SCC v H-M (domestic abuse)

I am concerned with three children, MA who is four years old; CJ otherwise known as “D” who is three years old and LH who is very nearly two, one year and 11 months. MA and CJ’s mother is MJ, their father is F; LH’s mother is MM and her father is also F. LH has a sister, B, and she was subject to parallel proceedings but these were concluded and B lives with her father under a child arrangements order. If the Mothers do not mind, I will call them “MJ” and “MM” in this judgment and I will refer to F as “Father”.

The proceedings are brought by Surrey County Council and the children have been represented in these proceedings by their guardian who is Iona Story. Throughout the proceedings the children have lived with their respective mothers under interim supervision orders and F has had supervised contact with them.

I am very grateful for the assistance I have had from the parties’ legal representatives, Mr Paisley for the local authority; Ms Short for MJ; Ms Gilliatt for Father, Mr De Burgos, who has picked up these papers at relatively short notice, for MM and Ms Jenkins for the guardian. I am grateful for the care and consideration which they have given to this matter.

The local authority issued their proceedings for public law orders in respect of MA and CJ on 20 November 2023. The parallel proceedings in respect of B and LH were issued on the same date. From 29 January 2024, following the conclusion of B’s matter, MM and LH were joined to these proceedings. The local authority’s threshold document and findings being sought set out its concerns about domestic abuse between Father and both MJ and MM, together with concerns about mental health issues and drug and alcohol abuse in respect of the Father and MM.

The local authority’s final care plan is for the children to remain with their mothers under child arrangements orders. Those orders would be supported by six month supervision orders to the local authority. The local authority would also seek a prohibited steps order and occupation order in order to keep MJ safe in her home with the children and father’s contact with all of the children would be supervised with regular drug and alcohol testing and work with domestic abuse programmes.

Both MJ and MM support the plan for the children to remain living with them; MJ questions the need for a supervision order and the sticking point for her is that she remains in a relationship with Father and wants to understand the timescale for them to be back together at home and able to practically resume their relationship.

Father does not support the care plans; he wants to return home to MJ and the children and to care jointly for the children with MJ. Although he has made some admissions with regard to threshold, there remain significant aspects in dispute.

MJ and father have been in a relationship since around 2015/2016. At the time he was with somebody else and there was an overlap in that relationship for a couple of years. Father and MM met in around 2020. MM is a barber and they met in the barber shop and that relationship has, for a time, some three years, continued on and off alongside the relationship between father and MJ. It appears from the papers that the parallel relationships have been the main cause of the difficulties between these parties and are probably the catalyst for these proceedings.

Within the chronology that was prepared in MA and CJ’s proceedings, local authority involvement goes back to October 2020, when the police notified the local authority that father had been arrested for threats to kill and malicious communication. The local authority completed a child and family assessment on 12 January 2021 and MA was made the subject of a Child in Need Plan. Prior to that there had been a referral to MARAC. In May 2021 the Child in Need Plan closed and the concerns of the professionals seem to have receded.

Following a further allegation of abuse in July 2021 the local authority was once again notified by the police and a further child and family assessment was completed in October 2021, again, following referrals to MARAC. There were then two further allegations of domestic abuse to the police but the local authority was not involved again until March 2022 when another child and family assessment was completed. This recommended that the children be referred to a child protection conference which was held on 1 March 2022. They were made the subject of child protection plans under the category of neglect, that neglect was around concerns about domestic abuse and the risk that father posed to MJ and his children.

In November 2022 there was a review child protection conference. The conference determined that the children should remain on a child protection plan; MJ was unhappy about this, she said it was causing stress and that she would do it alone. Father said that at that stage he had ended the relationship with MJ.

At a further child protection plan review in April 2023 the children were stepped down to a child in need plan. The chronology reports that there had been a period of calm with no reported domestic abuse incidents, MJ was engaging well with the domestic abuse service and showing more insight into the local authority’s concerns. However, father had not participated in a domestic abuse programme.

Then in May 2023 there was a further domestic abuse incident reported to the local authority. Father was made the subject of a domestic violence protection order and he went to Thailand for 28 days during the course of the order. Another child and family assessment was completed in July 2023 and a further recommendation was made for the matter to be referred to a child protection conference where, once again, the children were placed under child protection plans due to concerns around domestic abuse and the risk that father poses to MJ and his children. In September there was a meeting with father about undertaking some work around domestic abuse. Following that, there would be a risk assessment of him. The proceedings started in November 2023.

When the matter came before me on 12^th November 2024 for the IRH the local authority did not plan to hold a separate fact finding. The local authority was seeking a composite final hearing with a care plan as described. None of the parents was seeking a fact finding, indeed, none of the parents really thought a final hearing was necessary; the only substantive challenge was that MJ thought a supervision order would not be necessary and wanted the proceedings concluded as quickly as possible.

Father did not support a fact find and thought that he had made sufficient concessions and the matter should proceed. He did not agree with the final care plan and wanted to return home. However, the guardian was more concerned, she said in her position statement for the IRH that:

“It is understood the local authority seeks contested time to seek the findings set out in their entirety; it is understood the parents do not consider this would be a proportionate use of the court’s time.

The Children’s guardian has now been able to consider the police disclosure and particularly the video footage. She is extremely concerned about the children’s experiences of having been exposed to domestic abuse and the risk of further harm in the future. Given the children’s ages, the wish of F and MJ to live together and parent the children together in the future and the potential for future litigation, thechildren’s guardian supports contested time being listed for the court to determine the findings sought by the local authority.”

That is the background against which this fact find was listed.

When I gave my ex tempore oral judgment, I did not set out the law but agreed to set it out in this transcript which I have done below.

It is a helpful starting point to consider the purpose of a fact finding hearing in family proceedings. This is set out in the judgment of Macfarlane LJ (as he then was) inRe R (Children) [2018] EWCA Civ 198 at paragraph 62,

“Reduced to simple basics, in both criminal and civil proceedings the ultimate outcome of the litigation will be binary, either 'guilty' or 'not guilty', or 'liable' or 'not liable'. In family proceedings, the outcome of a fact-finding hearing will normally be a narrative account of what the court has determined (on the balance of probabilities) has happened in the lives of a number of people and, often, over a significant period of time. The primary purpose of the family process is to determine, as best that may be done, what has gone on in the past, so that that knowledge may inform the ultimate welfare evaluation where the court will choose which option is best for a child with the court's eyes open to such risks as the factual determination may have established.”

With this in mind, I remind myself of some basic principles. Where the case it brought by the Local Authority it is for the Local Authority to prove its case – it has the burden of proving the allegations throughout the proceedings. The burden does not shift to the parents at any stage. The Local Authority must prove its allegations on what is known as the balance of probabilities. This means that the Court must be satisfied that something is more likely than not to have happened.

In Re BBaroness Hale at paragraph 70 said:

“I…would announce loud and clear that that the standard of proof in finding the facts necessary to establish the threshold at s31 (2) or the welfare considerations at s1 of the 1989 Act is the simple balance of probabilities, neither more nor less. Neither the seriousness of the allegations nor the seriousness of the consequences should make any difference to the standard of proof to be applied in determining the facts. The inherent probabilities are simply something to be taken into account, where relevant, in deciding where the truth lies”.

In Re A (Fact Finding: Disputed findings) [2011] 1 FLR 1817 Munby LJ observed “it is an elementary position that findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can be properly drawn from evidence and not suspicion or speculation”.

The Court’s task is to make findings based on an overall assessment of all the available evidence. In the words of Butler-Sloss P inRe T (Abuse: Standard of Proof) [2004] 2 FLR 838,

“Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed separately in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case put forward by the local authority has been made out to the appropriate standard of proof”.

In Re H and R (Child Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] 1 FLR 80 Lord Nicholls comments as follows,

“The range of facts which may properly be taken into account is infinite. Facts including the history of members of the family, the state of relationships within a family, proposed changes within the membership of a family, parental attitudes, and omissions which might not reasonably have been expected, just as much as actual physical assaults. They include threats and abnormal behaviour by a child, and unsatisfactory parental responses to complaints or allegations. And facts, which are minor or even trivial if considered in isolation, taken together may suffice to satisfy the court of the likelihood of future harm. The court will attach to all relevant facts the appropriate weight when coming to an overall conclusion on the crucial issue”.

I turn now to the difficult issue that confronts judges in fact findings that not all witnesses are truthful all of the time. This was recognised in R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 that “if a court concludes that a witness has lied about a matter, it does not follow that he has lied about everything. A witness may lie for many reasons, for example out of shame, humiliation, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear, distress, confusion and emotional pressure”.

In assessing credibility, the evidence of the parents and carers is of the utmost importance and they must have the fullest opportunity of taking part in the hearing. The court is likely to place considerable weight on the evidence they give and the impression it forms of them. However, as Mostyn J said in Lancashire County Council v R & W [2013] EWHC 3064 (Fam) given the fallibility of human memory and “the human capacity for honestly believing something which bears no relation to what actually happened…contemporary documents are always of the utmost importance”.

The Domestic Abuse Act 2021 defines domestic abuse as,

“(3)

Behaviour is “abusive” if it consists of any of the following—

(a)physical or sexual abuse;

(b)violent or threatening behaviour;

(c)controlling or coercive behaviour;

(d)economic abuse (see subsection (4));

(e)psychological, emotional or other abuse;”

Section 3 of the Act provides that a child is a victim of domestic abuse if a child, “sees or hears, or experiences the effects of, the abuse” and the child is related either to the victim or the perpetrator or both. Therefore, a child who is exposed to domestic abuse is also regarded as a victim as well.

I have read the trial bundle on CaseLines, I am very grateful. The solicitors behind the scenes have worked very hard to obtain all the disclosure that they have been able to; particularly from the police who were a bit slow. I have also watched the body-worn footage that was disclosed by Surrey Police and I know that one of the recordings made on 29 May is not available. I also understand from Father’s evidence, when he gave oral evidence, that he takes issue with this and considers that it has been deliberately withheld. I do not have any evidence that it has been deliberately withheld, sometimes we do not get absolutely everything but all parties have agreed to proceed with this hearing in the absence of that footage.

I have heard oral evidence from CB who is the domestic abuse worker; MGM who is MJ’s mother, so, maternal grandmother and all three parents. I am going to deal with CB’s evidence in the context of the allegations. Before I move on to the allegations, I will set out my overall impression of the other witnesses’ evidence and deal with the specifics within the analysis of those allegations.

Both MJ and MM are vulnerable witnesses and arrangements were made, while they gave evidence, for father and his counsel to attend from the vulnerable witness suite so neither mother was able to see him. The mothers were also behind screens so he could not see them. The intention was to try and ensure that they were able to give the best evidence they could in what are inevitably difficult circumstances and where they are being asked to relive traumatic events.

Therefore, turning to the witnesses themselves. First of all, MJ who is the Mother of MA and CJ. I know MJ gave evidence reluctantly and Ms Short was clear about that at the IRH. She has had some very significant health issues and Ms Short explained that she would find it stressful giving evidence. Nevertheless, she did give her evidence, she was very nervous and anxious, she did not always have a clear recollection of all the events but I am satisfied that she did her very best to recollect what had happened and to provide that information to the court. She was also prepared to accept that if she could not remember something, then if there was a contemporaneous document, it was likely to be a fairly accurate record of what had happened.

Ms Short asks me to accept, which I do, that MJ put herself through the ordeal of giving evidence for the sake of her children and that it was important for the court to have the information for their sake, even if not for hers. Ms Short also pointed out that the trauma for MJ of giving evidence could have been avoided by father if he had been more open in the first place about what had happened.

MJ has been in a relationship with the father for over 10 years and despite these proceedings and the admissions that father has made, she continues in the relationship and she wishes to continue in that relationship. Both MJ and father assert that until 2020 the relationship was good and there were no issues of domestic abuse. However, things deteriorated when MJ found out about the relationship with MM and father’s wish to try and play one off against the other. That must have been very emotionally harmful to MJ, particularly in circumstances where MA, was only five months old at the time of the first alleged incident in the proceedings. Father continued his relationship with MM for several years, including having LH in 2023. MJ tried on a number of occasions to have a break in the relationship but has returned to him after each break and her current position is that she wishes to care for MA and CJ with him once these proceedings are over.

MJ has been engaged with a domestic abuse worker, CB, since April 2022, which followed the children being placed for the first time on a child protection plan in March 2022. MJ continues her work with CB who has completed the domestic abuse programme but continues to meet with MJ on a regularly either weekly or fortnightly basis.

Unlike the other lay witnesses, I thought MJ did her very best to help the court. I think she realised the importance of the allegations for the sake of the children. I think she was very frightened giving her evidence but was brave enough to do so. It was clear from her evidence and also from her demeanour in court where she and father have sat close together throughout these proceedings, on occasion holding hands, that they remain very much in a relationship.

Turning now to MM who is LH’s mother. She gave her evidence much more confidently than MJ, perhaps she felt able to do that because her relationship with father is now over. However, she was also at pains, during her evidence, to minimise his conduct and on occasion she seemed to accept that she was partly responsible for his behaviour. She sought to withdraw this by way of closing submissions from Mr De Burgos. MM has no medical reason for not remembering certain things but she nevertheless found it difficult to remember, factually, what occurred on different occasions. She was frank in her evidence that she was trying to win father from MJ; she was also an honest witness and accepted that she had assaulted father; had broken into MJ’s home and destroyed some of her belongings, including photographs and cards that involved father. I accept that she did not know that the home was, in fact MJ’s home and that father had not been honest with her about that. MM was in a relationship with Father for approximately three years; it was on and off and during that time she was also involved with two other gentlemen.

MM has been inconsistent in relation to the allegations before the court, having accepted certain allegations in the concluded proceedings involving B in her response to threshold, she now seeks to withdraw those admissions and says that the solicitors responded incorrectly on her behalf and I will deal with that later.

I did not consider MM to be a very reliable witness. She presented in her evidence as relatively unconcerned by the allegations; she was keen to minimise the nature of the abuse in the relationship and in particular the impact of father’s behaviour on B. She struggled when she was asked to contemplate that Father might treat LH in a similar way to the way in which he had treated B as LH grew older; and she did not seem to understand that for an adult to argue with a nine year old might be seen as abusive nor that for B to have to call her father to collect her was as a result of the abuse. She struggled to put herself in B’s shoes and to prioritise her over father. While I accept the submissions of Mr De Burgos that MM is less central to the issues than MJ, I nevertheless found her approach to be concerning and minimising of Father’s conduct towards her.

Turning now to MGM, the maternal grandmother. The local authority had some difficulties obtaining a statement from maternal grandmother and in the end, she provided a letter with a statement of truth dated 2 December 2024. I am sure she attended as a witness to assist the court but in my view, she was very evasive in her answers. Her stock answer to whether something had happened was that she was not there and had only heard of it from MJ; she denied having any discussions with MJ about what had happened to her with father; she denied that the police records were accurate and while accepting that father had impacted MJ’s self-esteem, she denied telling a police officer that MJ was living with mental torture. She had a very poor memory of events, even one as significant as 29 May given the distress that her daughter was in on that occasion, the impact on MA and the attendance of the police whom she called, I find it hard to accept that her memory was so poor.

In my judgment she lacked curiosity about the sort of life her daughter and grandchildren were leading. Even on the limited admissions made by father, they were living in an abusive household, yet she did not make enquiries, not believing it was her place to do so as her daughter was an adult. That might be the case but her grandchildren are not; they are very vulnerable. In my judgment she minimised the level of abuse, was not enquiring as to her daughter’s life, was not protective and, to some extent, was taken in by Father’s charm to the extent that he was one of the coffin bearers at her husband’s funeral.

Turning now to the children’s father. It has been hard to get to grips with father’s changing position throughout these proceedings. His starting point, recorded in among other places the risk assessment, dated 13 October 2023, was that there was no abusive behaviour, that he and MJ do argue occasionally but it was nothing serious. The assessment goes on:

“F is of the belief that the local authority involvement is as a result of him being a dickhead and playing two women against each other rather than concerns about his behaviours within these relationships and the impact on the children, suggesting he does not deem his behaviour to be of any concern. He stated the local authority and police involvement was an exaggeration.”

The assessment continues:

“He is adamant he has never been physically abusive to casual or long-term partners. He expressed having recent understanding that domestic abuse was not just physical but stated if shouting was abuse then this was the only behaviour he had ever perpetrated, including name-calling, although he only engaged in this behaviour when he is on the receiving end of it from MM...” it says Martin throughout but I think it is MM, “Further, avoiding acknowledgement and placing the onus of responsibility on his partner and MM.”

The risk assessor considers that Father believes that because he has never been convicted of an offence, this demonstrates his innocence.

It was submitted on his behalf that it has taken time for him to acknowledge and accept that domestic abuse is wider than just physical abuse. However, it is clear that in October 2023, before these proceedings started, he was aware of that distinction despite, at that stage, having refused to engage with domestic abuse at work. In his first statements within LH’s proceedings and in these proceedings, he denies being abusive. For example, in his statement of 6 December 2023, he denies biting MM on the face, he says he did not steal her phone and he denies threatening to burn down the house with B in it and he says, “I certainly did not threaten to rip the baby out of her belly with a coat hanger…” He says, “… I did not say those things.”

In the proceedings regarding MA and CJ, he also denies the allegations of abuse in his statement of 6 December 2023. He says he was frustrated but not angry and denies threatening to burn down MJ’s house or to throw acid in MJ’s face. At the outset of his evidence, he confirmed all of his statements to be true and made no attempt to correct his position in respect of those statements and the aspects of them which he now says are untrue. He said the statements were true but only at the time he made them; however, it is clear from what was said in the 2023 risk assessment that he understood that domestic abuse is much wider than physical abuse.

Very belatedly he has made a number of concessions in his oral evidence but even when he did, he tended to minimise his role and deflect onto the conduct of either MM or MJ. For example, he explained that he was triggered in respect of the incident with MM on 11 July by seeing an intimate video on her phone of her with another man. He expressed this in a way that deflected onto MM despite the fact that hypocritically he was in a relationship with MJ and at that time CJ was only five weeks old.

I accept father is willing to acknowledge now that where matters were recorded contemporaneously in documents, they are likely to be accurate. This could have been acknowledged a long time ago, as could his acknowledgement of the physical abuse that he has now accepted in his oral evidence. This might have avoided putting both MM and most particularly MJ, through having to give evidence. I appreciate that Ms Gilliatt said in her position statement in November, that there we some acknowledgements of physical abuse, but nowhere is that in evidence nor is it fully reflected in the response to threshold of 31 January.

The mode of father’s evidence was very deferential but he did not come across as sincere I am afraid. I feel that he knew how he ought to behave and he had certainly adopted the right language from the domestic abuse work. Only time will tell whether that is effective and has been put into practice. He acknowledged that a lot of what he did and said was unacceptable but he often pre-empted questions that were being put to him, perhaps not wishing to address the detail of the question. Overall, I am afraid I found Father was a somewhat unreliable and unsatisfactory witness.

Turning now to the allegations themselves. I am going to deal with these in respect of first MJ then MM and then look at the overarching allegation.

The first of the allegations in respect of MJ is that on 7 October 2020 the Father made threats to kill MJ. MJ in her response to threshold accepts that this happened. Father accepts that there was a verbal argument but in his response to threshold does not accept that he threatened to kill. He does accept that in the heat of the moment he may have said that if MJ stopped contact with the children, he would kill but that was not a realistic intention. He accepts in his response to threshold that using such language is not appropriate.

MJ in her evidence put the allegation into context. She explained that she had been away with her parents, had come home a day early to surprise Father. She had found MM’s belongings in the property which was her property and she packed a bag and moved to her mother’s. At this time MA was only four months old. She said that father wanted to see MA but on the day he wanted to see her she had other plans. She had offered him contact the previous day and he was not happy. She said Father was then very abusive to her, threatening to burn the house down, kill her and throw acid in her face. The police record says that when they attended her parents’ house she was visibly shaken and highly anxious; she seemed genuinely fearful that Father would attend. However, she refused to make a statement because she was too fearful of the repercussions. It was also noted that the home was in her name and that Father has refused to allow her back in; one might consider that to be controlling.

MJ accepted in her oral evidence that she was frightened at the time and while she could not remember the exact words that Father used, she accepted that threats must have been made. She could not help the court with why she did not make a statement, she said she just wanted the argument to end and she was frightened it would escalate. Although father said he was not able to remember his exact words, he accepted in oral evidence that it was more likely than not that he said what the police have recorded. He said it was in the heat of argument and he was frustrated because he was not able to have MA when he wanted. He said he lost his temper and he agreed that it would have been frightening and shocking for MJ. He said he now accepts that it is abuse. I consider this is an excuse and he would have known by at least October 2023 that this was abusive. He could have been frank in his evidence and his responses. He did not accept that MJ was scared to make a statement, however, he did say that she might have been frightened that he would go to MM. Again, having that threat hanging over MJ is also a form of abuse.

I find that this allegation is proved as pleaded.

Moving on to the allegation of 6 January 2022, the local authority alleges that Father assaulted MJ by strangling her, biting her hand and pouring rug cleaner over her; further he left the property taking all the house keys. Again, MJ frankly accepts that this incident happened, although she says that Father did not, in fact, pour the rug cleaner over her but threatened to do so. Father’s response is that he accepts biting her hand and pushing.

In her oral evidence, MJ said that she and Father had been to London; when they got home, she saw MM leaving the property. The children were with her mother. She said she was upset and went to bed leaving MM and Father shouting. In the morning when she went into the living room, she saw that MM had defaced the pictures of her and Father, pictures had been ripped up and all the cards that she had kept from Father had been torn up and her handbag had been tipped out on the floor. She said that she told Father it was not acceptable and they had an argument about MM. She said she did not remember the specifics of what happened next but remembers the threat to pour cleaning fluid down her top. She explained that she phoned her mother after the argument and she walked back to the house with the children. When her mother arrived, she was still upset. While she did not remember the details of the argument or the injuries, she accepted that the level of violence shown would have placed her at real risk of harm and that the police evidence suggested Father had lost his temper.

She went on to accept that the police record is likely to have been a correct account of what she told them. The police statement is prepared by PC J and I am afraid I did not know whether PC J was male or female, I am sorry. I have referred to her or the PC as “him” which is perhaps a little bit old-fashioned but there we go. So, PC J has prepared a signed statement, dated 6 January which is the same day as the events. The PC reports that when he arrived at MJ’s property, MJ was there with the children and with the maternal grandmother, Father had left. PC J records that MJ told him that there was a row the previous evening which culminated in Father throwing her clothes out of the window. The row continued the next morning and MJ told Father she wanted him to leave. She said that Father, “Got a bit violent and slammed my head into a window and then grabbed my throat. He then tried to pour Rug Doctor cleaning solution down her throat.”

PC J noted redness on MJ’s throat and redness to her left palm. MJ alleged to PC J that Father was trying to bite her face and that was how he bit her palm. The police officer took photographs of the injuries, a bite mark to the hand and a reddened area of the neck. MJ also reported further acts of domestic abuse such as pushing her into walls and causing bruising to her arms and reports that the violence is getting worse. She considers that father uses the children to get at her by taking MA out of the property without warning. However, she was also clear that she did not wish to press charges, nor did she wish to give a statement as she considered that that would make things worse. She packed up her belongings to go to her mother’s and said they would go and stay there for a time.

The maternal grandmother, who is recorded as telling PC J that father subjected MJ to mental torture, did not remember or accept that that was what she had told the police officer but she did accept that she told him it had impacted on MJ’s self-esteem and that she had seen the father shout at her.

In cross-examination on behalf of Father, Ms Gilliatt very fairly took MJ to the police record of 17 January 2022 in which she says that she had lied about the allegations due to being angry about the affair with MM. She said she wanted to speak to father and she wanted to get back together again. In response to Ms Gilliatt MJ said she did not remember the conversation with the police officer in which she told the police officer she was lying and it was suggested by Ms Gilliatt that the whole incident or the record of the incident was a lie. However, that is completely contrary to the admissions that have been made by father who clearly accepts that there was an incident, that he bit the Mother and that he pushed her; it cannot be that the whole incident was a lie.

In his oral evidence the father agreed that there was an argument about MM coming to the property. He accepted that he had given the key code to MM or the code to the key safe to MM, even though it was not his property and he was not the tenant. He was not sure if he had thrown MJ’s clothes out of the window but he thought it might have been on this occasion and he certainly recalls doing it on one occasion; and he accepted that the argument continued into the next day. He deflected the argument from himself saying that the incident occurred because he was trying to leave and MJ was preventing him from doing so. He accepted that he had bitten her hand but again suggested that this was somehow in self-defence as she was coming at him from behind; but I cannot see how that would make sense or how he would come to bite the palm of her hand if she was approaching him from behind. He was shown the photographs of the redness to MJ’s neck but said that he could not really see it on the screen and he acknowledged that he might have caused the injury by pulling her hoodie or he might have put his hands round her neck to move her out of the way; he said he did not have a great memory of the incident. He was very reluctant to accept that by taking MA away he was involving MA and was causing more distress to MJ but again he justified it by saying that he did not think that mother was, at that moment, in a fit state to care for MA but he does not acknowledge that the reason she is not in a good state and is very distressed is as a result of his actions. He did reluctantly accept that his actions might have been frightening.

On the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that MJ was injured by Father. Even on his own account he accepted it was possible he put his hands around her neck to move her out of the way. His account is very vague and he says he has a poor memory of events. In those circumstances I prefer the account recorded by PC J which is contemporaneous with events. The argument had clearly started the previous evening and the fact that there was an argument was down to father. He had allowed MM access to MJ’s property by giving her the code to the key safe. On the balance of probabilities and given what he said in his oral evidence I find that it is likely that it was that occasion when he threw her clothes out of the window. MJ was understandably very upset that MM had been in her property; not only had been in her property but had damaged her property and had violated it. She was clearly distressed by that. I am satisfied on the following morning, 6 January as part of the argument that they were having, father did grab MJ round the neck and caused bruising and redness. I do not feel that this was done because MJ was trying to prevent him from leaving the property. I consider he lost his temper with her rather than his account. I am also satisfied MJ’s account to the police that he was trying to bite her face and so she put up her hand to protect herself is more plausible than the rather unclear explanation from Father that he somehow came to bite her hand when she was approaching him from behind.

Both parties agree, and I will not disagree with this, that the Rug Doctor liquid was never actually used but I do accept that there was a threat from father that he would do so. He gave a somewhat confused account of them throwing cleaning materials across the kitchen. I do not find that to be the case, there is no evidence of cleaning materials being found thrown around the kitchen and I think it more likely that he made the threat that he would pour the liquid over MJ.

As far as the keys being removed, there is really no evidence about this apart from the fact father said he took the back door keys and the police officer said that he took the keys. I accept that not all the keys were taken but he did take the back door keys, these seem to have been the most important keys as it was the back door that was used by these parents to get in and out of the house.

Moving now to the incident on 29 May 2023, the local authority alleges that there was a violent domestic incident during which MJ texted the maternal grandmother and told her that Father had tried to kill her, that she was injured by Father banging her head against the wall causing a lump and that MA was aware of that incident, both children were at home. Further, that Father had put his hand across Mother’s mouth and grabbed her by the throat to restrict her breathing and told her that he was going to kill her. It is further alleged that father had a baseball bat and threatened to destroy her phone. In the schedule of findings, the local authority pleads this as two separate incidents, one on 29 May and one on 31 May, however, I do not think there is any dispute between the parties that this was a lengthy incident which all occurred on 29 May.

It is MJ’s case that this incident occurred following father taking CJ out for the day. MJ agreed that he could. She understood that he was having a boys’ day out with his grandfather and his father, however, she discovered that during the day he had taken CJ to MM’s house. She telephoned and wanted him to bring CJ back, which father did eventually. When he returned there was an argument. It is clear that father considered MJ had interfered with what had been a planned day and had overreacted to him going to MM’s; it was father’s case that he was simply going to MM’s to take her some shopping.

The incident seems to have continued. When father got back, he came through the garden and the children were playing in the garden. He left CJ with MA in the garden before coming into the house and into the kitchen. The argument with mother then escalated. Father said that mother was screaming and he put his hand over her mouth to stop her screaming. In her oral evidence she did not disagree with that; she said that he also put his hand at the back of her head and she tried to back away, when she did so she fell over the airer in the hall and hit her head on the doorframe which caused a lump on her head. When she was giving evidence for those who could see her, she very graphically demonstrated with both of her hands what it was like.

Father then went back outside followed by mother. MA is said to be standing in the doorway of the kitchen on the outside, the glass is frosted and she says, “Mummy are you okay?” She is worried and on MJ’s account she was worried for several days after this incident and kept asking if she was okay and, “Did daddy do this?” Father then locks the door with himself and the children in the garden and takes them away from the house, on his account, for a short walk or to the shop and he was away for five minutes or so. At some point MJ phoned the maternal grandmother and is very upset and she calls the police; that might have been at this stage or it might have been later, it is really not clear from the various accounts at what point mother called the maternal grandmother. By chance, the maternal grandmother is already on her way because earlier in the day mother had contacted her because she was upset that Father had taken CJ to see MM. Father then, this is on the parents’ case, the Father then returns and begins to set up a barbecue in the garden and shortly thereafter the police arrive. The maternal grandmother’s account is that the police told her not to come to the property until after they had arrived and she parked her car a little distance away.

Father has a somewhat sketchy recollection of events and has changed what he accepted on a number of occasions. In his response to threshold, he denies the physical allegations but accepts that there were verbal arguments. He does not accept that MA said anything without prompting. He accepts, however, that he may have put his hand over MJ’s mouth at some point to stop her screaming but not to stop her breathing. He also accepts that he may have pushed MJ to stop him leaving and she may have fallen. In his oral evidence he said he could not remember texting to say that she was an unfit mother after she had asked him to bring CJ home but it seems that he accepted that he might have done. He said there was an argument because he had been at MM’s and MJ was upset. He accepted that he was frustrated because the argument was about him seeing MM and he accepted that he put his hand over Mother’s mouth but denied it was with an intention to hurt her but to keep her quiet as she was screaming; he did not think she would have been in fear of him. He tended to minimise her fall saying it was over the airer as she moved backwards and away from him. He refused to accept that MJ might have been scared if he thought the report to the police had come from her and he just said that he could not answer for her.

The most helpful evidence from this incident is the police evidence and the body-worn footage is particularly telling. MJ is very destressed and appears very frightened. She clearly does not feel free to speak; it is very clear from the way in which she is speaking to the police officer in the bedroom, at times she whispers and at times she is clearly very anxious about saying anything. She is shaking and she is visibly very distressed. The police record that when the maternal grandmother arrived, she asks MJ why she is covering for Father and she then says, “You are scared as bugger of him.” The body-worn footage is upsetting to watch as MJ is so anxious, shaky and distressed.

When the police speak to father, he gives a different account to the one he gives now about going out with his father which is clearly the one that the Mother understood. He tells the police that he had planned a day out with MM and LH, taking CJ with him and he said that he knew it was likely to cause an argument, said he had been open about it and he said he had not touched MJ, they had not had any physical contact apart from sex in the morning and a kiss; that is his first account of matters to the police. The police officers note the incident to be a high risk one.

MJ goes to see CB, the domestic abuse worker on 31 May. CB has worked with MJ for over two years and in these proceedings, she has produced three statements, two at the beginning of 2024 which set out the programme of work that she has done with MJ. Within one of those statements, she says that:

“Research shows that it takes on average seven attempts to separate before a victim or survivor can escape an abusive relationship. Escaping an abusive relationship must be viewed as a process, not a single act and escaping the relationship does not necessarily end the abuse. Stopping the abuse must therefore remain the responsibility of the perpetrator. MJ states that she wishes to remain in a relationship with F at present but is aware of the above should the relationship end.”

Her evidence is that MJ can recognise the abuse that has been perpetrated against her by father and is able to identify behaviour patterns within her relationship with father.

Her statement dealing specifically with the events of 29 May is dated 3 February and she was very clear in her oral evidence as to how she had prepared the statement. She does not take notes during the sessions as she considers that would be intrusive but she does make notes immediately afterwards and she was confident that the statement she had prepared, drawn from her notes, would be an accurate account of what MJ had told her. In response to questions from Ms Jenkins, she said that she had provided a safe space for MJ to talk and to relate her experiences and she felt it was an opportunity for MJ to be honest and to talk freely. I thought CB was a careful and very conscientious witness, I am confident that she has built a relationship of trust with MJ and that MJ was able to work with her and be open with her.

CB sets out in her statement a detailed account of what she was told by MJ about the events on 29 May and it is therefore relatively contemporaneous with the incident; MJ accepts that it is likely to be an accurate account. CB reports that MJ was very tearful throughout the meeting which, in her experience, was unusual She reports that MA saw the incident and had been talking about it; the notes record two parts to the incident, one where MJ says that she was pushed to the floor and she banged her head against the wall causing a lump and it is this that she believes MA either saw or at least heard; the second part was Father putting his hand over her mouth, grabbing her by the throat, restricting her breathing and saying he was going to kill her; she also recalls that Father picked up a baseball bat and threatened to smash her phone.

In dealing with findings in respect of this incident, there is considerable confusion. Neither parent has a clear recollection of what occurred; MJ obviously has some issues, in any event, with her memory and Father seems to have accepted different aspects of the incident as the case has progressed. I have to make a decision about what happened, on the balance of probabilities and taking account of the wide canvas of the evidence before me. The most reliable evidence, in my view, are the relatively contemporaneous accounts from the police, the body-worn footage and the statement from CB. I also note that the grandmother was present in the latter part of the incident but was not a witness to anything that took place.

Therefore, on the balance of probabilities, I am satisfied that first of all, the Father had arranged to go out with CJ and had made the arrangement with MJ. As part of that outing he was going to see MM and LH, as I say there are two versions within the papers one that he is going out with the grandfather as well and one that he is making an arrangement to go out with MM and LH which is what he told the police; but either way he is, during the course of that day, going to take CJ to see MM and LH. MJ was upset about this and did not consider that he should be spending time with MM, nor was she happy about him taking CJ. He ignored her views. I am satisfied that he did call her an unfit mother in text messages and was dismissive of her views about bringing CJ home; it would have been interfering with the arrangements that he had made for the day.

Moving on to the events themselves, upon his return MA was either in the garden or went out into the garden to play and CJ was out there too. Father was in the house and there was then a violent incident between MJ and the Father in which Father pushed MJ and she fell to the ground and banged her head hard, raising a lump. I do not disagree that she may well have fallen backwards over the airer as both parents seem to accept, but that was as a consequence of being pushed. Father then took the children away and he said that that was because she was unfit to care for them because she was so upset. He did not take responsibility for the fact that the reason she was upset was because of his actions.

I am also satisfied that what MJ told CB was most likely the sequence or the next sequences of events, that when he returned from taking the children for the walk or to the shop, he then shut the children in the garden and came back in and there was a further incident in the bedroom and that is when he put his hand over the Mother’s mouth to stop her from screaming; it is very clear from the body-worn footage following the events that she was terrified and was shaking from that incident.

Father then went back out into the garden where he proceeded to get on with setting up the barbecue and that is where the police found him when they attended. It seems to me most likely that mother called the grandmother after the incident in the bedroom, that seems to have been the occasion that was most frightening for the mother.

MA was clearly very disturbed by what she had heard. Both parties accept that she would have heard screaming. It is not known why she thought MJ had banged her head but she was around the house during all the trauma of the police being there, certainly Father’s view is that she was told it by a police officer, she may have overheard an adult speaking about it, she may have worked it out because MJ’s head was hurting and had a bump on it. I do not make a finding that she saw it, I think it is unlikely that at three years old she would have come in, seen Father pushing Mother to the floor and banging her head and then gone quietly outside again and closed the door. I think she would have been very distressed at the time had she seen it occurring. It is much more likely that she could hear screaming and shouting from outside and then heard something about Mother bumping her head and that would have been very frightening for MA and very damaging.

I find that during the course of this incident Father did make verbal threats to kill and that MJ was very frightened. I do not make a finding about there being a baseball bat; the police were in the property, there is no evidence of there being a baseball bat, however, I do accept that Father threatened to smash Mother’s phone, he accepted that in his evidence.

Without any doubt, this was a very frightening and violent incident. It took place while the children were on the property and in circumstances where MA heard screaming and knew that her mother had been hurt. There is evidence that she was very disturbed by it and MJ gave evidence that she kept asking about it for the next few days. That is attributable to the actions of the Father who sought to minimise them in his evidence and to deflect attention from his actions on to Mother whom he thought should not have been disturbing his plans for the day and whom he said was screaming. He then deflected on to the police whom he said had put the ideas of him injuring Mother into MA’s head. While he said that he understood that these events should not have happened, I am not clear to what extent he accepts his own responsibility for the events of that day. The evidence that the court has seen and also watched in the video shows that Mother was scared of father. She clearly did not want him to think that she had reported him to the police; the maternal grandmother did not want to speak to the police by the Ring camera which father had access to and father’s attitude regarding taking CJ to see MM and LH, was dismissive of mother’s views and feelings. All of this in my judgment shows an element of control by father over the mother.

Following that incident the police obtained a domestic violent protection order and Father removed himself to X country, only returning when the order had expired. On his return, he made contact with MJ in order to see the children. He said in his oral evidence that in 2023 she might have been frightened of him but he did not think that she was now. He also thought that she might have been frightened because she was worried that he would wish to renew his relationship with MM.

Turning now to the allegations that concern MM; the first one is on 31 October 2020, the local authority alleges that the Father threw MM across the room causing bruising. This allegation seems to be derived from police disclosure following a different incident in July 2021, and the July police log records:

“There is a previous ABH disclosed in October and November 2020. This was not reported where he picked her up and threw her across the room causing her whole shin to be bruised. She does have photos on her phone, however, cannot supply them as he has the phone. This was not reported to police.”

There is no other evidence for this allegation and both parties deny that any such event occurred and in those circumstances, I do not make any finding in respect of that allegation.

The next one that concerns MM is 11 July 2021 in which the local authority alleges that while MM was pregnant, Father bit her, stole her phone and threatened to burn down the house with her oldest child in it and to rip the baby out of her belly with a coat hanger. She had an injury to her face and a raised mark to her lip. In her response to threshold MM accepts this allegation. In the response to threshold Father says he accepts the verbal argument and he accepts smashing the phone. He denies the rest save that he says that he bit her lip accidentally as MM was trying to kiss him.

In oral evidence MM accepted that Father had seen a message on her phone from another man with whom she was being unfaithful. Father says it was an intimate video. MM did not go as far as to concede this but I think it is likely that it was. She said she tried to persuade Father that she was not having a relationship because she wanted their relationship to work. She was very light on the details of what happened and kept saying that she could not remember. She denied being frightened or shocked by what had happened but said that she was surprised, more with the situation than with him. She kept emphasising that she was not worried by him and she was not scared of him. Several times she said that she liked him a lot. In cross-examination from Ms Gilliatt, she accepted that it was possible that Father did not mean to bite her and that she had said she had goaded him slightly; however, she was certain that she thought he was going to kiss her but instead he bit her. She seemed very anxious in her evidence to minimise the incident and while I accept that Mr De Burgos has, to some extent, sought to retract that minimisation, nevertheless that was the evidence that I heard.

The account that was given to the police on the day paints a very troubling picture, including arguments between MM and Father about the image on the telephone before Father went out; he then called her and told her to stay where she was and she was sufficiently worried about being in the house that she went and sat in the car. She reported that Father returned and was screaming at her, “Do you not know what I am capable of?” and threatened, “I will burn the house down with you and B in.” She told the police that he grabbed the phone; Father says that she was trying to show him that there was nothing on it to be worried about and handed it to her. In any event, however it was, he took the phone from her. She then went round to the back of her car to get her phone back and she told the police that he then leant in towards her and she thought he was going to kiss her but, in fact, he bit her lip. She told the police, “As he has let go of the lip, he has said something about he should have bitten her lip off.” She said that he left in his car with the phone. The police were able to note an injury to her face with a red raised mark on her lip. The police also note that there are reports that he said, “Next time I see her I will rip the baby out of her with a wire coat hanger”. It should be noted that he did not believe the baby was his. The police were also told that he had snapped her phone and had thrown it out of the window. The police, again, assessed the risk to MM as being high.

In Father’s final evidence dated 23 July 2024 he disputes the necessity for a non-molestation order saying, “Nor have I acted in any aggressive or abusive way towards MM to warrant maintaining it.” In Ms Gilliatt’s position statement for 11 November it is said on his behalf that he accepts he bit MM on the lip albeit not intentionally and in his response to the composite threshold he accepts that there was an argument, that he smashed the phone but he does not accept the rest save for the bite which he says was accidental.

In his oral evidence father accepted he was angry, that he had lost his temper. He also accepted that the abusive language is something he was likely to have used although he could not remember it precisely. He accepted that he had destroyed her phone, he had snapped it in half which obviously would take considerable strength, it was a smart phone. However, he continued to deny that he had gone to kiss her and then bitten her lip. His account was that he was in the car and she came towards him and he thought she was going to kiss him. He was not at all clear about how a bite could be accidental and he denied having any knowledge about the injury.

As far as the findings are concerned, I find that there was an intimate video that father saw, he was very angry and left the house. MM was frightened when he said he was coming back and she went and sat in her car. On his return he was shouting at her, using the abusive language that is pleaded by the local authority. He took her phone and when she went to retrieve it, he leant towards her as if he was going to kiss her and bit her on the lip sufficiently hard to cause an injury to her lip. I do not accept that this was accidental. He also snapped her phone in half and made threatening comments about what he would do to her to third parties. Again, this was very violent and aggressive behaviour. It is a second incident of biting which seems to be something that Father has inflicted on both MJ and on MM and while there is no finding being sought in respect of that he also accepts that there was an occasion when he was driven home by MM’s sister when he was drunk and she alleges he bit her finger. He does not have any recollection of that but that was the allegation; I do not make any finding about it, merely to say that there was a further allegation of biting.

Turning now to 14 December 2021- rules of the relationship. The local authority alleges that Father texted MM rules of relationship which are set out in the social work chronology for B’s case.The alleged rules are that MM is not to speak to X person; that, I think the parties are agreed, is someone called P; not to speak with any male you have previously been with; to provide all passwords and PIN numbers to social media and Google accounts and banks; to change your profile picture when I tell you to; to change jobs before 2022, MM was working in a barber’s shop; and, “To treat me like the king and I will give you the world.” The local authority further allege that Father required MM to obtain a Ring doorbell.

In her response to the threshold in B’s case, the allegations were accepted save for the request in respect of the bank account details. MM now denies that there was any such text. She says she cannot remember receiving it. Father says there was no such text. However, they both agree that some of the rules were requested and accepted, for example, not to speak to MM’s ex-partner, P; they agreed that they would discuss changing profile pictures and agreed that father had said, “Treat me like a king and I will give you the world.”

On behalf of father, the local authority has been asked for a copy of the text message but it has not been provided. The social worker who prepared that statement no longer works at the local authority and father has complained about that social worker who seems to have produced the chronology, it is attached to her statement. It must therefore follow that MM and father are suggesting that the social worker has simply made this up as being something that MM said on 21 December.

The text message is in quotation marks and while I accept that that does not mean anything by itself, it is an extraordinary suggestion that something like this has simply been fabricated by the social worker. The local authority has not been required to produce the social worker to give evidence, as far as I am aware, despite the allegation being in the local authority threshold since the outset of the proceedings.

Father accepted in his evidence that he was jealous and his reaction, in July 2021, when he saw the video of another man was very extreme in the circumstances. I do therefore consider that it is likely that this text was sent, I have to decide on the balance of probabilities; I find it significant that while MM withdraws her acceptance now, it was not a blanket acceptance in B’s proceedings, she had clearly considered the matter because she expressly said that the text was accurate apart from the bank details, so, she had given it some thought. I do not think solicitors would just make that aspect of it up. I also find that it is likely that father asked MM to get a Ring doorbell but she is clear that she never did and there is no suggestion that father was in some way observing her through any sort of doorbell device.

Overarching Finding 1that the children are suffering and are likely to suffer neglect, physical and emotional harm due to exposure to domestic abuse, a feature of the mothers’ relationships with father and their failure to protect the children from the same.

I find this allegation proved. There has been serious and significant abuse in the relationships. Further, with regard to MJ both CJ and MA have been exposed to the abuse and to police callouts at their home; that would have been harmful to them. MA has been exposed to direct abuse having heard and learned about the injury to her mother in July. This clearly distressed her. MJ failed to protect her, as did father. MM has also been subject to domestic abuse, both physical and emotional; B who is not a subject child has been subject to abusive behaviour by father, however, I do not find that there is any evidence that MM has failed to protect LH in these proceedings.

I also find that father has behaved in an abusive way that is controlling and coercive. He has manipulated both women and played one off against the other, in particular manipulating MJ into fearing that if she does not comply with his wishes he will go to MM; he accepts that this was one of her fears. He has allowed MM to have access to MJ’s property by giving her the key access codes; this has meant she was able to access MJ’s home and destroy property. On occasion he has removed MA and CJ from MJ’s care without her agreement and at times he has called her an unfit mother, describing her as being, at the time, unfit to care for them. This is often when she is very distressed as a result of his actions.

In addition, there is a record in the chronology in MA and CJ’s proceedings that the social worker discussed with MJ that father threatening to take her to court if she refuses contact or for him to take the children away on holiday is likely to frighten her into agreeing to his demands.

Overarching allegation 2, the parents’ inability to work with professionals and support services. MM does not respond to this in the threshold document and it does not appear to be actively directed at MM. She has agreed with the professionals what was best for B and she has ended the relationship with father. In the risk assessment with the psychologist JS, which was done in April 2024, she said she had been working with the domestic abuse worker for two to three years, was doing structured domestic violence work with her; she also said that in the beginning she did not want to work with Social Services but said that her mind-set had shifted and that she does now see the benefit. I do not make any finding about MM refusing to work with professionals.

I accept that MJ has worked well with CB, the domestic abuse worker; I also accept from the evidence from CB that change takes a long time and is difficult. I believe that MJ has done her best to work with professionals but has found the process very difficult in circumstances where, despite all her knowledge and experience of father, she cannot separate from him.

However, she has consistently refused to provide support for police action in respect of the abuse she has suffered. She has responded by saying that she finds reliving the experiences very traumatic. By not providing support she is enabling father to continue his actions. Further, I am satisfied on the evidence that she is fearful that if she supports police action it will be worse for her from father. This is clear from a number of statements that she has made to the police. I say statements, I mean conversations she has had with the police and records made by the police. I also note her very fearful attitude, particularly on 29 May. I accept the submission made by the local authority that on 29 May she wanted father to understand that it was the maternal grandmother who called the police, not her. She was very clear that she was worried about what might happened if father thought she had called the police. I also note that she did not support the making of the domestic violence protection order as, again, she thought it would be worse for her. She told CB that she was worried that the DVPN will only make matters worse because she feels that father’s anger is just going to build up over 28 days.

In my judgment, while MJ did find it difficult to work with the police, this was through fear and control, not her own choice. She was frightened of father and did not wish to make the situation worse at the particular times when the police were involved.

Father accepts that at the start of the proceedings he did not wish to undertake any work as he felt he had done nothing wrong. He had consistently refused to engage with domestic abuse work prior to the proceedings. For example, in June 2022 the domestic abuse worker noted that father told the domestic abuse worker he was not willing to continue with the programme because he does not think there is anything wrong with him; father has no insight into his behaviour and how it affects MJ and the children. Father would have benefited from the programme; however, he was unwilling to engage and unmotivated.

Given the concessions he has made and the understanding he showed in October 2023 about the nature of domestic abuse, it is hard to see how he could possibly have thought that he had done nothing wrong; he relies on the risk assessment with JS in his response to threshold to demonstrate that he has done some work and showed some understanding; however, even in this assessment he is not honest, stating that in the incident with MM in July “she had attacked him and that in the context of this he bit her lip”. This, to my mind, does not show much acceptance or ability to work honestly with professionals. However, to his credit, during the course of these proceedings, he has engaged with domestic abuse work and in the parenting assessment which is dated 12 June he shows some insight. The assessor records that

“recently F has been able to develop some insight into understanding the impact of his behaviour during the course of attending the Better Me Better Us programme. It has been noted in the post-programme report that F agrees that there has been an effect on his children due to his behaviour in the past and clearly that is very positive if that is put into practice.”

Therefore, as far as the findings are concerned, I find that Father has participated in work but it has been done late in the day and he has not always been willing to work with professionals, nor has he seen the necessity for doing so.

As far as the parents’ mental health issues are concerned, which I think is allegation 3, I have not heard any evidence on this; Father accepts Dr JS’s diagnosis, so, I do not think there is anything further to be said on that issue.

Overarching allegation 4 relates to criminality and exposure to parents’ substance misuse issues and the likelihood of harm as a result of exposure to the same and the impact of this on parenting ability.

There is no suggestion that MJ has misused any substances, nor does she have any criminal record.

Both father and MM accept drug use which they describe as recreational or, as father said in his evidence, a release from stress and in particular the stress of these proceedings. Both have provided hair strand tests in the past but both have had issues providing the court with any further hair strand tests; their previous ones were both positive for drug use. MM says that she has not had one carried out despite court orders because of the impact on her hair which she says is very fine and the previous tests have affected it; she said she would be willing to undergo other forms of testing and she said in evidence that she would be willing to undergo one further hair strand test before the proceedings conclude.

Father has only ever been able to provide very short hair for testing and I think on one occasion the hair was too short to even take a sample; so, there has never been any sufficient hair to provide any sort of meaningful testing. At the hearing in January, he agreed to undergo further testing; in the position statement for this hearing Ms Gilliatt said that there had been issues in collecting the hair, however, it transpires that he refused to have a hair strand test done because in the past it has caused bald patches.

In my view drug use and its impact on children is really a welfare issue and it goes to the parents’ ability to care for the children and to provide them with safe and secure care, sometimes despite parents’ drug use. It would be naïve of the court to say that every parent who provides adequate parenting is drug free. That is a nonsense in this day and age; however, it is important that any parent is able to provide proper and adequate care for their children.

At this stage I am not proposing to make any additional findings in relation to drug use save for those that are already admitted by the parents and are both in the schedule and the admissions that they made during the course of their oral evidence. I am going to give both father and MM a further opportunity to have testing done before the matter concludes at the welfare hearing and I expect that to be a proper and appropriate length of hair that is undyed and unaffected by external sources. The court will then be able to take a proper view and an up-to-date view of what their drug use is. I just say this because I am told time and again that parents use cocaine recreationally. I would point out that cocaine is a class A drug, it is illegal and if you are using an illegal drug, you must be obtaining it from someone who is a criminal and that in itself is clearly a danger to children.

I am afraid that has been rather long but that concludes my fact find and I think drawing all the threads together, in my judgment both MM and more particularly MJ were and are in an abusive, controlling and coercive relationship with father and he has failed to recognise the impact on his children of them having to live with that abuse. That concludes my judgment.