A (A Child) (Fact Finding Hearing), Re

I provide this judgment after a 5-day fact-finding hearing heard between 21^st and 25^th July 2025. At the end of submissions there was insufficient time left to do justice to the evidence and arguments placed before me and so I reserved judgment.

I have considered the hearing bundle which contains 1655 pages; a number of audio and video files; wide ranging instant messaging between the parties and evidence from each of the parties together with supporting witnesses. Finally, I have considered both the written documents and the final submissions made by experienced counsel for each party.

This judgment does not set out my views on every issue in disputed between the parties. To do so would be wholly disproportionate and unnecessary. Whilst I keep all the evidence in mind I focus on the key aspects which have shaped my decision making. The duty which falls on me is to provide a judgment which informs the litigants as to the decision I have made together with an appropriate account of the rationale for that decision. It is not my role to navigate and resolve every dispute arising between the parties on the papers.

This hearing proceeded on a hybrid basis reflecting the Court’s use of participation directions to ensure a fair hearing and to reflect vulnerabilities. I make clear the use of such directions should not be understood to suggest the Court has pre-judged the issues in the case. The key participation direction permitted the respondent to attend the hearing on a remote basis, save for when she gave evidence. When giving her evidence the applicant and intervener were not to be in Court but were provided a conference room which enabled regular updating instructions to be given. I permitted a communication line to be left open between each party and their respective counsel during the hearing. I am satisfied these participation directions ensured a fair and effective hearing for all. Both the respondent and her witness were assisted by an interpreter. The Driver (see below) gave evidence remotely from ZZ through an interpreter. I applied the decision in Newcastle CC v JK and Others (Care Proceedings: International Abduction: Evidence from Abroad) [2025] EWHC 1767 (Fam). There was no objection taken to admitting the evidence in this manner.

I heard evidence from the following individuals and identify the labels I will apply to them within this judgment. I intend no discourtesy where I use first names, this reflects the manner in which the party was addressed within the hearing:

The proceedings commenced on 31 July 2024 when S applied to the High Court, B having left the family home with A. He sought prohibited steps, passport, Port Alert and whereabouts orders. He noted the police and social services were aware of B’s location but would not disclose the same. He raised allegations of physical/emotional and psychological abuse of A by B. I am told the application also asked the court to exercise its Wardship jurisdiction but I cannot locate the source of that suggestion.

The proceedings came before Henke J. on 31 July 2024. A prohibited steps and whereabouts disclosure order was made. On 21 August 2024 Henke J. deemed the Wardship application to be an application for child arrangements. The Judge discharged the prohibited steps order on an undertaking from B, maintained a Port Alert for three months and transferred the case to this Court to be heard by a District Judge. A date for a FHDRA was identified on 2 December 2024.

On 15 November 2024 I extended the Port Alert on the papers. On 2 December 2024 a Deputy District Judge reallocated the case to Circuit Judge tier and listed a further hearing before me on 31 January 2025. There has been judicial continuity since that point.

On 31 January 2025 I determined a fact-finding hearing was required and directed relevant evidence and fixed a PTR and fact-finding hearing in May/June 2025 (4 days). I made ancillary orders including relating to whether the PGM should be joined as an intervener. At the PTR I joined the PGM as a party. I determined the case could not be dealt within 4-days (with hindsight this was correct), vacated the final hearing fixing this hearing and a further PTR. I made provision for some digital material to be subject to expert analysis.

On 30 July 2024 B applied for a non-molestation order against the PGM. A without notice order was made on 2 August 2024. At the return date on 27 August 2024 the application was compromised on undertakings without findings or admissions being made. On 25 November 2024 B issued a non-molestation application relating to S. This has been consolidated with these proceedings but no separate order has been made to date.

I give an outline of the background to the case. I will return to the detail when I consider the allegations below.

S is aged 34 and B 31. S is British and B [native of XX]. They met in ZZ in late 2020. S is employed in the banking industry and continues to work out of ZZ. B had a 3-year visa to remain in ZZ. She had previously modelled and claims to have been teaching yoga at that point in time. The parties commenced an intimate relationship shortly after and B fell pregnant in mid-2021. The parties disagree as to whether this was planned or not and as to the status of their relationship at around this point in time.

In December 2021 the parties travelled to England and held an event which gave the impression of a marriage but was not a marriage. In [ ] 2022 B again came to England in anticipation of her upcoming delivery date. The plan was for her to give birth in this jurisdiction. A was delivered prematurely shortly after her arrival.

Between [ ] and early May 2022, S, B and A lived with the PGM at her home and thereafter, following stresses in the household, until Mid-June 2022 in a local hotel, before returning to ZZ. It appears the PGM may have returned with them and spent subsequent periods visiting the parents in ZZ.

In April 2024 B and A travelled to England and moved into the home of the PGM. On 23 July 2024 B left the home with A. S returned to this country and the proceedings commenced thereafter. S has not had direct contact with A since this date. His has applied for interim contact which has been limited to welfare reports and video updates pending the resolution of this fact-finding process.

It appears S is contending A should live with him. His foundation for this is the allegations he has raised within these proceedings as to the care, or lack of the same, given to A by B and her conduct towards A, the PGM and himself. I am asked to make a number of findings against B within this judgment.

B has applied to remove A permanently from the jurisdiction so as to return to XX. Her foundation for this application is linked to the allegations she makes against S and the PGM as to their treatment of her. She asks me to make findings against both S and the PGM within this judgment – see below.

The PGM is an intervener only. She was given this status so as to defend herself against the allegations made by B. At the same time, she supports S’s case against B and is a witness in that regard. She does not seek specific findings against B although she has made allegations.

The law concerning fact-finding is not controversial and is applied in the Family Court every day. This hearing is not a welfare hearing and A’s welfare is not my paramount consideration. Her welfare will take centre stage during the next part of the proceedings once facts have been determined.

In a fact finding hearing a Court seeks to determine whether an alleged event happened or did not happen. The Court will only concern itself with matters which have a realistic potential to impact on the child arrangements likely to be ordered by the Court: K v K [2022] EWCA Civ 468.

If person X says person Y did something then person X has to prove this happened. Person Y does not have to disprove the allegation. Person X will prove the allegation if they demonstrate it is more likely to have happened than not happened. This is called the balance of probabilities. The same test is applied irrespective of the nature or perceived seriousness of the allegation. If person X shows this to be the case on balance then the allegation becomes a fact. If person X fails to show this is the case on balance then the allegation is wholly disregarded.

To decide whether something happened the Court considers evidence not suspicions, speculation, or anecdotal observations. The Court can draw reasonable inferences where appropriate and can where relevant rely on the inherent probability of an event occurring. But this should not be thought to modify the application of the simple balance of probabilities. The Court should be careful though when relying on inherent probability alone as by its very nature fact-finding cases will often involve allegations which might be thought to be inherently unlikely but such inherent improbability must give way to the actual evidence and the context found by the Court, see the observations of Lady Hale in Re B (Children) [2008] UKHL 35 (§72)

When considering the evidence, the Court should take a holistic approach and should not consider each allegation in a separate compartment. The Court should regularly step back and consider how the evidential pointers impact on each other. Ultimately the Court should avoid a linear approach to fact finding. It is by no means uncommon for a provisional view on one allegation to shift markedly when other aspects of the case are brought into consideration. This does not mean that findings made with respect to one allegation may not inform the Court when it is considering other allegations. A clear finding as to a given event having taken place may inform the Court as to whether other alleged matters took place, However, the simple determination that allegation X occurred is not by itself sufficient to prove allegation Y also occurred.

In this case I should have particular regard to the evidence of the parties. Their evidence should be scrutinised with rigour. I can have regard to the manner in which evidence was given. Demeanour is a valid part of any assessment. However, the weight to be given to demeanour should be approached with care. Ultimately any assessment must be based on the evidence received including the essential plausibility and consistency of the same when considered against the other evidence in the case.

In considering the available evidence regard can be had to the wide canvas of evidence which extends beyond the direct evidence relating to the matters in dispute.

Finally, the Court may reach a conclusion a witness has told lies in the course of their evidence. But this does not mean that witness should then not be believed generally or that this should be automatic proof of responsibility for the act alleged. An established lie can only be relied upon to establish responsibility with respect to the matter alleged where; (1) it is established to have been a deliberate lie; (2) relates to a significant issue, and; (3) was not told for a reason other than one which points to that parties’ responsibility for the act. This means the Court should be astute to the potential for a party to tell a lie to hide shame or as a result of embarrassment or for some other reason which has nothing to do with whether they did what they were alleged to have done.

In this case all parties allege domestic abuse. It is helpful therefore to provide an overview of the key concepts that fall for consideration. In considering this part of my judgment I particularly draw on the judgment of the Court in Re H-N and Others (Children) (domestic abuse: finding of fact hearings) [2021] EWCA Civ 448. I also have regard to Practice Direction 12J Family Procedure Rules 2010 (“PD12J”).

The Court will only investigate allegations where the determination of the allegation is likely to or may reasonably be believed to have an impact on the consequential child arrangements ordered by the Court. In this case all parties agree this is the case. There is no doubt fact finding was needed in this case.

It is now well understood that non-child adult-related domestic abuse, is nonetheless very relevant in considering the welfare of the child caught between the parents. Children exposed to domestic abuse suffer real harm at an emotional level whether or not they are directly caught up in the physical risks associated with the events. Children who do not directly witness abuse but hear it, are nonetheless at risk of being damaged by the event. Too often a Court is told a child was in bed or out of the room in which the event occurred and that they were not harmed as a result. This is more often than not rejected by the Court mindful of the reality for a child of hearing a physical altercation between parents and actively fearing the worst. That a child is very young and therefore cannot understand or be affected by domestic abuse is also to be rejected. Young children are acutely sensitive to the emotions of their parents and can be equally impacted whether or not they can ‘understand’ what is happening.

Inter-adult domestic abuse can also have a significant impact on the child even where the child did not witness the abuse at all. This is because the Court has to consider the potential impact on a caring parent of continued involvement with a perpetrator of domestic abuse. PD12J specifically requires a Court to have regard to such impact where the Court finds domestic abuse established. This recognises the potential for indirect harm to a child where the child’s care giver is negatively impacted out of a continuing relationship through contact with an individual who has previously acted abusively towards them.

PD12J provides helpful definitions of the key concepts as follows:

Central to the modern definition of domestic violence is concept of coercive and/or controlling behaviour; see particularly F v M [2012] EWFC 4 (per Hayden J.) and the following point made (§4):

But not all unpleasant behaviour will be viewed as domestic abuse. As Peter Jackson LJ observed in Re L (Relocation: Second Appeal) [2017] EWCA Civ 2121 (§61):

“Few relationships lack instances of bad behaviour on the part of one or both parties at some time and it is a rare family case that does not contain complaints by one party against the other, and often complaints are made by both. Yet not all such behaviour will amount to ‘domestic abuse’, where ‘coercive behaviour’ is defined as behaviour that is ‘used to harm, punish, or frighten the victim…’ and ‘controlling behaviour’ as behaviour ‘designed to make a person subordinate…’

I generally reference the schedule of allegations placed before me in this case. There are multiple allegations raised by B against both S and the PGM, and equally multiple allegations raised by S against B relating to both A, himself and the PGM. This is a case in which there are a significant number of specified examples placed before me for consideration in addition to which there is a generalised complaint of a pattern of behaviour throughout the relationship. In this section I will first give an overview of the generalised complaint raised before then providing a chronology of the identified specified matters.

S contends B has been neglectful and abusive towards A throughout her life. This neglect/abuse included being heavy handed with A causing her pain and bruising; inappropriately scolding her and shouting at her; exposing her to erratic behaviour and explosive outbursts and failing to attend to A’s distress for extended periods of time. He complains her care of A was neglectful including leaving her in soiled nappies and clothing for extended periods; failing to properly treat her when injured; failing to appropriately nourish her and failing to ensure her hygiene.

At previous case management hearings, I refused to allow S to plead as elements of neglect: curtailing his relationship with A by removing her from the home; fabricating allegations against the paternal family and preventing a relationship. I did so because they would be caught in any event by the spectrum of matters placed before me and would be the likely and natural consequence of not finding certain points raised against S. However, I also refused to hear allegations that B was neglectful by not permitting a specialist private medical assessment of A post-separation; failing to enrol her in a private nursery, and; compromising her quality of life by subjecting her to living in a refuge. This last point reappeared in a form before me but I remain of the view that these were not matters which went to fact-finding whether or not they were ‘facts’.

Turning to B’s conduct other than to A, S alleges verbal abuse throughout their relationship including shouting, swearing, and denigrating behaviour towards him. B’s behaviour is said to have been often erratic, explosive and on occasion racist in character. I note the paternal family are of [Asian country] origin. S alleges B’s behaviour was coercive and controlling in that she established a relationship with him on false pretences; misled him as to birth control to become pregnant; exploited him financially; threatened him with suicide or to take A away if he did not meet her demands. She is also said to have destroyed his property. B is alleged to have been abusive to the PGM.

The sense of S’s case is that he was trapped in a relationship he no longer wanted when B fell pregnant. That the relationship was engineered to financially benefit her and that in the subsequent relationship she was consistently erratic and abusive in her manner and behaviour. This was notwithstanding the high level of love and support given to her not only by S but by his family. He supported B financially and supported her links with her family by funding travel. He was told by B that her background was one of poverty and exploitation. Prior to meeting him she was a sex worker/involved in the sex industry. She had mental health issues and highly erratic mood swings and a history of serious drug misuse. Throughout their relationship it was he and his mother who was forced to act to protect themselves. In reality it is B who is the highly abusive and neglectful parent and her allegations against him are to deflect attention from her own behaviours.

There is a high level of symmetry in the counter allegations. B contends it was S who was verbally abusive throughout the relationship. He would shout and swear at her becoming angry and losing his temper on a regular basis. In such moments he would name call and use derogatory terms. This would often be in the presence of A. He would degrade and humiliate her making her feel completely worthless. In the latter part of the relationship his undermining extended to her ability to budget. Within the relationship he was sexually abusive expecting B to meet his sexual demands without regard to her own wishes. This was an aspect of his coercive control. The allegation of coercive and controlling behaviour was also exercised through access to funds which were restricted when he was critical of her conduct. He actioned the quasi-marriage ceremony and therefore relied on it to exploit her. B complains S placed expectations on her with regard to A and was abusive when she did not meet his standards. She gives examples of not dressing the child in a manner he approved of. He was also physically abusive on a number of occasions. B raises generalised allegations against the PGM. She is said to have been abusive to B using similar abusive and denigrating language to her son. She alleges an instance of physical abuse towards the end of the relationship and a threat to kill.

The overview sense of B’s case was that she entered the relationship with optimism and that the couple planned a future life including planning for A. However, this situation was then undermined by the dynamic between S and his mother which led to B being isolated and mistreated. She now views this child arrangements application as a plan to separate her from A and contends the family were happy for her to be removed from the jurisdiction by not supporting her visa claim with A remaining here. She is clear S’s allegations are themselves a deflection from the truth of his abusive conduct towards her.

The following fit into the generalised narrative and are aspects of the same;

I have a wide range of both audio, written and visual evidence. I have the statement evidence and a variety of supporting exhibits. I also have the tested evidence of each witness. As I hope is clear the above items are aspects of the broad picture alleged by each party. S points to the bruises, the constipation, and other matters to evidence neglect. Elsewhere he alleges behaviour in support of his allegations of conduct to both him and his mother. In equivalent terms B draws on these specific allegations to put her broad allegation into context. Plainly, the resolution of aspects of the detail will inform the generality.

I repeat the key legal propositions in this regard. Witness demeanour is relevant and may shed light on the fact-finding process but must be approached with care. This is particularly so where evidence is given through an interpreter or a witness is not giving evidence in their native language. I have to be mindful that nerves and anxiety may impact on the quality of evidence as may the stress of the proceedings. Some individuals lead professional lives in which they develop enhanced communication skills and an ability to better manage stress. Others are wholly unprepared for the Court arena and find it beyond daunting. It is my job to take this into account when assessing the weight, I can attach to the manner in which evidence was given and the extent to which it might assist me. I cannot improve on the view of Peter Jackson LJ in B-M (Children: Findings of Fact) [2021] EWCA Civ 1371 where he observed (§25):

I keep in mind this is stage one of a two-stage process. It is obvious that what I decide here has potentially profound implications for the second stage. I bear in mind B wants to relocate to XX whereas S opposes the same and argues for A to live with him. These second-stage issues have a real and obvious potential to shape both the evidence given by each witness and the manner in which it is given. All family members have ‘much to lose’ if matters go the wrong way from their perspective. This may consciously or sub-consciously impact on their evidence, their recollection of events and the way in which they come to fill in the, to be expected, gaps in recollection. Furthermore, in this case many of the events were potentially highly emotional and events during which a party may have been in fear of harm with likely impact on their focus during the event. This combination of circumstances also needs to be seen in the context of the accounts being told and retold on a series of occasions with the potential for some ‘story creep’. This means there is a potential for an account to be fundamentally honest but with elements which are not plausible or consistent with other surrounding evidence. An account might be essentially truthful even if one aspect of it is plainly incorrect. With all of that in mind these are my brief observations.

Fact finding in the domestic arena is a challenging process. Most cases and most allegations occur in circumstances in which the parties are alone without independent third-party evidence available to help the Court find a resolution to the dispute. Secondly, the events as alleged will often raise high emotions which will impact on recall and the narrative history given. Third, parties may shape or construct their evidence with an eye to the outcome they are seeking. Fourthly, allegations will often not arise until many months or even years after the event in question which impacts on a fair resolution of the dispute surrounding the event but does not absolve the Court of applying the binary test as to proof.

But the Court does receive elements of real evidence by which I mean photographs, videos, CCTV and the like. Whilst these are only part of any assessment and must not be elevated inappropriately they may on occasion assist the Court in cutting through the fundamental dispute between the parents. Where a Court considers a document of such nature is particularly valuable it should explain why it has placed weight on this but must remain mindful to scrutinise all the evidence to ensure this reliance is not misplaced. An example might for instance relate to the weight that is given to an audio recording and the need to temper that weight by the potential for such a recording (conducted covertly for instance) to have been staged or the circumstances manufactured to the benefit of one of the parties.

This is a holistic analysis but a judgment is by its nature a linear document. Analysis must be laid down in a linear format. I confirm I have reflected on all that follows in a holistic manner before reducing the same to a written format. In doing so some of my provisional views have been reshaped and I have come to recalibrate my understanding. What follows is the end result of that deliberation.

I found the evidence surrounding this event highly informative in shaping my understanding of the parental relationship. I remind myself both parents allege volatility and control on the part of the other. S argues it was B who was abusive, erratic, and explosive in her emotions. B says it was S who could not control himself. This event casts S in a very negative light and I judge informs my understanding more widely for the reasons given below. It certainly sits very comfortably into B’s description of S.

B explains the adults/A were leaving the apartment in ZZ when a concierge at the building smiled and waved at A. S then had an outburst which is recorded and placed before me. A was present throughout as was the Driver. B suggests S was very aggressive and this is an example of his general behaviour towards her. S accepts he acted inappropriately but contends this arose because B provoked him by calling him a ‘faggot father’ and by placing A at risk from unknown strangers. In his live evidence he suggested an individual in the foyer of the building or thereabouts had somehow come into physical contact with A and that person might have been a sexual predator. In his written evidence S explained:

I wholly reject S’s account. His explanation is frankly implausible, most unlikely and does not fit with what I hear or the evidence more widely. I have listened to the recording carefully. S is extremely aggressive, threatening, and abusive towards B in the presence of A and the Driver as follows (emphasis mine):

I find:

There is little factual dispute with regards to this event. S was going on a business trip and B was helping pack his bag. It seems agreed she didn’t pack matching trousers and jacket. S accepts he used inappropriate language and claims B ‘intentionally’ packed the wrong trousers. This led to a heated instant messaging exchange. This is exhibited by B [153] and runs to 6 pages of screenshots. Over 6 pages S denigrates B referring to her among other things as a

This is a deeply unpleasant exchange. The real sense is of S’s anger coming through the messaging. He is demeaning of B and seeking to ridicule her. Sadly, this is not an isolated example. There are multiple instances in this bundle of such abusive words and descriptors being used. S was questioned whether on one occasion he was calling B a ‘retard’ and appeared to suggest this was an offensive phrase he generally bandied around including to his mother. I did not find this persuasive and it was clear to me he was seeking to avoid the clear impression of him as someone prone to bullying and denigration as a form of abuse.

I found this and other episodes of this sort really worrying in the context of B as a rather isolated individual wholly dependent on S and his family. My concern is that demeaning language of this sort may have fundamentally undermined B’s sense of self-worth and made her an easier person to control. So, this was both deeply unpleasant behaviour but also concerning through the prism of domestic abuse. Taken alone it might just fall within the cautionary words of Peter Jackson LJ above but viewed through all the evidence it takes on a more worrying role in my assessment. This was sustained event of bullying and abusive words with a tendency to undermine self-worth. I reject the notion that B acted intentionally. For reasons found within this judgment I do not consider she would choose to provoke S in such a manner. I prefer her evidence in such regard.

It is sensible to deal with these five allegations together as it is suggested they demonstrate a pattern of neglectful care.

There is good evidence that on each of these occasions A suffered a personal injury leaving her with a bruise or bump. In the course of the hearing B would not accept A had suffered a ‘head injury’ but accepted she had been bruised. My sense was that this was a terminological dispute of limited relevance to me given there was no real dispute as to what I was being asked to assess in each case. B was accepting the injury seen in the photograph but was not accepting the label attached to it. For my part I accept the description of this being a head injury as suggested by S but take little from the labelling dispute.

There is no evidential dispute arising. Indeed, it is noteworthy the evidential foundation for each of the above is B messaging S at work to show a picture of the bruise or bump suffered by A contemporaneous with the message. Between the parents, at that point of time, the events were not considered sinister or referenced openly as neglectful. B appears to have notified S in an open and transparent manner and S appears to have accepted the explanation. I appreciate that in his evidence S describes a growing level of concern leading to him imposing his mother onto the setting a supervisory presence. But none of this can be discerned from the contemporaneous messaging.

I of course bear in mind that children do suffer falls and perfection, including supervisory perfection, is not expected from parents. I note each injury was sustained in the period when A was between about 12-20 months of age. This is of course a period when most children are finding their feet and falls are to be expected. In reality children of this age do suffer bumps and bruises and to an extent this is an expected consequence of the child developing important skills. It is possible for a parent to ‘helicopter’ their child to prevent such injuries but it at least debateable whether this is, taken in the round, positive for the child.

On the facts of the case, the various injuries occurred in the care of B. But I do not find that any of these incidents whether considered individually or in combination evidence conduct on the part of B that touches on fact finding or indeed the welfare analysis. They appear to me to be instances which parents come to expect from a growing child. The parents’ response in the moment reflects that. I bear in mind there is otherwise evidence of good care on the part of B within the papers. I also bear in mind the tendency to such injury appears to have dissipated as the child progressed out of this developmental stage.

I have separated these two events from the other ‘injuries’ as they are plainly more serious in character and in each case raise a question of adequate supervision whereas the previous items are in many ways almost inevitable and unavoidable to some extent.

In each of these cases the narrative is given by B and was shared with S (as above) promptly and so far as can be seen transparently. In each case S was naturally and unsurprisingly concerned and expressed an appropriate response. But nowhere in the extensive messaging is there anything that fits with his current utilisation of the event as grounds for questioning B as to neglect. In simple terms at the time S was concerned but accepted the explanation and the event for what it was.

Almost by definition there is likely to be an element of neglect in both the chair incident and the burn. On B’s account the chair fall happened because she left A unrestrained in the chair while she turned around and, as children do, A climbed out and fell. In the burn case A was able to climb onto a counter and reach for the kettle causing water to spill on to her. The question for me is as to the relevance and significance of the same for a fact-finding process. I can of course find that B erred on this occasion, I am not sure she is disputing that. But S is not seeking to prove a moment of error. He is seeking to prove culpable neglect of the child.

I have considered these together and reached the following conclusions:

I have reflected on what might be viewed as the weaponisation of these points given they were not treated with such significance at the relevant time. In making this point I have regard to S’s evidence that he has covertly required his mother to be present to safeguard A but that point has to be balanced by the very clear willingness of S to leave A with B whilst he worked both before and after these events. I have been left with a residual concern, to which I will return, that these points have only been raised in these proceedings as an offset to the allegations made by B.

B has/had an [native of XX] friend in ZZ called C. C did not attend the quasi-wedding event and it seems agreed was not told about B falling pregnant. It is agreed the PGM met C when visiting ZZ but there is disagreement as to the quality of their relationship.

B alleges the PGM acted in a manner to isolate B from her friend. This is in the context of general isolating behaviour on the part of the paternal family. In contrast the PGM contends her communication in April/May 2022 was geared to seeking support for B by reconnecting the friends.

I did not hear evidence from C. I have screenshots of various messaging between C and the PGM. It seems these have been supplied by C to B. S argues this is only a selection of what might have been provided. B tells me this is what she has been given. I do not lose sight of the fact the PGM was the other end of the messaging conversation and should logically have access to the same.

There is a further feature of the case which I will return to below once I have addressed this allegation.

The allegation stands to be assessed on the face of the messaging supplied [913-925]. On my assessment B’s account is to be preferred for relatively simple reasons:

But I am not persuaded this actually makes out the allegation raised. My strong sense from the messaging is that the PGM was not seeking to isolate B in communicating with C, although that would be a natural consequence of the content of her messaging. Rather, it seems clear she was seeking to obtain negative information about her. I remind myself this was at the point where B had left the PGM’s home as it was too stressful to remain there. It was in this context that the PGM was reaching for information about her. It is clear to me that from an early stage in their relationship the PGM was forming a negative attitude towards B.

I have pulled this allegation out from the general category raised by S as it is intrinsically linked to the C communication.

Within the written evidence S started by suggesting there was evidence that B had in some ways acted in a manner which might suggest she was an escort. Later in the statement evidence he referenced her, as did the PGM and Aunt, as a sex worker or working in the sex industry.

It needs to be made clear that S does not suggest he met her via the sex industry or that she was in any way engaged in the sex industry at any point during their relationship. Rather he appears to suggest this may have arisen around 2018, many years before they met. It is important to make clear B wholly denies the allegation.

B makes clear she has worked in the modelling industry and that in the course of the same there are some shots of her in which her breasts are exposed. She makes clear this was in no way pornography. She accepts these shots have found their way onto the internet on porn sites but not at her instigation.

S/the PGM’s case is that it was C who informed them of this fact during the messaging noted above (whether in a written message or audio call). The message cannot be seen in those disclosed. They pointed towards B’s Instagram page and links to the same which S claims relate to escort services. S has been able to download the photographs cited by B and claim they are evidence of his claim.

Shortly before the final hearing S applied to introduce these images into the case. I heard this application as a preliminary issue at the commencement of the hearing and refused the admission of the same. In doing so I considered the principles set out by Knowles J. in Re M: private Law Children Proceedings: Case Management: Intimate Images) [2022] EWHC 986 (Fam). I gave a reasoned decision. In summary I could not understand on what basis the images would have relevance to my decision making even if they showed what they were purported to show. I felt there was some unhelpful circularity to the argument. It was argued (1) B had been engaged in the sex industry (was a sex worker) some years prior to their meeting (2) That she did not disclose this to him when they met and therefore had obtained the relationship using false pretences (3) That she was now lying about her history and the images were required to prove this as this would go to her credibility.

I determined there was no possible relevance to B’s sexual history prior to their relationship whether or not this had a commercial element to it. Further that were she to lie in denying this then it would be challenging in the extreme to suggest this lie had any relevance to the facts in dispute when there was an alternative and obvious (Lucas based) explanation relating to embarrassment. In short I could not see how viewing naked images of B would help me in any way.

However, I could see how the admission of the same, indeed the suggestion of admission of the same, might have a negative and unhelpful impact (for the purposes of the hearing) on B. For her to know the Judge and advocates had seen her naked – whether or not the pictures were put to her – would be obviously impactful upon her and potentially on the quality of the evidence she might give. S chose in his statement to provide the web link and claimed the photos were accessible by following the link. Again, little thought appeared to have been given to the impact this would have on B. It seemed to me this point could have been made without actually supplying the link and thus leaving B unsure who in Court had gone on to view her naked. In resolving the issue, I understood counsel for B was viewing the application as continuation of abuse within the proceedings and I said I would have to reflect on that.

My determination of the application relating to the imagery did not remove the allegation of sex work from the case. In the course of the examination B was clear the images did not show her genitalia, with such area being covered. She accepted she was naked but covered albeit topless. She made clear these were fashion photographs not pornography. I raised this point with counsel for S and enquired whether it was to be suggested that B was wrong and that her genitalia was on show in the photographs. I was not told it was. I was left with the clear impression that B’s response was credible and that S was inappropriately utilising this point.

Having now heard all the evidence I have been left of the view that this feature of the case was raised in such a way as to intimidate B and impact on her in the period shortly before the final hearing. It had been made clear she was a very anxious witness and whilst S might not accept that, it seems to me this strategy was one which would likely unsettle an already anxious witness. I am clear in any event it could have had no material impact on fact-finding.

I would pause at this point to observe the findings so far considered have largely been possible on a direct consideration of contemporaneous real evidence (messaging and audio). It has been relatively easy to resolve the points without a close examination of the competing accounts. I will now move onto the allegations of physical abuse. In each case there is a direct conflict between what S, B and the PGM claim to have happened. Resolving this will bring into consideration their evidential conflict. Nonetheless there remain some significant contemporaneous records which assist.

This happened in the apartment in ZZ 2 months after returning from London. A was about 5-months of age and she, B, S and the PGM were all present in the apartment. B alleges S and his mother were criticising her for something she can no longer recall. S’s behaviour escalated and he broke some of her belongings. She relies on photographs of a broken laptop and tablet. He opened a parcel from her mother containing things for A, threw the contents on the floor and spat on them. B says unusually she spoke up for herself and looked to his mother for help. This led to S grabbing her by the throat and strangling her whilst pushing her against a wall. She suffered no injuries but it hurt and she was shocked. She agrees she kicked an air purifier when S left the room. B relies on instant messaging in support of her account. There is evidence of her reporting the property damage to her mother on the same day.

In his evidence S denied any assault on B or shouting or breaking items. He says B became angry when offered advice by the PGM. He says B angrily approached the PGM and was hitting herself in anger. This is an allegation S repeats as happening on a number of occasions. He intervened to calm the situation and she started hitting him on his chest. To protect himself he raised his arms and pushed her away in the area of her chest and collar bone. He says she broke the items which belonged to him. He also attaches messaging surrounding this event. The PGM gives an account that fits with what S reports and says she did not see S do anything other than attempt to calm B down and stop hurting everyone. She also notes messaging that she argues fits with her account of B being aggressive.

Within the messaging B repeatedly complains about being grabbed ‘from’ the neck. She accepts she broke the purifier but denies hitting S. Her messaging is in line with her account as given. At one point S apologises for the neck. For his part S claims to have been hit and when this is denied states that ‘retards don’t remember’. He also states that she hit herself and then him. In his live evidence S maintained his account. He agreed his forearm was across her neck to restrain B. In live evidence it was suggested to B she was pulling her hair. She denied this saying she was holding her hair in frustration.

This incident occurred in the apartment with S, B and the PGM present. B claims the PGM was sitting on the sofa when S became angry for a reason which she can now not recall. He was shouting at her and put his hands on her arms and pushed her into the sofa and was shaking her with a strong grip on her arms. As he pulled his arms away he caught her face by her eye. It hurt and she ran into the bedroom and locked herself in. S tried to get into the room and was banging on the door telling her to open it. B could feel her face had swollen. B relies on a photo she messaged to S of her face and a message she sent to her mother about what had happened.

S says it was B that was angry earlier in a call that day before telling him to shut up and ending the call. On arrival home she was abusing him, attempting to punch him to the face and scratching him. He restrained her in self defence and she went to the bedroom before returning to resume her assault. His hand did not contact her face. He questions whether B self-inflicted the injuries or whether she is in fact injured noting historic issues with her eyes and swelling. The PGM agrees there was an incident and gives an account in line with S save that she claims S was actually punched to the face (rather than attempted to do the same). A was present and upset and she took her to a room.

I have read the lengthy messaging conversation relating to this occasion:

In her messaging to her mother at 14:16 B reports being attacked and hit. That she is locked in her room. That S was in a bad mood, started to talk to her badly and pushed and hit her.

In her live evidence B characterised this as the most serious of the assaults she suffered. It happened in ZZ with S and B present in the apartment.

Her account is that on this occasion S planned to take A out alone. This concerned her but he would not listen. She dressed A but S complained she had dressed her in a ‘poor people’ outfit. As a result, she went to change her and this took some time which upset S. He was yelling at her and calling her stupid. She responded by flicking him with some water and told him he needed to ‘calm down’. He exploded and ripped the sweater he was wearing that she had purchased, threw it to the floor and spat on it. She left the bedroom for the kitchen and S followed her and pushed her causing her to fall over a child gate. She fell on her back and was in a lot of pain and fearful. She got up and picked A up. S followed her and slapped her across the face. She left the apartment and asked for the police to be called but when they arrived they told her it must have been something she did to make him react. She went to the hospital and was in pain with bruises on her legs. She exhibits photographs of her face and legs. She relies upon messaging that followed the event.

S explains it was B who became agitated when he planned a day out with A. She became upset and swore at him. She pulled the sweater off him. At this point he was using a hairdryer and this is when she threw water over him. He pushed her out of the room and she tripped slightly over the gate. He questions whether the bruises could relate to this incident. In live evidence S agreed that although B ripped the sweater he ripped it off. He agreed B was hurt but denied kicking her or that she went to hospital.

In the messaging B calls S ‘a bully’ and an ‘abuser’. She references him ripping the sweater and complains she has a ‘strong pain in my back and neck’. She indicates she wants to go to the doctor. She says he ‘started yelling for the clothes I put on A’. S says she is the abuser and is a ‘leech’. He says he ripped the sweater because he is disgusted by anything received from her. When asked when he is coming so she can go to the doctor he says he isn’t until bedtime. He tells her to leave him alone and calls her a leech again.

The photographs show B with a reddened cheek [148]. There is the impression of a central white area and linear lines above that. The marks appear consistent with a slap. She has bruising to the inner lower legs.

In considering these points I have considered evidence raised by S of occasions when B has damaged or threatened to damage property. Mention was made of the apartment being destroyed. I have seen messaging in which B is complaining that S is not there and will cause damage to the apartment lobby. I have also seen a video of a different day to that on which the apartment was said to be destroyed as evidence of her behaviour. I generally did not find this evidence particularly helpful. The video showed the apartment in a messy condition with one chair on its side but not such as to be said to be destroyed or indeed obviously damaged. The messaging with respect to the lobby has an obvious context to it. This was in the month before B was due to travel to London to have the baby and was thus heavily pregnant. She is plainly upset that she has been left alone to lift bags. She is obviously upset and angry.

I have listened to messaging including voice notes from B in which she is screaming at S. It is not clear from the messaging when this exactly was. I have also viewed photographs which are said to show evidence of B having self-harmed. I was not assisted by this as one can see two photographs taken in a short time period and the marking are dissipating. It seems more likely, as claimed by B, that this is simply reddening as a result of stress in the moment.

I have of course reflected on the broad evidence as to behaviour and conduct and considered to what extent that sheds light on these matters.

On balance I have preferred the case made by B to that put forward by S and the PGM. I have found that S has misconducted himself broadly as alleged and in doing so has been both verbally and physically abusive to B. I also find that the PGM was present on occasions and will be aware of this abuse but has chosen to give an account which is not a truthful account of what took place in support of her son.

I particularly identify the following points in reaching this conclusion:

In summary there is surrounding evidence which fits better with S as an abusive partner who is regularly verbally abusive and threatening. An individual who loses his self-control when B acts in a manner with which he does not approve and particularly when he feels slighted in some way. In each of the above cases there is contemporaneous documentary evidence which fits more comfortably with the account given by B than S. Reversing this around if the account given by S was consistently correct then it is surprising in the extreme that the other evidence shows him to be the person resorting to abuse rather than her. Having considered all of the evidence my conclusion is that S made counter allegations to deflect from his own conduct rather than as a result of the complaint being correct. I accept in the likely tussle B may well have been hitting out in self-defence. It may be such a response which has founded the ingredient for S to exculpate himself. But my judgment is that on each occasion it was S who was acting in the wrong.

Turning to the PGM she was present on two of these occasions. As I have made clear above she has already demonstrated an ability to close her eyes to abusive behaviour on the part of her son. I cannot avoid the conclusion that on the two occasions when she was present she knew very well that it was S to blame but in support of his case to obtain her grandchild has lent herself to a false set of allegations. In reaching these conclusions I have regard to my findings when I consider later events in the chronology.

On 11 July 2024 A was suffering with constipation and was in some distress. In the course of that day, she was taken to A&E but then brought back to the PGM’s home before being seen by paramedics at the home. The paternal family argue B minimised the seriousness of the circumstances whereas B argues the PGM exaggerated the seriousness of the circumstances. Although there is some dispute about timing, B says on that day prior to hospital attendance she was punched by the PGM and that after the paramedics left later in the day the PGM threatened her by running a finger over her throat. I heard evidence from the PGM, B and the Aunt. There was also messaging evidence and other documentary evidence.

The allegations surrounding this event are as with much above cross allegations. B is alleging physical and verbal abuse, this time from the PGM. S is alleging neglectful care on the part of B. The neglect is in the care leading to the constipation but also in the response to the situation.

The PGM in her written evidence made clear it was she who had insisted on the ambulance (paramedics) being called given A’s visible ‘pain and distress’. This had occurred after she had driven B and A to A&E earlier in the day. However, they had left the hospital at B’s insistence due to the wait times. This was not a situation of ‘normal constipation’ and B was minimising the health risk to A. The Aunt was present and she made calls for ambulance assistance at the behest of the PGM.

The Aunt provides a supporting statement. In her written evidence A was ‘severely dehydrated’ and crying in ‘agonising pain’. She came to the home urgently as B was ‘downplaying the situation’. On arrival she could see A was in ‘excruciating pain’ and was shocked at B’s lack of concern. She then explained the process she took part in which led to A going to A&E, returning home and the ambulance being called. She was fearful for A’s health. She left prior to the arrival of the ambulance as she was finding it too ‘traumatising’.

S was not involved in this process being at work at the time. His information comes from those who were present. But he notes A was suffering with ‘severe dehydration’ and ‘acute constipation’ because B had failed to provide sufficient fluids. He reports the attending medic ‘determined A was significantly dehydrated and had not received adequate water, causing her severe discomfort’. In his first statement the paramedic is suggested to have determined she was ‘critically dehydrated’. He references messaging during this period which demonstrate B’s lack of concern [467/473]. He disputes B’s account and exhibits the medical note provided by the paramedic [470]. On 14 July 2024he left the UK to return to ZZ.

B gives her account. She contends the constipation resulted from changes in diet following the move from ZZ. It is not clear from her first statement whether the child went to A&E but she explains how the paramedics arrived and told her A was fine and just needed to drink more water. She contends the PGM was acting in dramatic fashion crying and repeating ‘my poor baby’ and was told to calm down by the paramedics as this was not good for A. She drew attention to the fact the note supplied by S was only one page of the document (this is correct with the full document being attached to a later statement).

B then details how the PGM became angry after the medics left. B was called ‘a piece of shit’ and a ‘whore’. B alleges the PGM punched her in the face although not very hard. She also said, ‘I will kill you and I will keep your daughter’ and dragged her finger over her neck. B says she was holding A. B has exhibited messaging between herself and S on the day in question. I also have a 5-minute audio of a call between the parents a few days later.

The written evidence contained many contradictions and gaps in the evidence and this was explored in the live evidence. However, the parties essentially stuck to their positions. Having considered this evidence, I have reached the following conclusions:

I would not wish to conclude this issue without some reference to the interactions between S and B around the constipation issue. As noted S was blaming B. I note throughout her messaging she is consistently and correctly noting the child requires fluids (both before and after the medics attended). In the audio conversation one hears more of the denigration of B that is mentioned elsewhere in this judgment including the following:

These are the final issues as the relationship finally breaks down and B and A leave the home.

It seems clear after 11 July 2024 B was in communication with her embassy seeking support. There is an unsigned letter from the embassy which claims to have been involved since the time in ZZ when issues arose there. The letter makes mention of a plan to enable B to get out of the home. At the same time, it seems clear there was a falling out between S and B as to whether he would continue to support her in obtaining the visa she required to remain in the country. In his evidence he claims the 11 July incident had a fundamental impact on his feelings.

It is agreed B attended the embassy on 12 July 2024.

On 22 July 2024 S instructed the PGM to access and take A’s passport. It seems this led to a level of conflict between B and the PGM during which the PGM alleges B hit her with either the cable or plug attached to a hairdryer. I have a video taken in the surrounding moments

I intend to deal with this in relatively short order given the findings above. I note the following:

Having regard to all the evidence I prefer the evidence of B. The video does not give the impression of B being aggressive and does not support the allegation. It is possible there was a low level of contact between the women in the circumstances as described above but I am satisfied there was nothing of note to justify fact-finding.

I appreciate those acting for S/PGM have sought to make much of the Embassy letter pointing out it is not signed and claim it may be unreliable given obvious conflicts with other evidence and in the light of their allegation that a family member works at the Embassy. At earlier hearings I refused, as impermissible, an order directed to the Embassy. For my part I am not so sure the absence of a signature is a compelling point as to authenticity. I recognise the points made as to conflict of evidence but listened to and accepted the explanation given by B that the worker at the Embassy saw B scrolling through messaging and believed this was live messaging.

I have also had regard to the suggested credibility issues around the police disclosure and the interaction of the same with the Embassy information. Once again I have not found the same as telling as suggested and ultimately consider they give way in the face of the more compelling evidence laid out above. The key point taken is the suggestion B has over stated what the police were investigating (kidnapping and false imprisonment) when she herself agrees this was factually not what was happening. It is also said that she misled the High Court in such regard. For my part I note (see the paramedic note) that similar points might be made against S. But, more importantly I can appreciate how the account given by B at an early stage might be investigated through the labels used without B herself using the same labels. In the sphere of domestic violence involving international movement police will often be sensitive to the potential for controlling behaviour to include a level of detention and restriction of movement. That they approach the case using this language does not particularly surprise me. It does not alter my understanding of the case.

I have now dealt with the specific matters alleged. I consider the resolution of the same informs my understanding of the generalised cases put by each parent. I have stepped back and reached the following overarching conclusions.

I am satisfied S and his mother have been domestically abusive to B in both a verbal and physical fashion. Such behaviour has taken place in the family home both in ZZ and in this country. On every occasion A was present and will likely have been emotionally harmed by ‘witnessing’ the same.

I have found the relationship between S and B to be highly controlling and coercive of B. In reaching this conclusion I have regard to the consistent belittling of her at a personal level and in relation to her care of A. She has been consistently called a ‘retard’ and more besides. This has taken in place in front of S’s family who have taken no steps to protect her.

This has taken place in the context of B being wholly isolated from a support network to any meaningful degree. She has been wholly dependent on S, his family, and the financial and emotional support they could offer. In such a context it is deeply concerning that she has been denigrated in the manner found in the papers. I am in no doubt this would have fundamentally challenged her sense of self-worth and impacted upon her and the quality of care she could give to A.

It is not lost on me that B had only limited connection with this jurisdiction prior to June 2024. She had travelled here for A’s birth but the plan was always to return to ZZ and this occurred in strained circumstances. I can only guess at the emotional impact on her of the plan of returning to live with the PGM. As can be seen this also fell apart relatively quickly and subsequent to this B has been effectively stranded in this jurisdiction. During this period S has come and gone to pursue his international career. I am sure this sense of isolation will have had further impact upon her.

I have rejected the allegations of neglect raised by S. They can be seen to be an aspect of the denigration and control of B. It is clear these points did not carry the significance now given to them when the parties were together. I consider them to be strategic for these proceedings. Aside from some specific points, which I have addressed, much of S’s allegations are generic and unevidenced.

I likewise have rejected the notion of B as the explosive party to the relationship. The evidence does not support this and instead clearly points at S. But this does not mean there have not been incidents when B has not been emotional or lost control. In the context of my findings this is not surprising and I accept the evidence of the voice note and the messaging about damaging the property. But even that was plainly drafted in the context of a lack of support being given to her.

I do though reject the evidence of B as to the value to A of her relationships with paternal family members. B gave frank evidence that in her view this had no value to A and that evidence in support of the same was staged. I accept the photos may have been staged – many photos are of course, but I am in no doubt the paternal family members have positive feelings towards A. There is good evidence of these emotions and attachment to her. My sense is that she is an endearing child and the paternal family have warmth to her. The problem is that they have held these feelings whilst being so dismissive of B and her role in A’s life. In that context I can understand why it is that B views this through such a blinkered prism. She has been the recipient of wholly unacceptable abuse and it is perhaps not surprising that she can see little positive out of the relationship she has experienced, for either her or A. I cannot help but note the paternal family have themselves in their statements and evidence reached broad ranging and highly negative judgments about B

There are many issues which I do not need to determine. These include the date of separation. I have to say I find it difficult to understand on what basis it would have been felt acceptable to transfer B to live with the PGM post-parental separation given the strains between the two. I asked this of the PGM but did not get a satisfactory response. It is much easier to see it in the context of a continuing parental relationship and the messaging at the time might be felt to be more consistent with the latter.

There is also the evidence as to S’s use of PGM as a covert supervisor of B and his concerns as to the care being provided by B. This is also difficult to understand in the context of the PGM not being ever present and S being away at work to a considerable extent.

As to why the family planned to come to this jurisdiction it seems quite clear this was in pursuit of a private school education for A. This can be seen from the previous consideration of Switzerland before focusing on the UK. It seems likely the plan was for B to be the main carer with S working overseas and visiting regularly for time with the family. I can see how from S’s perspective the UK plan was more attractive given it would place A with his mother given the strains in the relationship and the possible fallout should the relationship end.

I have considered the allegations of sexual abuse but do not make a specific finding. The evidence was limited and not sufficient to make such a finding. I accept this evidence did not paint S in a particularly positive light and it appeared to support the impression of his focus being on his own needs and of B’s role being subservient to him.

I have also listened to the evidence about B’s childhood and upbringing. I note S bases his case entirely on an account of being told the same by B. She denies this and points to evidence in support of her position. I make no finding. I do not believe it is material to the case in any event.

This issue is perhaps the most challenging aspect of this fact-finding hearing. Whilst it appears to be accepted by all to be far more serious in principle than the other matters raised by S against B, in fact it is not even in the fact-finding schedule and was not dealt with in evidence until the later stages of the proceedings. Even before me it is not explicitly stated what finding is being sought. Rather the focus has been on the authenticity of the video that underlays the allegation.

This allegation is based on evidence given by the PGM. She claims on 2 September 2022 (so very early into the timetable of this case) she was visiting ZZ and both massaging (with oil) and bathing A. When doing so she noticed and recorded a video showing extensive marking / bruising on A. She exhibits text messages dated to the same occasion in which she is communicating with a friend about the discovery and copied the video to the friend. These messages were only disclosed on the first day of the hearing.

The PGM says she confronted B who denied causing the marks and offered the suggestion A had sensitive skin. The PGM says she told S that day and it is suggested he confronted B. In the written evidence the PGM implies she sent the photographs she had taken to S at that time [751]. The Aunt claims she received the photographs at that time [803].

B denies causing any of these marks and gave evidence that she had not seen the same. She provided evidence from the surrounding days which whilst not directly focused on the injury site suggested, she said, that A was not marked. She denied being confronted at the time.

B has questioned the authenticity of the recording which led to the instruction of Evidence Matters. They have confirmed the metadata for the recording is consistent with the claimed date although they accept those with sophisticated software can alter the same. This dispute has led to further legal argument as to whether it is now for B to prove the recording is not authentic.

This has been a challenging assessment for the Court and particularly so as there is ambiguity about what I am being asked to find beyond the fact the recording is authentic and indicates a concerning state of affairs. The inference is that B was responsible yet this is not explicitly pleaded and the issue did not arise until relatively late in the proceedings despite being, one would have thought, far more significant than other matters which were brought into consideration.

Ultimately I have the following observations.

I have been perplexed by the timing of this evidence and the failure to raise it earlier in the proceedings. At face value it is perhaps the most serious allegation raised against B yet S did not in fact raise it until his mother forwarded the video. His explanation was that he did not do this as he did not have evidence in support. This makes little sense and I struggle to reconcile it in any event with the evidence of the PGM forwarding the photographs to S and to the Aunt.

I am also struck by the complete absence of any mention of this in the contemporaneous messaging. The messaging is replete with criticism of B as to her care of A and I note each of the bruises to A’s head post-date this video. Yet at no point does S reference these bruises. S is more than ready to levy criticism of B and it is a surprising feature of the case that this was not referenced at any point. I consider it most likely this would have been raised at some point during moments of anger at B, particularly when she was being described as ‘inadequate’ or a ‘shit mother’.

Bearing in mind the high-quality representation S has had throughout the proceedings and the manner in which he has litigated his case I find it incredible this point was not raised earlier.

I do not understand why it was that the PGM chose to message a friend including attaching an intimate video recording of A rather than forward the same to S. It is not clear why she did not forward the video to S at all until 2025. This is a case in which messaging has taken centre stage and it is clear each party has been working through a significant online presence.

I also to an extent accept the point made by B as to contemporaneous photographs and events that might well have revealed such bruising / marking but do not. It is clear A was using the apartment pool in the days around the video. I have seen her in her swimsuit and it gives a clear impression of being loose fitting and likely to reveal her upper body and the site of the bruising. If B was responsible or indeed was aware of the bruising would she have allowed A to be viewed by others in such a state? I was told about medical check ups in surrounding weeks but place less weight on this as any marks may have cleared by that time.

However, I was left with a complete absence of understanding as to why either the PGM or S had not witnessed the marks prior to the video. At face value they suggested developing bruises rather than marks which had just arisen. If this were the case then how was it that S had not seen any of this given his role as a hands-on father to A? Equally the PGM was bathing and massaging A it seemed regularly, why had she not seen these before?

It was also puzzling as to the limited way in which this was argued. It was almost as if it was sufficient to prove the video alone. The problem with this is that this would not of itself attribute responsibility. That would have to be inferred. The evidence missed much of the detail of the event even when given late. I question on what basis I could simply leap from the video to a conclusion that B was to blame. At face value there were two other adults in the property and I have found both to be capable of physical abuse.

Indeed, I questioned, because there was no direct evidence, whether the PGM had evidence of any event that might explain the injuries. In response she told me she had heard B shouting the night before. This is quite a limited foundation and only given in response to a direct enquiry.

I have reflected of course on the video and the expert evidence which I accept as far as it goes. The video is concerning as it appears to show dark discolouration over much of A’s back. There appear to be scratches and other marks. I am a little concerned as to whether there is a lighting effect which adds to the marking. As I watch the video the mark/bruise on the child’s left side appears to change in tone as she is turned over leading me to question whether it is lighting rather than marking. That is a concern in the absence of a contemporaneous examination and body map. It does seem to me that there are residual marks which are not explained by lighting although it is possible they may have been either exacerbated or limited by the same. There is an impression of scratches and other marks, which it is not possible to categorise.

I cannot attempt to date the same and I appreciate even for experts this is challenging. It is frankly a very difficult point to resolve given the limitations above.

I also have the allegation this may have been staged with make-up or through technical means. This is not impossible but I have to ask, if I accept the messaging to the friend, how this could have been done in such a short window of opportunity. Of course, if the video was staged it is possible the messaging has been put together after the event to back up the video and provide dating support.

I have stepped back from all of the above and reminded myself as to the purpose of fact-finding and the respective roles of each party to such a process. I have reached the following conclusions:

I have provided a full analysis which will now be forwarded to counsel in anticipation of the planned handing down on 22 August 2025. I confirm this judgment can be shared with both professional and lay clients in advance of handing down.

To make that hearing effective can I have: