A Council v JC & Ors

This case concerns a very young child, L who was born in 2024 and is just over one year old. His parents, who I shall refer to as the mother and father, started a relationship in the autumn of 2022. In December of that year, L’s half brother, M, died of a catastrophic head injury whilst he was in the care of the mother and father (the latter being L’s father but not M’s). M was then 20 months old.

The purpose of these proceedings is to determine L’s future and this hearing was listed as a composite fact finding and welfare hearing. The mother is also pregnant, although the father of the baby she is carrying is not the father in these proceedings. L’s father does not seek to care for L. Shortly before this hearing started the mother acknowledged that she is not in a position to be able to care for L either. She does, however, seek contact, and supports a plan for L’s current foster carers to become his Special Guardians.

Both the parents have had troubled backgrounds. They met in October 2022 and started living together in the father’s home almost straight away. M was just over one at that point. The father was caring for his own daughter.

Both parties are alleged to have used drugs in the course of their relationship. On the relevant weekend in December 2022, M stayed at his grandmother’s overnight on the Friday night. The father’s daughter, A, stayed with her mother so that the parents had the house to themselves. They accept that they both consumed cannabis and cocaine that night and went to bed in the early hours of the morning. The following day both the children came back home and so everyone was together on the Saturday night and Sunday.

On Sunday morning the parents say that the children woke up at about 8.30. The adults got up at about the same time and they all had breakfast together. What happened during the course of the day is disputed, but at some point M fell asleep on the sofa and was taken upstairs to bed. The mother says that when she went to get him up some time later that he would not be roused. She says that she phoned her mother who told her to let him sleep for a little longer. After some time she went to get M up again. M would not wake up and at this point she says she phoned her mother again. She advised her to splash water onto M’s face. The father opened M’s eyes and found his pupils were unresponsive. A phone call was made to 111 but it did not connect. The father then asked two friends of his who were in a car in the neighbourhood if they would take M to hospital. They agreed and took M and the mother to hospital. They left at some time around 3.40pm and arrived at hospital at about 4pm. Later that evening M was transferred to another hospital where he underwent further scans. At 10pm the mother was told that M’s injuries were likely to be un-survivable. He died the following day, the medical cause of death being described as blunt force head impact injury. He had bruising to his scalp, a skull fracture crossing the temporal, parietal and occipital bones, hypoxic-ischaemic and axonal brain injury, subdural bleeding to the spine and retinal haemorrhages.

A police investigation began although the parents were not interviewed under caution for some time. They did speak to medical professionals, however, and also gave accounts to the police in the days that followed M’s admission and death.

A was removed from the father and placed in foster care. Over the course of the next few months the relationship between the parents deteriorated very significantly and they both took drugs, including cocaine and cannabis. In the summer of 2023 the mother made allegations of violence and coercively controlling behaviour against the father which she later retracted.

In July 2023 both parents were arrested on suspicion of murder, and interviewed. The father provided a prepared statement and declined to answer any further questions. The mother gave a full interview.

The mother was interviewed again in November 2023 when she stated that she had an abusive relationship with the father and that he had threatened to kill her if she told the truth about what had happened on the day M was hurt. She described M as being scared of F and screaming when he saw him. She said that she had been upstairs asleep when she had heard M screaming downstairs, and the father telling him to shut up. She said that she had then heard a loud bang. She also said that the father told her to say that she had been awake all morning, and forced her to delete messages that would show she was upstairs and that M was in the care of the father at the relevant time.

This was all denied by the father in the same month when he was interviewed about assaulting the mother. Just a few weeks later the mother retracted her allegations of domestic abuse saying that she was ‘truly just as bad as [F]’.

In about December 2023 the mother became pregnant with L. Urine toxicology screening tested positive for cocaine and cannabis in early 2024 and on several subsequent occasions. She was seen to have some injuries, and also to be under the influence of alcohol. She alleged that she had been assaulted by the father but retracted this. Over the next few months she made further allegations, and was also seen with injuries, but none of these were pursued. She also said that the father had spiked her drink on one occasion when a urine test was positive for cannabis and cocaine, but later accepted that she had sent messages to her phone from the father’s phone pretending to be him, albeit she said the allegations she made about spiking were true.

L was born in mid 2024 and was diagnosed as suffering from neonatal drug withdrawal. L was placed in foster care. Shortly afterwards the mother said that she was held captive and raped by two men. They denied this and said that the mother had had sex with one of them consensually and offered both of them drugs.

In February 2025 the parents were interviewed again and both answered questions. In March the proceedings were transferred to me, and set down for a hearing in November. It took some time to engage the father in proceedings, but in July he finally did so and engaged solicitors and counsel.

I will not set out the threshold document in full as it is very detailed. To summarise, the local authority alleges that M died as a result of blunt force impact head injury which was inflicted by one of other of the parents (that is, this mother, who is the mother of L and M, and L’s father). The parents are alleged to have failed to seek prompt medical attention for M or to explain why there was an hour’s delay between M being found unresponsive and him being taken to hospital. Both parents are alleged to have concealed information about what happened that day, and to have deleted messages and/or data to conceal evidence.

The mother is alleged to have misused drugs and alcohol prior to and after M’s death, including when she was pregnant with L and to have been dishonest about this, with a number of examples being given. The father is also alleged to misuse and deal in drugs and to have been dishonest about this to professionals.

The mother is further alleged to have engaged in a pattern of volatile and dysfunctional relationships which have included her perpetrating, as well as being the victim of, abuse. M’s father served a sentence of imprisonment for violence against her, and she continued to associate with him for some time before supporting his prosecution. So far as the parents’ relationship is concerned, the local authority allege that this has been volatile, unstable, emotionally abusive and violent. The mother has made allegations of physical abuse which she has subsequently refused to continue with, and then reunited with him. She perpetuated the relationship despite all this, including when she was pregnant.

The local authority allege that the mother had a volatile relationship with her own mother and that she has been physically aggressive towards her, including throwing objects at her, biting her, pinching, grabbing and pushing. The grandmother sustained injuries as a result.

The mother has a history of mental health problems for which she has demonstrated limited engagement with services which are there to support her. She has provided inconsistent and contradictory accounts of her relationship with the father and allegations of domestic abuse, the events surrounding M’s death, her use of drugs, and has not engaged openly and honestly with professionals. These matters, the local authority state, are likely to impact negatively on her parenting capacity. It is likely that she will engage in further unstable and conflictual relationships which would impact on her ability to care for a child, and certainly she cannot do so in L’s timescales because she would need to demonstrate a sustained period of abstinence from substances, abstinence of contact from the father or any other individual posing a risk to her or L, and engagement in therapy.

The mother denies having caused any injury to M. She acknowledges having changed her account about what happened on the day he was injured, but says that she did so because the father told her to say that she had been awake throughout. She says that the father manipulated her into lying about the true circumstances and maintaining the lie by leading her to believe that she would be criticised as being a bad mother for going to sleep and leaving M in his care.

The mother says that she realises that the father must have been responsible for causing M’s death because he was alone with him before M was found unresponsive, but that she did not believe him to be responsible at the time. She states that the father was physically violent to her, causing injuries on several occasions, and that he was coercive and financially abusive. She further states that he threatened her so she was frightened as to what he would do if she told the truth. She denies delaying seeking treatment for M and says that the father deleted the messages from her phone and his.

The mother accepts using drugs, albeit she says that she was coerced into doing so on many occasions by the father, including when she was pregnant with L. She accepts using cannabis on occasions prior to M’s death but that she used cocaine only once, two weeks before he died and when he was not in her care. She accepts that L was diagnosed as suffering from drug withdrawal but suggests that could be a result of prescriptions she was given for morphine and codeine.

The mother also accepts that she has not been open and honest about the extent of her drug use. She denies being responsible for M’s urine testing positive for cocaine.

She accepts that she has a pattern of volatile and dysfunctional relationships but says that she was (as is absolutely clear) a victim of abuse from M’s father, and also from this father. She says that the allegations that she made and retracted in the course of 2024 were true but that she was influenced by the father into dropping them. She accepts that she was violent to her own mother, but states that she did act in self defence on one of the occasions alleged.

She accepts that she has suffered from mental health problems which became very much worse after M died. She also accepts that she has not always engaged with services to assist her, but that she has engaged better since late 2024.

She points out that there are lots of reports of her providing very calm, attuned and loving care to M, and also to L. She has engaged in work to address her difficulties since L was born, and although she accepts that she will not be able to demonstrate sufficient change within his timescales she is committed to doing so in the future.

A separate schedule of findings has been sought by the mother against the father including the allegations which I have summarised earlier.

The father denies being responsible for injuring M. He says that the mother must therefore be responsible, albeit his case is that he spent time in the garden during the day and did not hear or see anything untoward before being alerted to the fact that M was unresponsive.

He denies failing to seek timely medical attention and says that it was the mother who must have deleted material from his phone and hers. He accepts that he was a drug dealer and also took drugs, although he says he only took cocaine when there were no children in the house. He has accepted (at a limited level) that he has not always been forthcoming about the extent of his drug use.

The father denies being violent or coercive to the mother and states that it is she who has been violent and abusive to him. He says that her account that she was asleep on the day that M was injured is a lie to try and cover up what she has done and blame him. He states that she has repeatedly told lies to get herself out of trouble. He acknowledges that the relationship deteriorated significantly after M’s death, but says that they both had access to each other’s phones, the mother used his bank account because she did not have one of her own, and that he only ever acted to restrain her when she was violent and out of control.

He is not seeking to care for L and believes that it is better for him to be cared for outside the family.

For this hearing I read all the evidence provided for me in the court bundles, and watched videos of interviews and footage from police body worn cameras. I heard oral evidence from the maternal grandmother, both of the young men who were in the car that took the mother and M to hospital namely KD and LD, JS, TS, the mother and the father.

I also had the benefit of really excellent documents prepared by counsel, including a detailed chronology of events (which was updated to include evidence at the end of the hearing), a detailed case summary, a detailed and cross referenced schedule of findings sought together with responses from the parents, and closing submissions from all the parties. I know a lot of work goes into the preparation of these and am extremely grateful to all those who have worked so hard to produce them. Documents such as these are extremely helpful to the judge and they have been very useful to me.

The summary of relevant principles set out by Baker J (as he then was) in Re JS [2012 EWHC 1370(Fam)still provides very helpful guidance for judges in fact finding hearings. The burden of proof lies with the body or individual who makes the allegation. The standard of proof that must be applied, both as to the making of a finding and as to the identification of a perpetrator is the balance of probability. Findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can be properly drawn from the evidence, and not on suspicion or speculation. Evidence must not be evaluated in separate compartments, and a judge must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence, and to exercise an overview of all of it before coming to conclusions.

The role of the court and that of experts is distinct. As Charles J stated almost twenty years ago in A County Council & K, D, & L [2005] EWHC 144 (Fam); [2005] 1 FLR 851, it is the court that is in the position to weigh up expert evidence against the other evidence. There may be cases where a judge comes to a conclusion that is at variance from that of the experts.

Factored into every case which concerns a disputed aetiology giving rise to significant harm must be consideration as to whether the cause is unknown (Re R (Care Proceedings: Causation)[2011] EWHC 1715; and R v Henderson and Others [2010] EWCA Crim 1219). The court must guard against the temptation to believe that it is always possible to identify the cause of injury to a child.

There is no ‘pseudo burden’ on a parent, or any obligation to prove the truth of an alternative case by way of a defence and the failure by that party to establish the alternative case on the balance of probabilities does not of itself prove the local authority’s case; Re X (No 3)[2015] EWHC 3651 (Fam) and Re Y (No 3)[2016] EWHC 503 (Fam), Wolverhampton City Council v JA and Ors[2017] EWFC 62.

In Re A (No. 2)(Children: Findings of Fact) [2020] 1 FLR 755, Peter Jackson LJ said this at paragraph [100]:

“The questions for every fact-finder are What, When, Where, Who, and Why? Their significance and difficulty varies from case to case. Some answers will be obvious while other questions can be extremely hard or even unanswerable. Sometimes a question may not need answering at all. At all events the questions come in no set order and each enquiry will suggest its own starting point. It will no doubt find apparently solid ground and progress from there, but conclusions can only ever be provisional until they have been checked against each other so as to arrive at a coherent outcome. At each stage, regard is had to the inherent probabilities and improbabilities surrounding what are inevitably abnormal circumstances”.

The proper approach to the identification of a perpetrator has been set out in a number of recent authorities. In Re A (Children) (Pool of Perpetrators) [2022] EWCA Civ 1348 King LJ, with reference to Re B (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator [2019] EWCA Civ 575; [2019] 2 FLR 211 made clear that the proper approach to be applied remains as set out by Peter Jackson LJ:

“[49]….The court should first consider whether there is a 'list' of people who had the opportunity to cause the injury. It should then consider whether it can identify the actual perpetrator on the balance of probability and should seek, but not strain, to do so: Re D (Children) [2009] EWCA Civ 472 at [12]. Only if it cannot identify the perpetrator to the civil standard of proof should it go on to ask in respect of those on the list: "Is there a likelihood or real possibility that A or B or C was the perpetrator or a perpetrator of the inflicted injuries?" Only if there is should A or B or C be placed into the 'pool'”.

In Re H (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator: Lies) [2024] EWCA Civ 1261 Peter Jackson LJ said this at paragraphs [20-23]:

“[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 (Re Y [2013] EWCA Civ 1337 per Macur LJ at [7(4)]) and, as I put it in Re K (Children: Placement Orders) [2020] EWCA (Civ) 1503, [2021] 2 FLR 275, [2022] 4 WLR at [29], that the link between lies and welfare must be spelled out.

[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.

[22]I would therefore make one observation about the description of good practice in Re A, B and C. At [58(iii)] it is said that the court should seek to identify the basis on which it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie(s) is guilt. That draws on the slightly different jury direction in the Crown Court Compendium at 16-3, which requires that a lie is only capable of supporting other evidence against a defendant if the jury are sure that it was not told for a reason advanced by or on behalf of the defendant, or for some other reason arising from the evidence, which does not point to the defendant's guilt.”

It must also be borne in mind that discrepancies and inconsistencies in evidence can arise in ways that are not sinister or a result of bad faith, see Lancashire County Council v C, M, and F (Children: Fact Finding Hearing) [2014] EWFC 3:

“in cases 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 ‘story-creep’ without any inference of bad faith. These words echo the words of Leggatt J in Gestmin SGPS v Credit Suisse (UK) Ltd [2013] EWHC 3560 as to the fallibility of human recollection, and the limitations of memory”.

In J (A Child) [2015] EWCA Civ 222 Aikens LJ stated that:

“The formulation of "Threshold" issues and proposed findings of fact must be done with the utmost care and precision. The distinction between a fact and evidence alleged to prove a fact is fundamental and must be recognised. The document must identify the relevant facts which are sought to be proved. It can be cross-referenced to evidence relied on to prove the facts asserted but should not contain mere allegations ("he appears to have lied" etc.)”.

The mother has struggled with a number of issues during her life, not least the mental health problems which I have set out above, but she has also suffered from domestic abuse from M’s father, abuse which led to him being sentenced to two years’ imprisonment. She has admitted lying about a number of matters to professionals at various points, but it does not mean that she is lying about everything. She patently is not.

Further, in December 2022 she suffered the death of her child, M, who she undoubtedly loved very dearly. There can be no doubt about the effect of this on her, whether or not she was responsible for what happened. I must bear all these factors in mind when considering her evidence.

That being said, the mother has undoubtedly given inconsistent evidence about a number of matters which are material to the issues I have to decide. The most obvious and relevant example of this relates to what she was doing on 11^th December, and whether or not she left M alone with the father that day. In the aftermath of M’s collapse she told all the professionals that she had been up and around, and that it was she who had taken M from the sofa to bed. Her explanation for doing this is that she was instructed to do so by the father and that she was frightened of being seen as a bad mother. Her own mother and the mother’s friend, TS have stated that the mother told them very shortly after M’s collapse that she had been upstairs having a nap.

In her first interview with the police in July 2023 the mother told them that she had put M upstairs for a nap and then later found him unrousable. Four months later she told the police in another interview that this was not true and that she had been upstairs asleep when he had been put to bed. In that interview she made a number of allegations to the effect that M was frightened of the father, that he had pushed M over, that M screamed when he saw him and that she had heard a bang when she was asleep on 11^th December. In her interview in February 2025, she said that she might have been a bit drunk and ‘over-exaggerating’ about the father in her second interview because of everything he had been doing although she still believed he was responsible for hurting M. In her oral evidence she said that she had been asleep upstairs and had heard a bang which, in cross examination she said was not a worrying bang, as it was not unusual for A to jump off things.

The mother was asked a number of questions by Ms Howe KC for the local authority as to how M presented when the mother tried to wake him up. She was asked about the history she had given of M’s presentation to the doctors, namely that his arms were stretched out, and also about the father’s whereabouts when she had first tried to wake M up. Her oral evidence about this was vague. It was much clearer when describing trying to wake M up on what she said was the second occasion, with the father there, and trying to splash water on his face in accordance with the grandmother’s advice.

The mother was asked about inconsistencies in her evidence as to whether there had been a call to the emergency services, but like many other matters she was not able to give a credible explanation. She said at some points that she could not remember, and at another said that she had lied about making the call herself (she now maintains it was the father had done so) because she did not know what had happened.

The mother acknowledged knowing that M had sustained a skull fracture but said that she did not put things together when asked by the father to lie about his having been alone with M, saying that she was completely under the father’s control and she had not realised how serious it was going to be.

There are other inconsistencies in her evidence too. Very recently she stated that M had a black eye on one occasion after he had been cared for by the father. This had never been mentioned earlier, and not observed by anyone else, including the maternal grandmother who saw M frequently. The mother stated in her oral evidence that her mother would not necessarily have seen a black eye because she was ‘on a lot of medication’ and that she herself had not mentioned the black eye before because she had ‘not thought about it’. I do not believe that M ever had this bruise, and it seems to me that the mother must have fabricated it in order to cast suspicion on the father.

In July 2024 the mother hacked into the father’s Facebook account and fabricated messages to support a claim that he had spiked her drink with drugs. She acknowledged having lied about drug use in the past, albeit she still maintains that she did not use drugs when caring for M. She was also challenged by Ms Delahunty KC for the father about messages she had sent to a friend claiming that the police were close to charging the father because of messages that they had found on his phone.

The mother was also asked about violence to her mother and sister. She said that they protect each other, and that she has only reacted after being wound up. She did not accept that there were occasions that she did not know what she was doing and minimised the effect on M of being present on one occasion when she had had a physical altercation.

Even taking into account the mother’s vulnerabilities, which she clearly has, and the vagaries of memory after a long period of time in relation to traumatic events, the mother’s evidence was beset by inconsistency about very significant issues, a willingness to lie to protect herself and implicate others, and a lack of clarity about key events.

The local authority described the father as being a little ‘cocksure’ when giving evidence, a description with which I am inclined to agree. As a young man facing very serious allegations indeed, I suspect that this is his way of trying to deal with the pressure of being in the witness box rather than anything more sinister. He was impatient and angry on several occasions when being asked questions, however, and often tried to deflect legitimate questions by asking questions back and making accusations against others (particularly the mother).

He acknowledges himself that he has taken drugs for many years and was a dealer at the time that M died. He also acknowledged (when pressed) that he had a history of violence, albeit he maintained that this was limited to other males, and did not involve females, or, as he put it, his mother or nan. His attitude towards some of the violence was of bravado, particularly in relation to a picture he had posted on social media of a young man with injuries to his face, which was dripping blood. It was plain this was posted as a message to deter people from failing to pay him for drugs he had supplied. He repeatedly stated that violence from him to others had been a feature when he was young, and that it was no longer the case now. I note that there are references in the records to his being aggressive to his younger sister when he was a teenager, and also assaulting his mother, which rather undermined what he was telling the court. There are also references in some of his messages to being violent to others, including a message saying ‘Ex Mrs turned up starting chinned her and her mate’ which it is accepted was a reference to an altercation he had with the mother and TS on 7^th November 2024. His evidence is that they vandalised his property and attacked him, that they were at his gate ‘swinging for him’. In answer to questions about this he said that the message did not say what it was supposed to say, and that perhaps he had been embarrassed because he had been attacked by the mother.

Even making full allowance for the length of time since the events in question have occurred the father’s evidence about the 11^th December was profoundly unsatisfactory. His evidence as to how long he and A spent outside in the snow was changeable from 20 minutes a good part of the morning. His phone records demonstrate that he was engaged in drug deals that morning, which undermine his claim to have spent all of the day looking after A. More significantly, he was very vague about what happened when M was discovered to be unresponsive. I would not expect him to remember everything but there are some things that I do not accept that he has forgotten. He gave a clear account of trying to open M’s eyes but he claimed not to remember the calls to 101 and 111, even though he would have been in the room at the time if his claim that it must have been the mother who did so is right. His reasons for not calling 999 were not credible either, namely that M was not his own child and this was a matter for the mother. He knew perfectly well that 999 is an emergency number as opposed to 111.

Each parent has blamed the other for deleting messages. The father’s case is that the mother must have deleted the messages between them on both phones. He has no recollection of what the messages actually were, indeed he said that they must have been sent between the phones by the mother alone before she deleted them.

The maternal grandmother had a lot of contact with the mother and also M, who she often looked after at weekends, including the night of 9^th December. She spoke to the mother on Facetime on the morning of 11^th December where she witnessed M running about. The mother phoned her when she could not rouse M, but the grandmother was clear that this had happened only once, not on the two occasions that the mother asserts.

The grandmother clearly stated that the mother told her that M’s injury had not happened on her watch, but that she had not told anyone about it because the mother asked her not to. She got a good impression of the father who appeared calm, and thought the mother appeared happier when they got together. Although she demonstrated obvious affection for her daughter she did not shy away from accepting that she (the mother) had been violent to her, had made false allegations to others pretending to be her, and that M had been distressed on an occasion when the mother had been aggressive.

TS gave a firm account of the father punching both the mother and her on 7^th November 2024. She said that there was an argument, that the father hit the mother, and then hit her when she told him to stop. The father called the police, and she said, ‘I ended up getting arrested’. TS clearly did see things from the mother’s point of view but her accounts of the way the father spoke to the mother were coherent and contained detail. I note that it was she who informed her social worker of her concerns at the mother’s drug taking.

Although KD and LD were called as early witnesses to M’s condition and travel to hospital, neither of them said a great deal. In fact, I thought the evidence of each of them was characterised by a wish not to say anything untoward that might get anyone into trouble. They each claimed not to have really seen M, albeit the mother was speaking to him and saying his name. They each said that M was not making any noise and looked sleepy. They each said that there was no real discussion as to why M needed to be taken to hospital. LD said that he was no longer in contact with the father, but whilst suggesting that this might be because he had owed the father money said that the latter had always been patient and understanding in that scenario. I thought that did not fit very well with the other evidence that I have about the father, including the photo of the young man who he had hit.

JS was also a witness who I thought was being careful to avoid saying anything untoward about the father. She had arrived at the house just after 2.49pm on 11^th (as timed from the call logs) and said that she only saw the father and that the house was quiet. JS had received messages from the mother asking her to support her case that she was a good mother to M and asking her not to say anything about drugs.

I will look first at the allegations of domestic abuse and drug use by each of the parties as these issues are not only important in their own right, but relevant to the circumstances in which M suffered his fatal injuries. I make it clear that whilst I have to start somewhere when considering all the allegations, I have looked at each part of the evidence in the light of other evidence, and as a whole.

In my judgment the father has been violent on a number of occasions, something which he minimised in his evidence. It is clear he is a forceful and, at times, intimidating young man. He is quick to temper. I find that he did hit the mother and her friend on 7^th November and reject his evidence that he only acted in self defence on that day. The mother is not a reliable witness, but I accept that TS was telling the truth about that event. Further, the father’s message that he had ‘chinned’ them strongly supports her account.

As to other occasions of violence between the parents it is clear to me that this was a very toxic relationship between damaged people and that there were times when each of them was violent and abusive to the other. No doubt the father is the stronger of the two of them physically which may explain at least some of the injuries suffered by the mother. She too has shown a propensity for anger and violence, albeit not in a calculated fashion or causing serious injury. She is capable of telling lies to get other people into trouble and herself out of it, and at various times has made and then retracted allegations. She has self-harmed, including by banging her head.

Looking at the evidence as a whole I am not able to find who was the main aggressor in this relationship. On some occasions it may have been one of them, and sometimes the other. Although the father can be forceful, I do not accept that the mother was controlled by him, certainly to the extent that she took drugs because she was forced to, or told lies to the police on his instruction. Nor do I accept that she was under his financial control. She did not have her own bank account but used his. She was not dependent on him for accommodation and she had access to her own family for support.

Both parties had access to each other’s phones, and were jealous of attention from others.

The local authority allegation that the relationship has been volatile, unstable, emotionally abusive and characterised by episodes of serious conflict, physical altercations, and periods of separation and reunion is correct, in my view. I further accept that the mother has a history of finding it difficult to distance herself from abusive relationships as happened with her previous partner (M’s father) who served a prison sentence for assaulting her.

Both parties used drugs both before and after M died. The father significantly minimised this in his evidence, as did the mother. This was apparent from the inconsistent evidence that each of them has given about it, the evidence of what the mother told TS about it (which led to the latter reporting it to her social worker), the extent to which the father dealt in drugs from the family home.

Further it is apparent that the mother used drugs when she was pregnant with L, who was diagnosed with neonatal drug withdrawal at birth. I do not doubt that she was very affected by M’s death and that the extent of her use at that point was fuelled by grief and distress but it is clear from the evidence that she tried to cover it up from professionals. I cannot rely upon the mother’s evidence that she was pressurised to take cocaine by the father or that he spiked her drink on one occasion, bearing in mind the fact that she has lied to get him into trouble on several occasions. She went as far as to hack into his Facebook account and fabricated a message from him to bolster her allegation of spiking.

I then turn to the question of M’s injuries and death. The medical evidence is not in issue. It is accepted that M’s injuries were caused by one or other of the mother and father. The issue for me in relation to that aspect of the case is whether I can identify which one of them it was.

Having heard and read all the evidence presented to me, I am clear that I cannot rely on the evidence of either the mother or the father as to what happened on that fateful day. The mother has changed her account on several occasions and the father’s evidence on key points (as with the mother) was not credible. Several hours passed during the morning between the time the children and parents got up until about 3.40pm when M was taken to hospital, yet each of the two adults present have given very little detail at all about what was going on. There is no account of what the children were actually doing beyond the description of the father and A being in the garden playing in the snow for a short while. The father’s case is that he did not hear or see anything untoward before M’s collapse. Apart from hearing a bang, the mother’s evidence is the same. I can accept that one of the parties could have injured M when the other was not present and did not realise at the time, but their behaviour from the time that he was found to be unrousable demonstrates that both of them are trying to conceal information.

I believed the grandmother when she said that the mother told her that M had not collapsed ‘on her watch’ but not to tell those in authority. Given the mother’s general problem with credibility, however, I do not think I can rely on the mother having told the truth in giving that account, either then or now. Of course the fact that someone has lied about one thing manifestly does not mean they have lied about everything, but the extent to which the mother has been prepared to go to bolster her case in other respects means that I have to approach everything she says with the greatest of caution.

There is a wealth of evidence to contradict the parents’ denials that they took cocaine when the children were in the house, including messages from the mother to TS and the account she gave to her of what happened on the night of 10^th/11^th December. The father’s phone records suggest he was awake until the early hours, selling drugs. He accepted that he used cocaine as a way of coping with stress, which does not fit well with an assertion that his use was confined to nights when he did not have A.

I reject the evidence of each of the parents that it was the other of them who unilaterally and surreptitiously deleted the messages passing between them in the days up to and including 11^th December. I am not able to say who it was who deleted them but am clear that they both must have known about it. I cannot think of any other reasons for the messages to be deleted other than a wish to hide evidence that was material to the investigation into M’s death.

I agree with the local authority and Guardian that there is a gap in the evidence, and timing as between M being discovered to be unrousable and his being taken to hospital. I do not accept the mother’s evidence that she phoned her mother twice, or that her mother advised her to put M back to bed. All the evidence points to M’s collapse being noticed at some point around 3pm that day, probably after JS came to the home. The father’s phone rang the mother’s at 15.13pm which was probably after M had been found but still 12 minutes before the call to 101 and 111. Even allowing for a phone call to the grandmother in the meantime, that is a long time to pass for people dealing with a child who is unresponsive. The call to 111 was at 15.28 and lasted for eight minutes (to 14.36) . It does not appear to have connected properly as there is no recording, but it is very difficult to understand how the mother – and this father – would have tolerated such a long wait when M patently needed to go to hospital urgently. The obvious answer would have been to phone 999 but neither of them did.

Each of them would have the court believe that they thought that the other one had done so, but when challenged as to how they could have been mistaken about this, the evidence of each of them was confused, vague and inconsistent. I appreciate that these events took place a long time ago, but the making of an emergency call would not be something that was unnoticed or forgotten by an adult present at the time. The choice to call two young men who were in the vicinity with a car instead of an ambulance meant that M received no medical intervention at all – even through the direction of a 999 operator - until he arrived at hospital.

In circumstances where both parties have lied about really material events in order to conceal evidence from the court, it is very difficult to identify which one of them is the perpetrator of the injuries to M. Both of them had the opportunity. I have thought very carefully about the mother’s evidence that the father coerced her into telling a false story and that she submitted because she is a victim of domestic abuse at his hands, but I am unable to make a finding on the balance of probabilities that what she says is the truth.

There are factors which point towards either of the parents as a perpetrator. They each have a temper and are capable of violence. They both took drugs. The mother clearly had a strong bond with M and the evidence from the Health Visitor records shows how well she interacted with and cared for him, but this did not stop her from behaving in a way which would cause him harm, such as taking cocaine or attacking her mother in his presence. The father is plainly capable of intimidating people which is supportive of the mother’s case, but so much of her evidence about him is unreliable that there is a limit to the weight that I can place on this.

In my judgement there is a real possibility that either the mother or father was the perpetrator of the injuries but I cannot go further than that. There is more than one possible scenario for how M was injured, but any conclusion beyond this would be speculative.

Following on from these findings it is clear that L is at risk of suffering significant harm. The risks arise in a number of ways. I have not identified the mother as the perpetrator of M’s injuries but I have found that she failed to seek timely medical attention for him and has concealed evidence from the professionals about what happened. Further, her emotional and mental health problems, substance misuse and engagement in highly conflictual relationships pose a risk of L suffering significant emotional and possibly physical harm in her care.

There is no doubt at all that M’s death led to a very significant deterioration in the mother’s already fragile state so that she suffered rapid fluctuations in her mood and some suicidal ideation and self harm. During this period her engagement with professional support was limited. She is in the process of recovery from this, but the recovery is fragile.

There is a wealth of evidence to show that the mother was able to provide very loving and empathetic care to M when she was not distracted by the other difficult matters in her life. This is very positive, but without lengthy psychological treatment to help her overcome her difficulties and minimise their impact on her parenting and a sustained period of abstinence from substances, abstinence from contact with the father or any other risky individual, and a period of sustained engagement in therapy in which she engages in meaningful and honest reflection, she could not be regarded as a safe parent. Whether or not she will be able to achieve this, I am not able to say although it must be acknowledged that the prognosis as of today is not good. That may change, but it is too early to say.

In making these findings I wish to emphasise that the mother has had very adverse experiences herself which underpin the difficulties she has. She has suffered a very great deal, particularly since the death of M. That is the very worst tragedy for any parent. She has taken the courageous decision to accept that she cannot care for L for the foreseeable future and that he needs a permanent home now. In making that decision she has shown that she is able to be child-focussed and to put L’s best interests before her own.

I sincerely hope that she will be able to engage fully in the help that is offered to her, and to take the advice provided in the Guardian’s report at paragraph 60. That will be of enormous benefit to her and, in the future, to her children, whatever the extent of her relationship with them.

One happy feature of this very sad case is that L has been thriving in foster care since his birth, and that those foster carers now seek to care for him pursuant to a Special Guardianship Order. That is a course which is agreed by all the parties. I have had the benefit of reading the statements and care plan from the local authority, and the Guardian’s report which fully endorses this proposal. The assessment is a robust one, and it is clear that L is very much loved and well cared for in this family.

I too agree that it is in L’s best interests to remain permanently in the care of the foster carers and that this should be pursuant to a Special Guardianship Order. This is the order of preference for the foster carers who have taken legal advice and are happy with the support plan. It will enable L to have some contact with his mother as he grows up, but also to benefit from a permanent family. The local authority propose, and the Guardian agrees, that contact for the mother should take place six times a year, following a stepped reduction.

In the event that there are any issues in relation to the care plan, and in particular, contact, I will list the matter for a further hearing.