept that AU was shocked, upset and horrified by the injuries she saw on her son. PC MG’s evidence, as the first professional to see EAU, was also significant. He had never seen so many injuries on a child.

AU, PAU and UN had not seen EAU between 19 November and 25 November. It was not put to AU or PAU that they had caused all or most of the injuries seen on EAU. For the avoidance of doubt, I find that AU, PAU and UN had no opportunity to do so. What happened to EAU occurred after he left AU’s care on 19 November 2023.

I have set out my assessment of MO and FA’s evidence above. I found each to be unreliable, deceitful and manipulative. FI was not a reliable witness for the reasons I have given. I cannot place reliance on the written or oral evidence of any of the young people in MO and FA’s house between 19 and 25 November. The situation was plainly chaotic. There was extensive drug use and no routines for any of the children. FA was grieving the loss of his father. MO was pregnant and unwell. Beyond the digital evidence that I have identified, there is no reliable evidence as to the events within that house over that period.

I have considered with some care what inferences I can properly draw about MGF and his role in these events. In doing so, I take into account all the evidence before me, not just his failure to attend this hearing or comply with directions to file written evidence. It requires, as identified by Williams J in Re K above, “a nuanced approach”. It would be too simplistic to infer that MGF’s failure to engage means he must have or did cause injury to EAU himself. There are other potential explanations that I need to consider, not least that he is colluding with MO and FA by keeping his distance from these proceedings.

It is significant, in my view, that MGF’s initial involvement with and about EAU was extensive. It is only more recently that he has failed to engage. He was keen to give the police ‘his account’, and he spoke to them at some length about EAU and what he ‘knew’. He spoke to them about the video he had taken of EAU.

HN gave evidence about the strength of the relationship between FA and MGF, “best buds”. It is not necessary for me to decide why the relationship was so strong, whether it is because of the family relationship, friendship, money or connected with the supply of drugs. It is significant that MGF left HN on the evening of 25 November to see FA. The emails passing between HN and DC HG are also important. I cannot see why HN would lie to DC HG about MGF attending an appointment with MO and FA in January 2025 or what she would have to gain by doing so.

It was striking to me on reading and hearing the evidence from MO and FA how little is said about MGF and how there appears to be no anger directed towards him. It is obvious that if EAU left MO and FA largely uninjured on the morning of 25 November, and he arrived with AU with extensive injuries on the evening of 25 November, then the only adult who could have caused or could otherwise explain those injuries was MGF. MGF would therefore be the cause of these proceedings, the criminal proceedings and the separation of MO and FA’s family. I do not accept that MO or FA would be hesitant about ‘pointing the finger’ or suggesting blame on others. Both have provided extensive evidence criticising AU and PAU, their drug use and their care of their children.

MGF’s actions on 25 November were odd in a number of respects:

MGF’s failure to engage with these proceedings means there has been no opportunity to ask him about what led up to the making of the video or what his reasons were for making it then, and when EAU was in the bath. There is no evidence about the discussions that took place between MGF and EAU that day, particularly once they had left MO and FA. Several hours had elapsed, so that gap in evidence is significant. There was no professional involvement with the making of this video and the comments made by EAU in respect of the cause of his injuries were never repeated. Indeed, as I have said above, PAU could not have been responsible for most of the injuries evident by that time on HN’s evidence, and evident later once he returned to AU.

In all those circumstances I can place no weight at all on that recording or what EAU is reported to have said to MGF.

Thereafter, there is extensive recorded material of what EAU said. I have set out the narrative information he provided and the circumstances in which each interview took place.

On behalf of FA, Miss Howe and Mr Poole submit that there have been “so many opportunities for repetition and contamination, and so little forensic exactitude in the investigation” that the material produced from this investigation is unreliable. PC MG was not ABE trained and failed to gain control of the situation when he spoke to EAU, allowing interference and contamination by AU and PAU. He should have ended the initial interview sooner, once it became apparent that a potential offence had been committed and a full ABE interview would be required. It is suggested that his initial answers indicated that he was “primed”. He was encouraged, praised and prompted by the adults, particularly PAU. It is PAU who introduces the idea that the bracelet and scooter were given to EAU to silence him. This narrative is then repeated by EAU in the ABE interviews. EAU is promised treats and given special treatment afterwards. MC MG did not advise AU or PAU not to speak further to EAU after this.

Criticisms are made of the interview of EAU on 26 November. There is no proper note of this and no indication of whether AU and / or PAU were present. It is suggested that EAU was again “primed” to make allegations. That officer had recommended an intermediary assessment but that was not followed up at the ABE stage.

It is again suggested that EAU was “primed” for his examination by Dr RS on 27 November and there is no clarity over the questions he was asked. By the time, later that afternoon, that EAU spoke to PC EV, this was his fourth account, not his first. Again, the questioning was more extensive than necessary. Again, he was “primed”.

Criticisms are then made of the ABE interview on 28 November. There was no plan. There is a suggestion that EAU should repeat what he has told “lots of different people”, there is no rapport stage, no free narrative, a delay in undertaking the truth and lies demonstration, no reminder that EAU should say if he does not know the answer to a question and only to say what he has seen or heard himself. There is no evidence about what was said to or by EAU in the break between interviews or who he spent that tine with.

Attention is drawn to a number of suggested inconsistencies in EAU’s account. He has said he was burned on his back by a “fag” and then says it was a “lighter”. It said that his account of what happened in the bath has “morphed” or developed over time, “likely driven by the extensive questioning and discussion”. It is said to be “implausible” that EAU pushed FA away given their difference in size. His account of being given the bracelet “to keep me quiet” directly shadows PAU’s earlier input.

The later ABE interview, on 1 February 2024, is said to be “chaotic” with elements of fantasy, such as EAU putting handcuffs on FA. There is said to be little forensic value to this or to the s.28 cross examination.

Miss Howe and Mr Poole highlight what are said to be “contradictions” between the medical evidence and EAU’s accounts. The injury under his chin is said, by Dr Rose, to be “unlikely” to have been caused by a dog bite as described by EAU. There is no corroborating medical evidence for EAU’s assertion that the injury to his foot was caused by a dog bite. No marks were recorded on his cheek to corroborate his assertion he was bitten there by a dog. There is no evidence to corroborate his account of “fag burns” and this account appears to have originated with PAU. EAU says that injuries to his legs, which Dr Rose has said are “likely” to be accidental, were caused by FA. There is no corroboration for his account of being injected or of having phlegm spat into his mouth.

The toxicology evidence does not, it is said, help to distinguish between exposure to substances at AU and PAU’s home, exposure at MO and FA’s home or ingestion or administration as alleged by EAU. Allegations that he was given ‘Orbeez’ are said to be “outlandish” and unsupported by any corroborative evidence.

Similar points are made by Mr Larizadeh and Miss Adamson on behalf of MO, with a particular focus on the allegations against her. The Court is reminded that there has been no opportunity within this process to ask questions of EAU. The evidence given by EAU largely supports the submission that, if FA caused the injuries, MO was not present. When EAU says he told MO, he is unable to provide much detail about this. EAU told the police he did not speak to MGF about what happened, when there is a video of him doing just that. There are elements of his evidence which are fabricated or embellished such as using “bumblebee stings” or using handcuffs on FA. AMF’s account of EAU hurting himself at the skate park was not further explored. They also suggest that the court can infer from MGF’s actions and non-engagement that “there is a probability that MGF caused some of the injuries to EAU, namely those not seen by MO at the point of departure”. In his oral submissions Mr Larizadeh described the actions of PC MG on 25 November as “outrageous” and “unprofessional”. AU has questioned EAU “every minute of every day” on her own written evidence.

Some of these points have greater force than others:

Overall, I find the accounts provided by EAU are consistent, plausible and reliable. Having watched these accounts I see nothing that significantly undermines the truth of the narrative he provides. I accept, as above, that there are valid criticisms of the ABE process but these criticisms do not centrally, or even significantly, undermine the process as a whole. On a human level, the upset and outrage exhibited by AU, PAU and the other adults and children in their home, on 25 November, is understandable. A young child had suffered very significant injuries. I can understand an imperative to find out what happened to him. What I cannot see is any motive to manipulate, change, embellish or direct that account or to do so in the direction of FA. Beyond the account given to MGF (which attracts no weight), EAU has consistently and plausibly explained how his injuries were caused by FA. His explanations are consistent with the injuries found.

Moreover, at the time EAU gave accounts of being forced to take drugs, having drugs injected into him, and being forced to swallow Orbeez, it could not have been known that subsequent toxicology testing would establish that he had in fact ingested, been administered or been exposed to drugs.

I accept that it is possible that EAU could have been exposed to drugs (inadvertently) within the home of AU and PAU or within the home of MO and FA. I am satisfied that drug use was prevalent in both households at the time. However, in my judgment, the toxicology evidence corroborates the account given by EAU. It would have to be an odd coincidence that EAU had fabricated an account of being administered drugs at the very time when he had inadvertently been exposed to those same drugs. I find that he was exposed to illegal substances by FA in the way that he describes.

The evidence given by MO and FA (and the evidence of the information given by MGF) included multiple attempts to confuse and misdirect. Variously, accounts have been given of EAU arriving with injuries, leaving uninjured or only ‘partly’ injured, of accidental injuries (such as with the scooter and stairgate), of a chaotic lifestyle at home with AU and PAU, of accounts of injuries caused by PAU, of accounts of injuries caused by their own children, of alopecia, ringworm and hair removal cream, of EAU picking at himself and pulling out his own hair and of there being another adult known to the family with the same first name as FA. I find these accounts have been fabricated by MO, FA and MGF to create ‘doubt’ and support the submission that the LA has failed to prove its case.

I accept that FA’s conviction for violence and his more general domestic abuse of MO does not establish a propensity for violence towards a child. However, the accepted occasion when he pulled MO around by the hair (pulling out some of her hair in the process) lends some support, in my view, to the allegation he did something similar to EAU.

Drawing the evidence together, the likely sequence of events is as follows:

These events will have been terrifying for EAU. His physical injuries will have healed but the emotional impact on him will be harder to predict. There has been an obvious and significant emotional impact on AU, with feelings of anger and guilt.

It is not the Court’s role to attempt to understand why FA behaved as he did, towards a young defenceless boy. A boy who on all accounts was happy, bubbly and likeable. That may become clearer on further assessment.

It is perhaps easier to understand why MO behaved as she did. When she saw the injuries to EAU she faced a stark choice. She decided to put her immediate family, and her relationship with FA, above her relationship with her sister and her responsibility towards her nephew. MGF made a similar decision.

The detail of the findings that I make are set out in Schedule 2 to this judgment. Inevitably, in my view, these serious findings cross the statutory threshold for intervention in the family lives of AMF, BMF, CMF and DMF. The findings that I make in respect of EAU mean that all four children were likely to suffer significant harm in the care of MO and FA.

The LA alleges that the relationship between MO and FA is volatile and has featured domestic abuse. That abuse includes physical violence and emotional abuse, such as abusive name calling and FA driving dangerously to scare MO. The physical abuse includes FA slapping MO on numerous occasions, holding a knife to her throat, grabbing her by the hair and dragging her around, causing clumps of her hair to be pulled out. MO has punched FA in the face in the presence of BMF.

Both parents accept the LA’s pleaded case but suggest that the domestic abuse in their relationship is “historic”. Both say they have undertaken domestic abuse courses and have a better understanding of the impact of domestic abuse upon children.

In my judgment, these serious incidents of domestic abuse cannot just be disregarded or minimised as “historic”. They include incidents up to and including 2022. They occurred on more than one occasion and over a period of years. It is an open question whether they represent the full extent of the abuse within these parents’ relationship. These matters do cross the statutory threshold such that all four children were likely, in the care of their parents, to suffer physical and emotional harm by exposure to that relationship.

The LA alleges, as at the commencement of proceedings, that MO was an active cannabis user and that FA was an active user of cannabis and cocaine. It is further alleged that this drug use is likely to have impacted on the parents’ physical and emotional availability to the children, and made them less responsive to the children’s needs, leading to a risk of neglect and emotional harm.

I have already set out my views on the prevalence of drug use within MO’s and FA’s household. It was widespread. I do not accept the evidence of MO and FA that their drug use was limited either in extent or time. FA was an active user of cocaine as at November 2023. This is likely to have impacted on his actions towards EAU as I have said. I make the findings as sought by the LA.

Finally, the LA alleges that AMF’s educational needs were neglected in the care of the parents in that AMF’s school attendance was poor from 2021 to 2023. This is accepted by both parents and accordingly I make the finding as sought by the LA.

That is my judgment.