A Council v Mother of CA & Ors

I have made/not made the following findings:-

I am concerned with two children, CA (female, mid-teens) and CB (male, infant). CA is the daughter of the Father who I will refer to as F and I shall refer to her mother as MA (the First Respondent); CB is the son of F and I shall refer to his mother as MB (the Third Respondent). Where I refer to Children I mean both CA and CB. I mean no disrespect to the parties by referring to them in this way.

The background is set out in the Local Authority case summary in this way:

The effective start of the hearing was delayed by illness and although the evidence was heard over broadly consecutive days there was a delay in being able to re-list submissions and the handing down of judgment. Special measures were in place for the evidence of CA and a number of parties attended remotely or remotely for some of the hearing.

CA is in foster care pursuant to the Interim Care Order. CB remains living with F and MB. When I met with CA on 31 October 2023 she was clear that whatever the outcome of this hearing she did not wish to return to the care of F and MB.

The Local Authority, F and MA share parental responsibility for CA and F and MB for CB.

I have set out the allegations and the parties’ positions below in relation to each of them.

I have had the benefit of considering the bundle and in particular the following documents:

I heard oral evidence from Dr Rahman, Dr Lomp and Dr Cheng who all attended remotely, CA who attended remotely as an agreed participation direction and F and MB who gave evidence in person. Having conducted a Ground Rules Hearing on 20 October 2023 there were a number of additional participation directions for CA including the assistance of an intermediary, cross-examination topics in advance and the provision for frequent breaks as required. CA was also supported by a lay advocate when giving evidence.

I remind myself of the fact-finding self-directions that I must give myself adapted from the helpful summary of Munby P in Re X (Children) (No 3) [2015] EWHC 3651:

Munby P continued:

In relation to experts in Re B (Care: Expert) [1996] 1 FLR 667 at 674 Butler-Sloss LJ said:

In his President’s Memorandum on Witness Statements dated 10 November 2021 McFarlane P said:

I also direct myself to the judgment of Peter Jackson J (as he was) in Lancashire County Council v The Children [2014] EWHC 3 (Fam):

That should be borne in mind when considering perceived differences between accounts over time and generally when considering a witness’ recall.

As regards demeanour I have regard to Peter Jackson LJ in B-M (Children: Findings of Fact) [2021] EWCA Civ 1371:

I remind myself of the Lucas direction from R v Lucas [1981] QB 720, elaborated on by Macur LJ in Re A [2021] EWCA Civ 451:

What I have said above in relation to memory applies equally to a consideration of whether a person is lying.

In Re P (Sexual Abuse: Finding of Fact Hearing) [2019] EWFC 27 (Fam) MacDonald J summarised matters to consider when assessing the memory of children:

The following is an extract from Family Court Practice summarising the law at para 2.338[2]:

Hearsay evidence of children is admissible pursuant to the Children (Admissibility of Hearsay Evidence) Order 1993 but I must assess the weight to be attached to it.

In Re W (Minors) (Wardship: Evidence) [1990] 1 FLR 203 Neill LJ at 227 said:

Butler-Sloss LJ (as she was) said this at 214:

And at 218:

Although the Civil Evidence Act 1995 does not apply the provisions of section 4 may be helpful:

I have considered the allegations below. I have taken them in a different order for simplicity but before dealing with each in turn I will consider F, MB and CA’s credibility generally.

I remind myself that general observations of demeanour should never form the basis of any finding of fact but they are part of the broad canvas of assessment of credibility and they feed into the assessment of the allegations.

In her witness statement MB commented on Allegation 1-4 by denying anything occurred except an argument. It is very clear from the BWV that her report at the time was of much more than this and at the outset of her oral evidence she admitted there was an assault. I have set out the details of the incident as she now describes it below but this was a wholesale retraction of her assertion that there was no assault. I found her explanation for not having been honest about this initially lacked credibility.

First, in relation to her witness statement she said “when I was speaking with solicitor, whilst explaining this I might not have known this was relevant so it might have not been fully detailed with the assault word”. I simply do not accept she misunderstood the incident was relevant: At the time of her statement dated 29 March 2023 she had the amended interim threshold which pleaded CA and CB had been exposed to domestic abuse in late October 2021 when they “witnessed F assault MB” [A6]. It was clearly relevant.

Second, since 29 March 2023 she has not sought to put the record straight despite an opportunity to file a second statement in October 2023 (see the order at [B135/18]).

Third, when I said to her the allegation pleaded “assault” and she denied “assault” in her statement she said she “may not have understood the word assault” and a bit later explained she thought it meant “someone coming and beating or hitting you”. She had explained in oral evidence that what happened was F had pushed her across the room and appeared to be saying she did not understand that was an assault. Yet, in the BWV she says to the police “and he pushed me there and he hurt me and he wanted to beat me with that thing [points to bowl] but I started screaming CA come look your father is beating me”. If she understood assault as someone “coming and beating” it is hard to see how what she described to the police was not an assault in her mind. When I asked her about that her answer changed to “I thought assault was someone, suddenly just happened”.

On her behalf in closing submissions it was said that MB had initially reported broadly what she now concedes (see her statement to the police dated 24 October 2021 [L123]) and since then there have been no further police reports of domestic abuse and MB and F “had reconciled their relationship and were determined to give the marriage a chance”. I do not find that is any explanation at all for the denials in a statement MB prepared for the court for the purpose of a case considering the welfare of her child in which these specific allegations were made and she was required to address them.

In the course of her oral evidence MB gave an extensive description of finding the book which the Father referred to in his first witness statement as “The Stepmother”. The importance of it is that it may have been the genesis for a fabricated allegation of sexual abuse by MB (pleaded as Allegation 14). Notwithstanding its importance there was no mention of how she found the book in any of MB’s filed documents and she did not avail herself of the opportunity to file a second witness statement. I find that curious.

In a similar vein, in giving her oral evidence she referred to previous dishonesty by CA in stealing lip balm from Primark. The central issue in this case (certainly in relation to Allegation 5 onwards) is whether CA is lying. It is very strange that MB had not thought to mention this previous, serious, dishonesty until giving her oral evidence.

F denied Allegation 1-4 and in the police interview asserted he had “tried to calm [MB] down”. MB changed her evidence in relation to the allegations as noted below such that it was inconsistent with F’s evidence. F maintained his position in oral evidence which was contrary to the weight of the evidence from the BWV, MB and CA.

I have grouped my considerations of credibility below for ease of analysis but this should not be taken as an indication of compartmentalisation. As noted above I am surveying the broad canvas of the evidence.

The social worker reported CA saying “CA has explained that the arguments which lead to physical abuse can be about trivial things for example if she unloads the dishwasher wrong” [C8]. Both MB and F deny they have a dishwasher ([C65/16] and [C44/36] respectively) which has not been challenged. There is the possibility this was wrongly reported by the social worker and I note that in the CP medical report CA is reported to have referred to “arguments with parents re: washing dishes and so on” [F235] and similarly to the DSL “One example is- if I swore or didn’t do the dishes my Stepmom would tell my dad and we would all argue” [K3].

In written closing submissions counsel for F reminded me the parents do not have to prove an alternative explanation for CA’s allegations or prove that any alternative explanation they suggest is true. He then set out a series of evidential points that may suggest a motivation to fabricate which I pick up part way through:

On that evidence counsel for F asserts “It is possible that her accounts are a fabrication, designed to engineer a move away from what she perceived to be an overly controlling and restricting upbringing, and a cultural background that she has resoundingly rejected and which she experiences as a source of trauma as opposed to a comfort” and suggests “It is possible that her “memories” of abuse arise out of contamination (the account put to her by Dr Cheng for example [see below]), confabulation ([by reference to the Step Child, see below]), conflation (of her experiences in the care of paternal family members in Pakistan), or a combination of the above.”

All of those points must be borne in mind when considering CA’s allegations but there are factors pointing the other way both specific to the allegations and more generally:

MB says:

That evidence (and that relied upon by counsel for F above) does not sit easily with MB’s oral evidence that “with CA it was like friendly sisters, friends”. Nor is it obviously consistent with the delay between Allegation 14 allegedly occurring (around spring 2019) and the first report of the alleged sexual abuse to the DSL on 27 February 2023.

As regards a dislike of Pakistani Muslim culture, in oral evidence CA agreed she did not like it except for the cooking but said “if you put me with foster carers who were Muslim Pakistani and they didn’t adhere to the only way of discipline being abusing I would happily go to them, that was not the reason, I didn’t want to deal with my father’s controlling and abusive behaviour”.

F says:

This relates to MB catching CA on her phone at the end of February 2023. The phone had been confiscated in summer 2022. F says that on 25 February MB found that CA had removed it from a bedroom drawer because MB was receiving email notifications about its use and confronted her about it (see further in relation to Allegations 7 and 13 below). He says:

In his oral evidence he repeated that she wanted freedom and “didn’t have it in my home”. However, he accepted that her phone had originally been removed in summer 2022 and she did not make allegations against F and MB then and when challenged on how this suggestion fitted with MB’s evidence they were like sisters he said “I don’t know, maybe because [MB] has told me of this phone incident”.

I was also invited to consider the fact that CA wished to give evidence against her parents (as reported in the Re W analysis at [E210]). The Local Authority invited me to conclude that is consistent with her telling the truth: why continue with allegations she knew were untrue having already been removed from the family home, what advantage would there be to exposing herself to scrutiny unnecessarily? I was initially concerned that ignored the fact that CA may have thought she had to give evidence to support the allegations because without a finding on the allegations (true or otherwise) she may be returned home. However, the Guardian reminded me that CA’s evidence when asked about a delay in reporting was:

In other words, in CA’s mind she cannot be forced back home whatever the outcome of this fact finding hearing. In those circumstances if the allegations are untrue there would not be a motivation to persist in them, she could have just told the Guardian she did not want to go through with giving evidence. Accordingly I do place some weight on the fact that CA gave evidence.

As above, F says that the book referred to may have influenced some of the things CA has said to the professionals: “it is possible that this book has affected her behaviour and led her to make false allegations” [C113/11]. However, even if the content of the book may have given CA the story it does not explain the motivation to fabricate the allegations.

CA denied having heard of it or read it. She said she only read books from school. No enquiries have been made of the school whether that was a book held within their library at the time.

MB’s evidence was the book was discovered when CB was little, that would make the incident approximately 2 years before the sexual abuse allegation (Allegation 14) was made. I note that in the intervening years CA may have forgotten she had read the book; if she had she would have had to have remembered the content and waited 2 years to rely upon it to fabricate her allegation. Whilst that is possible it is not likely. Further, I found her oral evidence on the point convincing. She said she only read books from school and she would have run the risk of someone checking if it was in the school library. If she had read it and it was from the school library that would have risked undermining her allegation if it were fabricated. I accept an alternative is that she could have obtained the book from elsewhere, perhaps a friend.

On the other hand it would take some degree of thought for the parents to point to the book as being source material for a false allegation if they had not in fact seen it in CA’s possession and if the parents were making it up it is strange F got the name wrong in his statement (“The Stepmother” when in fact I understand the book is called The Step Child).

I find myself being unable to determine if CA had or had not read the book but in any event there has been no evidence seeking to compare the nature of the allegations made against MB in Allegation 14 to those events depicted in the book. All that it amounts to is counsel for F asserting in closing that the book “is autobiographical, describes an incident whereby the stepmother facilitated sexual abuse by a man”. Save for the involvement of the stepmother the allegations CA makes differ: in this case the abuse is alleged to have been perpetrated by the stepmother (MB) and the nature of the abuse differs in that the Step Child refers to the child masturbating the adult male perpetrator whereas in this case the allegation is of CA being forced to perform oral sex on MB.

In the foster care log for 12 June to 8 August 2023 it is recorded:

This is challenged by MB who has disclosed a short video and a number of photos which appear to contradict this. From the candles on the cake in the video this would appear to be her tenth birthday. As noted below CA’s tenth birthday would have been soon after she arrived in the UK. The photos seem to be of either 2 other birthdays or 2 other birthday celebrations, the date(s) is not clear.

When cross-examined about it CA said her parents “hadn’t celebrated birthday in a long time” and she clarified “not properly”.

Given the photos there does seem to be some exaggeration on the part of CA.

There was a report of bruising to the knee in the SARC report:

When Dr Rahman gave evidence he was asked about this report. He said that the life span of a bruise is 1-2 weeks so “to last 3 weeks and be visible as described would be unlikely” although later he accepted “bruises resolve at different rates and in different ways” but “the description is of a blue tender bruise which makes a difference, if it was just the colour I would struggle to give an answer but tenderness suggests it was 1-2 days old”. In other words CA’s report of it being caused by MB or F is not consistent with her having been removed from their care on 28 February 2 weeks prior to the SARC examination on 13 March 2023. That would be consistent with the CP medical report of 1 March 2023 which does not identify the knee bruise and expressly reports CA saying “Does not have any bruises currently” [F235]. Dr Lomp’s statement dated 23 November 2023 confirms that “there was no injury to the left or right knee visible at the time of examination”.

CA had no knowledge of Dr Rahman’s oral evidence when she gave evidence the following day. She said “It wasn’t tender, they were both quite old, healed in that they weren’t painful”. Whilst that might explain the inconsistency identified by Dr Rahman it does not explain the absence of report of these marks on examination for the CP medical by Dr Lomp.

I find on the balance of probabilities that CA has misattributed the marks to her parents. That does not necessarily mean she has done so maliciously or in bad faith. In fact, it may tend to support her case that she has been repeatedly physically abused such that almost any mark is attributed to her parents’ actions. In the circumstances I find the evidence is neutral.

Concerns have been raised about CA’s credibility in relation to Allegation 7 and I have considered this in more detail below.

More generally her credibility is challenged in relation to the absence of a record of anyone noticing injuries caused by alleged assaults and I have considered this in more detail below under Allegation 8.

As to the allegations generally against F, CA was referred to Dr Cheng’s note (see Allegation 5 below) which records “Only feels safe when her father is back” [P1] which tends to suggest no concerns about F’s behaviour. She said that was not quite accurate but when F was home F and MB would “watch something on TV and I’d go to room and get on with my own things”, my inference being there was then less opportunity for abuse to be perpetrated. I found that a credible explanation.

Again, I remind myself of the words of Peter Jackson LJ in B-M (Children) referred to above. The Guardian accepted there were exaggerations in CA’s evidence (in relation to Birthdays as recorded above) and lying (to Dr Cheng about being locked in her room) but that does not necessarily detract from her credibility in relation to the central allegations.

As to a motivation to lie CA candidly accepted she was cross at MB at the walk in centre (see below Allegation 5) and that she “wasn’t really happy with life in general…I wasn’t fitting in and I felt like I was a burden to my father and the way MB had worded things it was like I was burden to her and was ruining her marriage”.

She admitted that she lied to Dr Cheng on 5 January 2020 saying that MB locked her in her bedroom when in fact there was no lock but she gave an explanation for that saying:

As to lying more generally F says:

CA admitted to doing so “to save my own skin” and that was her explanation for a reference in the CPOMS record for 1 November 2021 which said “There have been occasions where she has not been honest and it can be difficult to get the truth out of her” [K18], she said if she had got a detention F would have “beaten me up…I would have to lie to get out of trouble”.

On the other hand, there were occasions when CA appeared to be downplaying the extent of her allegations: early in cross-examination she was asked if F was ever verbally or physically abusive before she came to the UK and she said they did not really communicate but she recalled him “slapping me and shouting but not very often”. When being asked about marks on her knee noted in the SARC medical report she said they were caused when she was hit on the head and fell on the floor but “I can’t say when, I don’t know if it was F or MB”. If she was seeking to fabricate allegations this would have been an opportunity to do so.

I was referred to the Crown Court Compendium in the course of submissions, in particular page 10-29 Example 3 which reads as follows:

This is a template of what a judge may say to a jury but it is useful to remind myself of the different explanations there might be for a child not reporting an allegation for some time.

In relation to the non-reporting of abuse after the incident between F and MB in October 2021 she said although F was arrested and out of the family home he had denied the allegations and MB wanted him back and if she had spoken against him he would have done something and brought her back. That is consistent with MB’s oral evidence that after the incident in 2021 “I tried to contact family members and instead of supporting they said don’t believe and if you keep saying you’ll end up divorced”, MB of course did withdraw her allegation and F returned to the family home.

CA said “I was too scared of him…I didn’t have the guts to say anything”. She was challenged on the apparent inconsistency between that and speaking negatively of F in relation to his abuse of MB when the police attended on 24 October 2021 and explained that MB had “told me to tell them what happened and there was already enough other people who had also heard it” (the neighbours had in fact called the police). That was also challenged because she had told the social worker that F was “mind controlling” and “we are under his control” [F71] i.e. she felt able to report adversely on F’s behaviour to the social worker in some respects; she said “the mind controlling is like normal” by which I understood her to mean not as serious as the now alleged physical abuse the report of which she felt would incur F’s anger against her.

CA had an explanation for not reporting abuse to the social worker after the visit to the walk in centre in 2020 (see below in relation to Allegation 5).

It was put to CA in cross-examination that F’s response to finding out about her use of the previously confiscated phone was excessively controlling and CA agreed and that was what caused her to speak to the DSL at school. She was asked why she felt safe to speak then when she had not felt safe enough following the visit to the walk in centre in January 2020 and the incident in October 2021. I found her answer had the ring of truth: she was more mature now than 2-3 years ago, she had previously thought removal from home would be to a children’s home, that children’s social care would “keep me home and just speak to my parents and then I found out that they couldn’t force you to go home”, she found that out from a friend’s grandmother who was a foster carer.

Whilst I have found exaggeration by CA as noted above and she has admitted lying I need to be careful to keep that in context and remind myself again of the Lucas direction. Just because CA has lied about some things it does not mean she has lied about everything.

Notwithstanding a detailed forensic examination of her honesty there is really very little in the way of substantive lies and CA has maintained her allegations over time and to different individuals (the DSL at school, the social worker, police and in court).

I will take these allegations together as they arise from the same alleged incident on 24 October 2021.

The allegations are denied by F. F says that he “held MB’s shoulder to calm her down”.

MB initially accepted F stood on her foot but said it was an accident, she said it was F who left the house not her and F “had his hands on my shoulders as he was trying to calm me down”.

In her witness statement MB says (my emphasis):

In her oral evidence she said:

The contemporaneous police log records:

The BWV for 24 October 2021 records a very emotional MB, she is asked what F has done, she starts by saying nothing and does not know why the police were called but when asked what has happened she describes wanting to go to see a friend and calling F who started screaming and shouting and then returned home where he started shouting at her again, MB “shoved this cupboard” and told him he was making her go mental by controlling her. She then describes F grabbing a gold coloured bowl and “did like this to me and pushed me there and he hurt me and wanted to beat me with that thing [pointing to the gold coloured bowl]…and then he left the house”. She identified a mark to her neck (saying “he did do that”), right upper arm and identified a bruise on her foot.

The log records that on 3 November 2021 MB went to the police and “provided a withdrawal statement” [L37]. On 13 November 2021 PC Cullivan visited and the log records:

At the time MB accepted shoving a cupboard which is consistent with needing to be calmed down as F and MB (until she gave oral evidence) allege. However, the other answers to police seen on the contemporaneous BWV are inconsistent with what F says happened and what MB had said happened in her witness statement.

F says:

In his oral evidence he said that what MB told the police and in her oral evidence was untrue. He said he did not put a hand around MB’s throat, did not threaten her with a bowl or hold it in a way “where she felt threatened” and did not push her across the room. He accepted picking up a bowl from the floor and putting it back on the cupboard.

When F was asked by me why he thought MB was lying his answer was:

The second possible explanation lacks credibility. If the neighbours upstairs were trying to frame F then MB would have had to have been complicit and gone to them before F returned home to plan what was to be said. There is no evidence MB had the kind of relationship with them that would be expected to be a precursor to such a conspiracy. In any event CA would have had to have been part of the conspiracy which was not suggested to her.

The first possible explanation also lacks credibility. It is hard to see how panic about the police arriving unexpectedly would lead MB to make a up a whole series of allegations against F. Again, that would not sit easily with CA confirming the assault on the arrival of the police.

CA was spoken to by a social worker as part of a single assessment after the incident (my emphasis):

In oral evidence CA confirmed that was accurate. It was put to her there was no mention of Allegation 1 (F standing on MB’s foot) and CA said that occurred but “I had a young child in my arms at the same time, he was crying and there’s someone very close to beating someone up and I don’t know what to do so not paying full attention”.

She said (my emphasis):

She also described seeing F’s hand reaching out as if to grab something and seeing it positioned in such a way that it appeared to be on MB’s neck although she could not see it touching the neck as her view was partially obscured by a narrow section of wall.

When cross-examined by the Local Authority there was the following exchange with CA (my emphasis):

It can be seen from the underlined sections above that CA’s evidence in relation to which hand was used for the ornament changed and her evidence as to whether there were hands or a hand around MB’s throat changed. That said, I note that CA did not seek to embellish or exaggerate her evidence. She was asked about Allegation 4 (MB being pulled back in to the family home when she tried to leave) and said she did not think that happened and did not see it.

In her oral evidence MB denied that CA was present until she called to her at the end of the incident but in the BWV transcript MB says:

My understanding of that is that CA was proximate to the assault, not that she was in another room and took CB, there would be no reason to take CB if CB was in another room. That is consistent with CA telling the police after MB’s description of the whole incident that “He did, I saw it” and it is also consistent with the police log which records F telling police in interview that “the victim had started screaming and shaking the cabinet in front of their young son” [L35]. What MB now says happened is consistent with CA’s oral evidence which tends to suggest she had witnessed the whole event. Finally, it is consistent with the closure record from the previously involved local authority which records:

I find on the balance of probabilities both CA and CB were present at the time of the assault.

In light of CA being unable to say, F denying it and MB saying that F standing on her foot was because of something that was on the floor I cannot find Allegation 1 proved on the balance of probabilities. Assault implies an intention and it appears the evidence at its highest is of a stumble by F.

I find Allegation 2 is proved on the balance of probabilities. Whilst F and MB deny it and CA’s view was not direct she saw F’s hand in a particular position that lead her to believe it was on M’s neck and what M reports to police in the BWV (identifying a mark to the neck) is consistent.

I find Allegation 3 is proved. MB is consistent between the BWV and her oral evidence that an ornament was used to threaten her and CA’s evidence corroborates that.

I do not find Allegation 4 proved: it is not now recalled by CA and is denied by MB and F. I accept MB’s evidence, corroborated by CA, that M was pushed across the room by F.

Accordingly I make the following findings:

Denied by F and MB.

There is a walk-in clinic note for 5 January 2020 prepared by Dr Cheng:

The police log for 5 January 2020 records:

There is a social work referral record dated 6 January 2020:

In the single assessment commenced on 7 January 2020 it is reported:

Within the single assessment record there is a reference to a social work visit said to have been on 6 January 2020 although the date appears erroneous in the text as the “Timeline” at [F57] records it as being on 7 January and that fits with the CPOMS entry noted below and the date the single assessment started. It is recorded:

There is a CPOMS entry dated 7 January 2020 recording a visit from the social worker:

When Dr Cheng gave evidence he said that there was nothing apart from CA’s allegation that would have caused him to be suspicious of the “shadowing” on the back of CA’s hand and it might have been difficult to identify it as a bruise in those circumstances.

Dr Rahman said given the description was of a vague bruise resolving on 5 January 2020 it was “very feint” and it was possible for it to not be obvious on 6 January 2020 (or indeed therefore 7 January 2020 when I suspect the visit actually took place), especially by a social worker. He was unable to say whether it was more likely there was never a bruise at all or more likely there had been a bruise but it had resolved.

When CA gave oral evidence she was asked to give more detail about what caused the bruising, she said it was MB digging her nails into her hand because she could not shout at her as other people were present, it was “a warning”. She was not able to give more detail of the incident saying “it was a very long time ago”.

She explained she had not reported MB’s abuse to F because she “didn’t have a relationship with him” and “he would have taken her side anyways”.

She was challenged on why the abuse was not reported to the police on the evening of the attendance at the walk in clinic, nor to the social worker who attended her school after the event. The chronology is important: the consultation with Dr Cheng was on the afternoon of 5 January 2020, the police attended the family home that evening and according to their log spoke first to F to whom “it was explained…that someone had overheard a comment stating that CA would be hurt and abused later” [L42], then to CA (who had been in bed) and then to F to whom they spoke “at length…about concerns raised today but did not go into great detail with him” [L42].

CA’s explanation was that F had told her to “take it back” or “he would have beaten me up a lot and sent me back to Pakistan” and before speaking to the social worker F knew about the allegations she had made against MB. She thought that F had been told of them when the police visited on the day of the report to Dr Cheng. That is consistent with F’s oral evidence which was to the effect that the police had told him CA reported “bruises on your hand and you were locked up in the room”.

However, that would not explain how CA knew not to repeat the allegations to the police given they arrived and spoke to her before speaking at length with F; it could conceivably be the case he was told by MB and spoke to CA before the police arrived. On this CA said:

That would be consistent with MB’s oral evidence that she rang F whilst CA was in private with Dr Cheng and F told her that was not right and CA should not have been left alone so MB returned and knocked on the door and when not let in went back, called F again and then returned and knocked again. She was asked if she tried to “listen in” and said it was “not something I was interested in”. I find that entirely incredible given she had been told by F that CA should not have been left alone. I also find it highly likely there was at least some discussion of what had gone on during the car journey home given the telephone conversations that had apparently happened between MB and F.

F’s oral evidence was that when he went to get CA up after the police arrived he only had 5-10 seconds before he took her back to where they were, in the living room. If correct and MB had not told F what CA had earlier alleged that gives a very small window of opportunity to coerce CA to withdraw the allegations or warn her not to make any allegations.

CA was asked why she was not able to tell police of the allegations when they record they were out of earshot of the parents [L42] and she said they were not in fact out of earshot and if she had asked to move out of earshot F would have asked why. F denied that in oral evidence saying that the female officer spoke to CA in the bedroom which was separated from where he was by at least one closed door. That does not mean that CA did not think he would be able to hear. This explanation for not repeating the allegations does not rely on F having the full picture of what had been alleged or the opportunity to coerce CA into silence.

CA was asked why she was not able to tell the social worker given she was then away from the family home and said that “I’d have to still go home and F would be close to beating me to death and they didn’t do anything on the first day”. The implication of this was that she felt let down by not being removed initially so did not want to take the risk with repeating the allegation given the threats by her father. She said he had threatened to kill her and she reported that to the DSL on 27 February 2023 although it is not documented. I note that by the time CA saw the social worker there would have been time for F to have threatened her and he would, on his own account, have been aware of the allegations CA had made. F suggested in closing that there was an inconsistency between this evidence and what CA said to the social worker reported at [F59] which is that MB was “kind, caring and they have a close relationship”. That, it is said, went further than simply denying the allegations. It does but is not inconsistent with CA’s explanation of why she did not report the allegations to the social worker, exaggerating how good the relationship with MB was to undo the allegation that had been made against her is an entirely plausible response for someone who would “have to still go home” to somewhere CA felt at risk of harm if she repeated the allegations.

When it was put to CA that she was angry with MB because “this person who wasn’t your mother was shouting at you” she agreed. It was put to her that was the reason for fabricating this allegation and she said “It was to escape abusive household, maybe it was just about her because I was cross with her but I didn’t make them up”. I found this answer quite candid, she accepted some motivation to complain about MB but stuck to her guns that the allegation was true. I also note that on MB’s oral evidence all that happened to provoke what she characterises as lies to Dr Cheng was MB was saying “we are going to lose the appointment if we go [to get something to eat]…she kept getting annoyed and frustrated so I said if you don’t stop I will tell F you don’t want to wait for appointment” and she indicated that she did not speak in a raised voice. I find it lacks credibility that mild rebuke would provoke CA to fabricate the allegations against MB made to Dr Cheng; I accept she lied about a lock on the door but she gave a credible explanation for that.

F’s oral evidence was that having spoken to CA the next day or day after she explained “She wanted to go into town whilst in the walk in centre and she was upset and angry because MB wouldn’t allow that so she made up the allegations to Dr Cheng”. Again it seems a very minor irritation to provoke the wholesale lies about MB’s behaviour to Dr Cheng.

CA was also challenged about a photo at [Z76] dated 29 January 2020, a few weeks after the allegation to Dr Cheng, in which she can be seen hugging MB from behind. She said she as “faking it, if I was to act sad I wouldn’t be living on this earth, if my father had seen, F asked me to pose, I did what I was told”. I place little weight on the photo, it shows a snapshot in time not the lived experience of the child.

I note that the record made by Dr Cheng of what CA reported was fresh in his mind according to him; the notes were written up before 16.25 that day at the latest, the consultation having started around 14.26 [P3]. Dr Cheng’s record is also consistent with what was reported to have been the safeguarding referral referred to above.

Although Dr Cheng’s note is not explicit the allegation in relation to the bruise to the hand is implicitly against MB as CA said she was beaten by MB behind F’s back.

In closing submissions F reminded me the evidence of what was overheard in reception was multiple hearsay and little weight can be attached to it. I accept that. What is more important is what was directly reported to Dr Cheng by CA. On that it is said that Dr Cheng’s questions to CA are not recorded and the allegation made by CA “mirrored” what was reported from reception; I do not accept that they “mirrored” the allegation from reception to any great extent, save that they were against MB and related to physical abuse the allegations were quite different.

F also remined me of the ABE guidance about leading questions (2022 edition paragraphs 3.69 and F2.4) although I also note that paragraph 3.51 advises interviewers to move from open to specific closed, forced choice and leading questions in that order. Dr Cheng’s oral evidence was that “I try whenever I see a patient we ask open questions and then go into specifics, I try to keep it as open as possible” and later “I would have asked a mixture of open and closed questions”. I accept that there is a risk that leading questions may have influenced CA’s responses to Dr Cheng and without the questions it is impossible to form a clear view of that. However, I find it difficult to accept that CA would have been prompted to make up these allegations, unrelated to the incident alleged in reception, because of the nature of the questions and a mild rebuke in the manner described by MB or because CA wanted to “go into town”.

I also bear in mind that the nature of MB’s rebuke in the waiting area was such as to lead a member of the public to report a safeguarding concern. That is not a commonplace thing. The fact MB characterises the incident in a way that would never have justified anything but a malicious report (and there is no suggestion the reporter was known to MB) seriously undermines her credibility.

I find CA’s explanation for not reporting to the police that night (fear of F overhearing) or to the social worker at school on 7 January 2020 (not having been removed as she had hoped) are both credible. I also bear in mind that CA gave a believable explanation for having lied about MB locking her in her room. It is plain that on a cursory view of the home that allegation would not have been substantiated and CA would have known that; it is consistent with a cry for help and wanting to prompt removal. Having not been removed I can well imagine an 11 year old fearing worse repercussions if she persisted in the allegations.

On balance I accept CA’s allegation is true and find:

This allegation was a duplicate of Allegation 7 and is not pursued.

The allegation was originally dated 27 February 2023 but was amended at the outset of the fact finding hearing. The allegation is denied by F and MB.

There is no direct reference to the allegation in the CPOMS record but at [K4] there is a report of an argument about MB’s illicit use of her phone having occurred on “Saturday” which would have put the incident on 25 February 2023.

This incident is referred to in the strategy meeting minutes for 28 February 2023 when the DSL reported (my emphasis):

That would date the incident as 26 February 2023 (i.e. the day before the report to school) and that was confirmed by CA in cross-examination.

In the PIA on 28 February 2023 CA said that “Dad hit ear, it was forceful” [L21]. The police log following that on 1 March 2023 records that “CA was sat on the edge of the bed and F then slapped her with force to the left ear, causing CA to fall off the bed and into the bedside table” [L8].

In the CP medical it is said the “Last incident was 27^th February, she was hit by her father on her face with an open hand.” [F235].

The SARC medical on 13 March 2023 made reference to (my emphasis):

In her VRI CA says (my emphasis):

The erroneous dating comes from later in the VRI, the reference to Thursday would be to 23 February 2023 (my emphasis):

I note that CA was trying to recall this in interview on 21 July 2023 which may explain the discrepancy over the date between the report to the DSL and the report in the VRI. I find that the report to the DSL is far more likely to be accurate if the incident occurred at all as it is recalled as “last night” and therefore on 26 February 2023.

When cross-examined CA agreed that she was “barged into the table” because she was “pushed back with the amount of force he was using when he smacked” her and that the marks lasted for “10 minutes maybe, not extremely long but didn’t go away in an instant.”

In her oral evidence she said that the impact was to her “right cheek” and it was raised that there was an inconsistency with the PIA which just referred to the ear not the cheek but I note that in the report to the DSL she referred to the side of the head and the ear and in the VRI she said across the face. I do not consider this a material inconsistency in the circumstances. There was also an inconsistency between the SARC report referring to the left ear and the other references to right cheek or ear. It is not clear where the author of the SARC report got the information about the side from, it is not entirely clear it was from CA herself so conceivably there could have been a mistake by the author when reading the referral. There is also an inconsistency between the police log entry for the PIA which refers to “left ear” but the PIA note does not record which side. The police log entry is the day after and the best evidence is the contemporaneous note of the PIA. In closing submissions F also relied on a potential inconsistency between the police log recording a fall off the bed as a result of the slap whereas the DSL reported that “she took herself away to her room”, it is not clear if that is inconsistent if CA was in a different bedroom when the alleged assault occurred. However there is a more significant inconsistency between the police log recoding the assault in a bedroom and the VRI recording it was in the living room. Again, the PIA notes are a contemporaneous record and the PIA refers to a table not a bedside table.

Dr Rahman was asked about the allegation and said that if a grown man used the degree of force described in the VRI then “very likely” you would expect a sign of that at the CP medical on 1 March 2023; that would be 2 days later and “the description would have caused bruising and bruises take 1-2 weeks to resolve”. He also said it would be “very likely” to be visible at school unless she was covering her face completely. In answer to questions by the Guardian he agreed that the type of injury was dependent on the level of force used and he was taken to CA’s comment that only a red mark was left and he agreed that was “possible” but the likelihood of leaving a red mark and of it disappearing was smaller and the colour of CA’s skin may have made a difference to visibility but “the description of what she says makes me think she would have sustained a bruise” i.e. more than just a red mark of limited duration. There is inherent difficulty in this evidence. First, CA was recalling the force in the VRI some months after the alleged incident, second, CA’s description is vague, she initially said she flew back then that she barged into a table and I note her hand movement demonstrating the slap as more of a flap (VRI at 13:53:23), third the perception of the victim of the force of a blow is very likely to be conditioned by the surrounding circumstances and expectations of injury and an unreliable guide to force. Although CA said that it was the force of the blow that pushed her back to barge into the table (in her oral evidence) it is at least conceivable some of the momentum backwards was her instinctively seeking to avoid the blow or retreat from F’s wagging finger that preceded it.

I note that in addition to the uncertainty over a date in late February there is an inconsistency with evidence suggesting it was much earlier. The MARF dated 27 February 2023 from CA’s school describes the most recent incident involving “stepmum and dad physically” assaulting her was “two weeks ago” [Z5] and in the CPOMS entry for 27 February 2023 CA is reported to have said:

Conceivably of course CA could have been referring to the “last time” she was hit by MB rather than by F as she was talking about MB punching her in the back and as noted above the DSL reported to the strategy meeting that the allegation was of the slap being the night before so it seems unlikely she would have said that if she had been told it was “two weeks ago” or in December.

F says the following of the allegation:

I do not find Dr Rahman’s evidence rules out the incident occurring as alleged. I have already found that MB and F have not told the truth about Allegations 1-4 nor MB about Allegation 5. CA’s inconsistencies may be the result of inaccurate reporting by others or mis-remembering by her as a result of the passage of time. In particular my findings against F on Allegations 1-4 demonstrate a person prepared to resort to physical violence when angered. On F’s case MB had taken back a previously confiscated phone, was using it to communicate inappropriately with a male and had alleged an act of sexual abuse against MB which may well have provoked an angry response. On that basis I find the allegation proved on the balance of probabilities:

This was originally pleaded as 28 February 2023 by the Local Authority. There is a photo at [L104] which appears to be dated 19 January 2023 (although this is not necessarily from the metadata) which shows blood on CA’s scalp. On the basis of the photograph it seems more likely the incident, if there was one, was in mid-January 2023.

The allegation is denied by F and MB.

There are a series of photos in the bundle at [L105-L106] which show a bloody item of clothing.

There is no reference to this incident in the CPOMS record save at [K4] which records CA saying “the last time (before the head one)” which might be referring to this incident. There is an email from the Local Authority to the school arranging a review strategy meeting dated 1 March 2023 which records (my emphasis):

That is consistent with the MARF dated 27 February 2023 (my emphasis):

In her statement the DSL says:

In the CP medical report assessment is recorded as follows (my emphasis):

In the PIA dated 28 February 2023 CA is reported to have said “She pulled me, ponytail, I slipped and hit head” (my emphasis) [L18].

In the SARC report from an attendance on 13 March 2023 it is reported (my emphasis):

And on examination:

In the VRI CA describes the incident arising from the manner in which she cleaned the hob (my emphasis):

There is a discrepancy over the date of this allegation. The photo seems to be dated 19 January 2023, the MARF of 27 February 2023 says it was 2 weeks ago, in the SARC report on 13 March 2023 it was January, in the VRI on 21 July 2023 it was January. In cross-examination CA said it was 27 or 28 February 2023. Given the date on the photo is consistent with the date given in the SARC report on balance, if there was an incident, it was likely to have been then. Of course CA’s uncertainty may go to the credibility of her report, particularly the report of the incident being “2 weeks ago” on 27 February 2023.

The expert evidence of Dr Rahman is:

I note that CA’s descriptions of the mechanism of the injury are not entirely consistent: “grabbed her by the pony tail, pulled her hair, and she fell back hitting her head on the corner of awall”, “pulled her hair and she fell back hitting her head on the corner of thewall”, “dragged her by her hair following an argument she had hit her head on a wall”, “She pulled me, ponytail, I slipped and hit head” and “she grabbed my ponytail and pulled me back, which hit my head on the corner of the doorframe to the living room”. I note that pulled and dragged seem to have been used interchangeably, the impact was initially with the corner of a wall then a doorframe and fell back, became slipped, became pulled back into the hard object.

When he gave oral evidence Dr Rahman said that CA’s neck would not extend (i.e. bend backwards) to a right angle and “you need a right angle before the top of the head can come into contact with door frame” and in the scenario of being pulled back it would be more likely that the back of the head would be impacted. I asked if it was possible for an injury to the top of the head to result from a combination of extending the neck and the back, arching backwards. He agreed it was possible but the likelihood was “small” in a scenario where the parent was pulling the child backwards. He clarified that if the child was falling (i.e. slipped and fell) then that would make a difference although he later said “if she was bending backwards and falls then small possibility if hit a sharp edge but more likely if falling it’s the back of the head that would get injures”. In other words Dr Rahman cannot exclude the injury occurring as, in due course, CA described (see below).

Dr Rahman accepted that a “sharp door frame” could have caused the injury but unlikely a flat surface (such as a wall) because that would have most likely caused a diffuse injury. He confirmed a convex wall corner would be a possible injury cause (as opposed to concave where the sides of the head would bear the brunt of the impact).

CA did not hear Dr Rahman’s evidence and when she gave evidence the following day she described “as I’m going out my head was in pony tail and MB grabbed and pulled me back and I was wearing socks and slippery shoes and I slipped on floor and my head hit the corner of the archway, where the corner of the skirting was, my head hit that”. That would be consistent with Dr Rahman’s evidence of how the injury could have been caused.

As to the injury itself, CA says that it bled for 3 days [L79i/6], Dr Rahman thought it would have consolidated or dried up within a day but it could have bled if picked or was re-opened by a hairbrush. He felt it was the sort of injury that he would have expected a parent to seek medical attention for. The fact that F and MB did not means either (1) they were aware of it but were neglectful, (2) were aware of it and knew they had caused it and wanted to conceal it or (3) were unaware of it. If they were unaware of it that might have been because CA wanted to conceal it although if what CA says about the extent of the injury is correct it seems unlikely to be possible to do so effectively, if it was an entirely innocent injury she would have wished them to know so it could be attended to. There is no evidence to suggest it being caused any way apart from that which CA asserts. Whilst it is not for MB and F to prove something else caused the injury I am entitled to take into account the absence of any evidence of an alternative cause.

MB says that she does “not know why CA is making these allegations against me” [C64/11].

F says:

Since the date is most likely mid-January 2023 that rules out CA having a motivation to fabricate the injury in response to her phone being removed. It is also instructive to note that there was a delay in reporting the incident notwithstanding the photographic evidence. If the allegation was fabricated it would have taken a good deal of pre-meditation on the part of CA to have photographed an injury in mid-January to save to support an allegation made over a month later. I do accept there is an alternative explanation that the photo may have been taken for another purpose (counsel for F suggested perhaps to post on social media) and then applied later to a false allegation of abuse, i.e. CA photographed a non-abusive injury and later decided to fabricate her allegation based on the photo.

F was asked about the photos that seem to show blood on an item of clothing and said whilst he had seen them he had not asked MB about it and said “I’ve spoken with her about the [alleged] injury, I can’t keep asking” and then when I suggested to him that “not knowing about the injury is not a reason she would not know about the blood shown in the photos” he said he did not have an answer, he did not know why he did not ask MB about what the photos showed. That would tend to suggest either a startling lack of curiosity or that he knew exactly where the blood was from.

My starting point is that CA clearly suffered an injury. Whatever its cause she felt it warranted photographing in mid-January 2023. Choosing not to tell MB and F about it seems unlikely if it was caused innocently and there is no evidence of it being caused in some way other than CA alleges. The mechanism of injury is consistent on Dr Rahman’s evidence and CA’s oral evidence. Against that there are conflicting accounts of the precipitating event but I note that memory is fluid and malleable, discrepancies may arise over time because of “faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress” and on CA’s evidence this was plainly a time of heightened stress. On balance I prefer CA’s evidence when I weigh it against MB’s outright denial and F’s apparent lack of interest in the surrounding circumstances. I also bear in mind my finding against MB on Allegation 5. I find:

Denied by F and MB.

I have set out the evidence and my analysis in the attached schedule which is not to form part of any published judgment.

I find on the balance of probabilities:

Denied by F and MB.

The Local Authority rely on the allegations set out above. I have found Allegation 5 (MB injury to CA hand), Allegation 7 (F slap to CA face) and Allegation 13 (MB pulling CA’s ponytail) proved.

In the CPOMS entry for 27 February CA is reported to have said:

The note starts “Further to my MARF this morning” and at [K4] there is reference to a Word file named “MARF…docx”. I assume this is a multi-agency referral from to MASH. This now appears at [Z1]. It records “both stepmum and dad physically assault her on a regular basis” [Z3].

In the CP medical report CA is reported to have said “Episodes occur once every 1 to 2 weeks” [F235].

In the PIA CA said that “I have been getting beat up…I get slapped, punched.” [L18] and:

In her VRI CA says (my emphasis):

CA makes reference to the incident pleaded as Allegation 7 and then continues:

And then later in the interview there is the following exchange:

In her oral evidence CA said that she was punched “on my face and on my arms usually”. She was asked if she had injuries to her face and related only one occasion when she did, a bruise on the forehead but “usually no”. There is an issue of credibility about no-one reporting observable injuries. She was also asked about the reference in the VRI to her head being bashed into a window and said it was with enough force “for it to hurt” but had told the police it did not result in any marks.

The specific allegations in the PIA referred to above were not repeated in the VRI and she explained in cross-examination that “Just didn’t come to my head I suppose”.

MB says she has not seen F hit CA [C65/15].

Notwithstanding the findings above it is difficult to form a clear view of what is alleged from the somewhat vague allegations as set out above and as pleaded. I am not satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the allegation of regular physical assault is made out save in relation to the specific findings I have made above.

Denied by F and MB.

In her VRI CA says:

This allegation is even less well particularised than Allegation 8 and for the same reasons as given immediately above I do not find it proved on the balance of probabilities.

Denied by F and MB.

In the CPOMS entry for 27 February 2023 CA is reported to have said (my emphasis):

In the PIA CA reported (my emphasis):

In her VRI CA says the following in relation to Allegation 14 (my emphasis):

Later in the VRI when describing the incident that forms Allegation 7 she says:

Later in the VRI she says in relation to an incident where she was giving an account of what she said happened in relation to Allegation 9:

In her oral evidence MB accepted she would have said to CA she had lied on a couple of occasions but not that she was a disgrace, manipulative or a psychopath.

Given the limited contextual evidence I am not satisfied that the allegations of calling CA a liar are abusive as alleged. With one exception in the evidence above MB and F may have genuinely believed CA was lying and there is evidence of her in fact having lied (about the lock on her door for instance and to protect herself). The one exception is the report of F saying CA was lying about the sexual abuse but there is no evidence F had any direct knowledge of it and I can well imagine him wanting it to be untrue and believing any denial by MB so, again, there is no evidence this was abusive by F. The same is true of two of the three examples of F saying CA was a disgrace.

There is one other example of F telling CA she was a disgrace and one example of F saying CA was a psychopath. There is one example of F saying CA was a manipulator and one of MB saying she was manipulative and telling F that CA was “a bitch”.

Again, even if the allegations are true, with the limited context I cannot form a view of whether the use of the words crosses the line between something spoken in anger in the moment and regretted on one side and verbal abuse on the other. I do not find the allegation proved.

Denied by F and MB.

In the CPOMS entry for 27 February 2023 CA is reported to have said (my emphasis):

As regards books the allegation seems inconsistent with CA’s oral evidence that she was allowed to bring books home from school. As regards not watching TV I note that CA accepted the use of her iPad to communicate with friends (albeit limited to 1 hour per day) in her oral evidence.

In the PIA it is reported CA said:

She clarified this in cross-examination saying that following “recent arguments” she would be denied food for “a couple of days” and that for a couple of months MB bought separate milk and bread for CA and when they ran out MB “wanted them to last a month and if not she’d have a go and say I couldn’t have food and that’s when I would go to friend”. She was taken to the CPOMS report for 27 February [K4] which reported her saying her stepmum was a good cook which might be viewed as inconsistent but in the same sentence it is reported that “yesterday I was told I couldn’t have my stepmums food anymore”. In oral evidence she explained MB was a good cook, “it’s not every day I’m not allowed to eat food, it’s when we have arguments.”

In her VRI CA says:

The evidence in support of the allegation is extremely limited. Taking account my comments above about books and TV it is really limited to an allegation of restricting CA’s friendships, not using MB’s milk and bread and MB telling CA she had ruined her marriage or life. In relation to the food I found CA’s evidence confused and unclear, it seemed to amount to a deprivation of food for short periods as discipline and a restriction in use of some of MB’s food. I do not find this limited evidence is sufficient to prove “abusive and demeaning behaviour”. As to the evidence of MB saying CA had ruined things similarly to verbal abuse it is hard to see this crosses the line from words spoken in anger to abusive behaviour. I am not satisfied the allegation is made out

Denied by F and MB.

In her VRI CA says:

In relation to Allegation 14 CA told the police:

In respect of the second piece of evidence it is not clear if CA did in fact swear at MB in which case the evidence would not support the allegation of MB making “false allegations about CA to F”. That leaves the first short passage which absent any context is insufficient to prove the allegation on the balance of probabilities.