A Local Authority v M & Ors

This is a finding of fact hearing to determine whether the threshold criteria are satisfied pursuant to s. 31 (2) Children Act 1989 so that the court can ultimately go on to make welfare decisions in relation to two young children, B d.o.b. xxxx (now aged 8) and C d.o.b. xxxx (now aged 7). The court determined, after receiving written and oral representations at a case management hearing on 24 6.25 that it was appropriate to have such a hearing.

The matter is timetabled on to an issues resolution hearing before myself on 23.9.25. There is no need for me to set out the procedural history of the proceedings in any detail at this stage, save to note that the children have not been in the care of their parents since 19 April 2024. They are subject to interim care orders and placed with their maternal grandfather and his partner, having experienced a number of moves of placement since the issue of proceedings. The parents are clear they seek a return of B and C to their care.

The relevant findings sought in relation to threshold by the local authority appear in the bundle at AA35. The parents’ responses appear at AA48 (the mother’s) and AA43 (the father’s). Those findings are grouped into the following categories:

I have been provided with a bundle of documents running to nearly 1200 pages. I have considered relevant material including some further unredacted case logs from the local authority and also watched the children’s video- recorded ABE interviews in relation to the 19 April 2024 allegations. I have had the benefit of a detailed opening note from the local authority counsel and a focussed chronology.

I have had oral evidence from the following witnesses over the course of 3 days: CS, local authority social worker; the children’s mother; their father; and AM, a social worker in the employ of the local authority at the relevant time. I determined I would hear evidence from AM out of the usual sequence (that is, following, the evidence of the parents), due to her availability constraints, rather than not hear from her at all, having determined this as a preliminary issue at the outset of this hearing. KK, the allocated social worker, was down as a witness but the parents indicated they did not seek for her to give oral evidence.

After hearing the oral evidence I was presented with closing submissions, and indicated that I would reserve judgment to be handed down in writing. This is that written judgment.

I now turn to the applicable legal principles:

It is for the party who brings the case to prove the case. Therefore, in the absence of concession by the mother and/or the father, the burden rests squarely with the applicant local authority to prove (a) the children have suffered or are likely to suffer significant harm so as to satisfy the threshold criteria of section 31(2) of the Children Act 1989. The burden of proof is not reversed at any point.

The standard of proof to be applied is that of the balance of probabilities. There is no heightened standard of proof. in Re H (Minors) (Sexual Abuse: Standard of Proof) [1996] AC 563 in which Lord Nicholls held that when considering, whether on the balance of probabilities, an event had occurred, the inherent probability or improbability of that event is a factor to be taken into account by the court in determining whether it is more likely than not that the event occurred.

In Lancashire County Council v The Children and Others [2014] EWHC 3 (Fam) at paragraph 9 of his judgment and having directed himself on the relevant law, Jackson J (as he then was) said: -

Findings of fact must be based on evidence. As Munby LJ, as he then was, observed in Re A (A Child) (Fact-finding hearing: Speculation) [2011] EWCA Civ 12.

When carrying out the assessment of evidence regard must be had to the observations of Butler- Sloss P in Re T [2004] EWCA (Civ) 558:

That approach was endorsed by the Supreme Court in Re H-W (Children) [2022] UKSC 17(See Paragraph 47 per Dame Siobhan Keegan)

“I remind myself that hearsay evidence is admissible in Children Act proceedings, but I must be careful about what weight I attach to hearsay evidence. Where the evidence of a child stands only as hearsay, the court weighing up that evidence has to take into account the fact that it was not subject to cross-examination. This was a case where no-one has ever proposed that either B or C, should be called to give evidence. Within Re W (Children)(Abuse: Oral Evidence) [2010] 1 FLR 1485 it was said:

“A court considering the hearsay evidence of a child must consider not only what the child has said, but also the circumstances in which it was said (R v B County Council, ex parte P [1991] 1 FLR 470) and, again, that it has long been recognised that care must be taken not to focus attention on statements made by the child at the expense of other evidence (1997 Handbook of Best Practice in Children Act Cases))”

I am also mindful of and familiar with the Achieving Best Evidence Guidance 2001.

The rule of R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 was adopted by the Family Court in A County Council v K, D and L. The principle is that if the court concludes that a witness has lied about one 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 considering any lies told by a witness,the court must apply the revised Lucasdirection. PerBaker LJ in relation to Lucasin A, B and C [2021] EWCA Civ 21:

“46.

A lie told by a witness in a family case may undermine the credibility of the witness and in some instances be direct evidence of culpability. The principle in Lucas is that a fact-finding tribunal must bear in mind that a person may lie for many reasons and the fact that they have lied about one or more things does not necessarily mean that they have lied about other things. When assessing the forensic significance of a lie or lies told by a witness, a judge must do more than merely cite the case of Lucas. He or she must consider the probative weight to be attached to the lies in the context of the totality of the evidence, bearing in mind the Lucas principle.”

Therefore I proceed on the basis that the mere fact of a lie being told does not of itself prove the primary case against the party or witness who has been found to have lied to the court.

Whilst a first instance judgment, the relevant legal principles were encapsulated in MGM-v- Another [2024] EWFC 171 B, and I remind myself of the useful summary as to demeanour of witnesses in para 65 - 66:

“The evidence of the parties is of critical importance. It is essential that the court forms a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability. The court is likely to place considerable reliability and weight on the evidence and impression it forms of them: Lancashire County Council v M and F [2014] EWHC 3 (Fam). I remind myself that the courts have regularly held that demeanour is an uncertain guide to the reliability of evidence; far more important is the substance of the evidence given, its internal consistency and its consistency with contemporaneous documents, and the inherent probabilities: R (Dutta) v General Medical Council [2020] EWHC 1974 (Admin); R, on the application of SS (Sri Lanka) v SSHD [2018] EWCA Civ

That said, I am still permitted to have regard to the demeanour of witnesses when there is little by way of other contemporaneous documents. In Re B-M (Children: Findings of Fact) [2021] EWCA Civ 1371 the Court of Appeal held that demeanour does have its place in the determination of findings of fact. It cited with approval the earlier observations of Macur LJ in Re M (children) (domestic violence: supervised contact) [2013] EWCA Civ at [12] where it was stated:

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

I was taken to a number of further authorities which stress and underline the principles set out above, in the closing submissions of the parties including the written submissions lodged on behalf of the father, which correctly referred me to the very clear summary in Re L and M (Children [2013[ EWHC 1569 by Baker J, as he then was.

Solicitor for the children reminded me of the separate functions of the court and medical experts as set out within para. 49 of A County Council v K, D and L 2005 EWHC 144. These points are uncontroversial as between the parties and I apply them.

It is an appropriate point now for the court to set out what happened on 19.4.25, as this is what gave rise to the local authority issuing its application for care orders.

Prior to that date, from December 2021 onwards, B had reported on multiple occasions at school that his father was, variously, “unkind” to him, that his parents had sworn at him, and he had complained of physical aggression from them, from his father in particular. The children were the subject of child protection plans which remained open until 7 November 2022. C is said to have reported on 18 November 2022 that her daddy was very mean and that he had told her and B to “fuck off” The parents refute the truth of these allegations.

Domestic abuse had been a feature in the household albeit the last reported incident was December 2021 (of which father was convicted, having pleaded guilty to assaulting the mother) and the family had also been homeless and were, for a second time, in temporary accommodation from December 2023. The parents have made some admissions about domestic abuse and homelessness but not to the extent asserted by the local authority.

B is reported to have told school staff on 21.12.23 that his parents had punched him and that his parents and his younger sister C had called him “a little shit.” On 27.3.24 he told his teacher that his parents called him and C “little shits” and “retards” and that they would swear at him.

On 19.4.25 B’s teacher Ms D, observed some marks to his neck upon his arrival at school at approximately 8.50 am. When asked about them, B said that his father had strangled him. He gave further detail to the safeguarding lead, Ms H, in her office, at about 9am telling her when asked what had happened to her neck, that dad had strangled him and was really cross. He said it had happened in the car the night before, when they were waiting for mum. He confirmed that his younger sister C had been there. He said that C had done something to his eyes: G108, s. 9 statement of Ms H. I was not invited to hear oral evidence from Ms D or Ms H.

This led the police and Children’s Services, who had been involved with the family since 2018 (although not continuously, the second set of child protection plans having come to an end on 7.11.22). CS and AM, social workers, attended in response. Both B and C were spoken to by those workers separately. CS spoke to B and AM spoke to C.

I heard oral evidence from CS who was the first witness to give oral evidence. She confirmed her statement dated 8.7.25 at C296 of the bundle and confirmed her case notes of the relevant period.

CS was not the allocated social worker for the case. She had responded to a call from the children’s school on 19 April 2024 when B made the allegation he had been strangled by his father the night before.

CS told the court she had not read the files/records before going to the school. She had never met either child before. She told the court she spent some time with B on that day. It sounded like this was for a reasonable portion of the events which followed, including subsequently taking them to their placement with family members, after the child protection medical which took place from around 2.30 – 2.45pm although she could not say precisely how long. She thought it was a few hours.

She had made some notes at the time, these were later typed up and entered onto the local authority computer system and those typed entries are available and were in the bundle. She was clear that she had not prompted B. She could remember some parts of the conversation very vividly.

B had said without prompting what is recorded in her case notes at F9 of the bundle, namely that that “C smacked me in the eyes, Daddy shouted and I said stop being rude to a 6 year old, and then strangled my neck. B then said 'Like this', and gestured a hand around his neck grabbing around it.

Within the same conversation, B had gone on to say, as recorded by her in the same case entry, “Daddy throwed a tin at my mums poorly leg.”

CS confirmed she had telephoned the mother, and that the contents of this telephone conversation were accurately summarised within the final SWET (not her document) within parentheses at C239 at pdf 486.

CS was taken to the recordings for her visit on 23 April 2024 to the children at their grandparents, Mr and Mrs D, where they were placed from 19 April following the child protection medical.

CS was asked about her recollection of the events and her case recordings. She said that B had been very clear about what he had said to her about the events the night before (i.e. 18 April 2024 and what he said his father had done).

She didn’t recall, when it was put to her, by counsel for the mother, saying to her that B and C had had an argument/been fighting over a bottle and a tablet the night before.

The mother and father’s counsel each pointed out she was very much reliant on her notes, the original handwritten ones no longer being available. I note that these events occurred over 13 months ago. In written submissions, counsel for the father pointed out CS said she had spoken to B for around an hour, yet her electronic notes are brief by comparison. A point also made in relation to the other witnesses who spoke to B, the teaching assistant Ms D and the safeguarding teacher Ms H, neither of whom I heard from.

It was also pointed out that B had made complaint about his grandfather Mr D hurting him on 23 April 2024 at F13, by which time he and his sister C were in his care, yet the local authority accepted Mr D’s explanation that a mark to the back of C’s neck was an accident.

The second witness to give evidence was the mother of both children.

The mother formally confirmed her responses to threshold in Section A as follows, her initial response document dated 4.7.24 at AA1, a further response dated 17.1.25 to a further iteration of the threshold document at AA21, and a response document dated 4.6.25 at AA38 as well as an updated response dated 18.7.25 at AA48.

She also confirmed the following statements dated 4.12. 24 at C84 and one 4.6.25 at C253. She further confirmed a s. 9 statement given to the police dated 1.5.34 at G99.

The mother told the court she has since 3 July 2025 exited her temporary accommodation and has moved into a 1-bedroomed property with an introductory tenancy which would be suitable for the children and herself and the father.

She described B and C, giving each child a pen-picture of their temperaments and abilities. She was very evidently proud of their achievements and in particular of B’s reading ability, telling me he could read Roald Dahl at age 6. She told me that C was quieter than B and loved doing dance and cartwheels.

The mother was cross-examined by counsel for the local authority. She would not describe the children’s father as having a temper but he could get frustrated. She had never seen him threaten the children or hit or slap them or do anything inappropriate. There would be no reason for them to claim they were scared of him or that he had bullied them. She did the majority of the parenting as he was working.

A number of the school CPOMs logs were put to the mother starting from December 2021 where B in particular had stated to school staff that his father was variously unkind to him, had slapped him with his slipper, that his mother had thrown his Rubik’s cube in the bin, that daddy was mean to them and had sworn at them. These all appear within the local authority chronology. The mother denied that such matters had taken place. She was emphatic that she had never witnessed the father swearing at the children. She had never seen him use a slipper. He did not regularly speak to the children in this way.

When it was put to her that on 21 December 2023 B said C had called him a little shit and he was punched in the eye (the school safeguarding teacher Ms H could see no mark or bruising to either eye – C177), and that he had referred to both parents calling him and his sister many abusive derogatory words on 27 March 2024 (C175), The mother said that the language in question – “shit, fuck and bitch” - had been used by other family members but not them. B had picked up on that. He was lying when he said it was his parents who spoke in those terms to himself and his sister.

The mother maintained she had never witnessed there being such language or behaviour used to the children. B and C had lied about this and about what they alleged to have taken place on 18 April 2024.

The mother told the court that on 18 April she had been in the front passenger seat with the father driving. The children were in the back. When CS had the next day asked her about this by telephone and she said she wasn’t there, she as referring to an earlier occasion, the weekend before. It was put to her she had changed her account (in order to protect the father essentially). She was vehement this was not the case. The children had changed their story multiple times. She had told the children, who were arguing, to pack it in multiple times, probably 5 or 6 times. The father had not stopped the car or got out. He had not “lost it” as alleged.

The mother said there were no marks on B when she dressed him for school the next day, 19^th April, and he had allowed his dad to take him to school – if he was truly in fear of him, he would not have agreed to this. Both children wanted their father to take them to school. She considered they could have had a conversation about things at bedtime on 18^th April.

The mother denied that her allegiance was to the father rather than to her children. She said the reason she didn’t take B to the child protection medical on 19^th was because she needed to pick C up from school and take her to gymnastics, it was not fair that she should miss out. She denied having washed her hands of B at that point in time. She was challenged about subsequent events, and denied having withheld the children’s belongings such as uniform and cancelling B’s birthday party after they went to reside in their grandparents’ care.

The local authority put to her that she had minimised the domestic abuse incidents. She said that the father (who had accepted them in his written responses, in contrast to her responses) has got memory issues and had jumbled up events. She was being asked about a serious incident when he was said to have removed her trousers to inspect her genital area as he suspected her of having an affair, in 2021. The mother did not agree with the children’s recollection that their father had thrown a tin at her and hurt her on the leg. This was an accident which had led to her shouting at daddy as she was hurt and the children must have assumed he had done it. He didn’t hit her with the tin.

The mother was also asked about housing and threshold issues relating to that. She said she did not lie to the housing officer.

The children’s solicitor put some matters from Dr Morrell’s report to the mother and about her recollection of the marks to B’s neck, suggesting she must have seen the marks visible to the teaching assistant Ms D, at 8.25am on 19^th April, which is when the mother would have dressed B before taking photographs for the family WhatsApp group. The mother maintained she did not see the marks. It was suggested this was medically highly unlikely.

That completed the mother’s evidence.

I next heard from the father of B and C. He confirmed his new address which is the same as the mother’s.

The father confirmed the following written documents: statements dated 9.7.24 at C58 and 5.6.25 at C268, and his threshold responses dated 28.6.24 at AA5, 17.1.25 at AA29 and final response dated 5.6.25 at AA43.

The father gave some brief evidence in chief and was cross-examined by counsel for the local authority. He accepted that in the past he had had a temper. After his conviction he had done the Building Better Relationships course (a perpetrators’ course for domestic abusers). Sometimes he could get frustrated with the children if they did not listen to what they were told. But he did not agree he was a bully or used the abusive language described by the children. He did not accept B’s alleged description of him as a balloon that pops when he loses his temper.

Matters from the chronology where B had alleged a number of things about his father (which had been put to the mother) were put to the father. He denied these, telling the court “he [B] makes up lies, he tells stories to get people into trouble.” He had not hit B with a slipper. He had not told B to fuck off. It was put to him he had accepted this in his statement but he said he was not sure and was equivocal at this point.

The father pointed out that within contact, his children come and give him a cuddle. They ask for him if he is not there. Foul language was not used in their household. He had not called his son a little shit. B had heard it from other family members. He denied using the language B described to his teachers at C175. At this point the court intervened to ask further about which family members, and why the father had allowed this to happen. The father said it was both sets of grandparents but he had not been there at the time.

The father was asked about the ear incident involving B and what had been said in the single assessment. He said the children had been taken away from him by lies and stories. The children were being told to blame daddy.

In relation to 18 April, the mother was not at pool as C had said. He was certain she was with them in the car. He had asked her to deal with the children being rowdy in the back of the car. After she had repeatedly told them to pack it in, he had probably asked them once or twice. It could have been 7 times in total possibly. He denied losing his temper and hurting or scaring B. He had not strangled him. Nor had he smacked C on the bottom. He had wondered where the marks on B had come from. The children were twisting things. He told the court C can be evil, she can say things to wind people up. He disputed having withheld the children’s belongings after they left their care. They had not punished them by ceasing the activities, it was the grandparents who were refusing to take them. The children had toys. There was no point in sending expensive items with them to Leicester (referring to the children’s previous placement) for them to be damaged.

The father was asked about domestic abuse and the throwing of the tin can. He said it was an accident and gave a similar account to the mother.

In answer to the children’s guardian’s questions about what the mother had said in her police statement at G100 – having showed the father the bruise to B’s collar bone before B left for school on 19^th April and his response having been it must have been from C hitting him with the tablet – the father looked surprised and denied this. He had not seen the mark. There were no marks on B when he took him to school.

The final live witness to give oral evidence was AM, a social worker, who attended school on 18 April. AM now works for the Children with Disabilities Team. She confirmed her statement dated 18 July 2025 at C325 which refers to case notes which are elsewhere in the bundle, at F7, and her police statement at G109.

AM had spoken to C. Like CS (who had spoken to B), she no longer had her original handwritten notes. When C had spoken of being smacked, she had said it was in the last couple of days. AM did not think C was saying that being smacked was part of the incident with B in the car. C had introduced the word “strangled,” she had used it. It was the only time she had spoken to her. She didn’t think they had reviewed the files or any notes before going out to the school. She thought she had spent about half an hour with C. CS had certainly spent longer than that with B. It had taken C a while, after being first introduced to AM, to be comfortable enough to speak about events.

The father’s case (supported by the mother) is that the written recordings from witnesses who recorded what the children said to them on 18 April - referred to as the children’s crucial first accounts – including from CS and AM – were not recorded in any proper detail, was put to AM. There was only limited evidence of the questions that the children were asked. AM’s response was that her recordings were accurate.

After the close of the oral evidence on day 3, I proceeded to hear oral submissions from all parties. Save for some corrections to dates in the final threshold pleading, no party’s case had altered fundamentally since the start of the hearing. Mr Cleary had prepared a detailed and comprehensive set of closing submissions on behalf of the mother which were adopted and expanded upon by Ms Sapstead for the mother.

I turn to other relevant material which I have considered.

I have a report of a child protection medical undertaken on B on 19.4.24, the same day he reported his allegations to school. It appears at H5 of the bundle. Dr Dubberley was the examining doctor. She reports that B, once again, repeated his allegation that the father had strangled him in the car the previous day and had shouted at him (H2). B was noted by Dr Dubberley to have non-blanching petechia on his upper chest and the side of his neck (H5). B also had swelling to both eyes, which he stated had been caused by C punching him. Dr Dubberly concluded that B’s injuries were consistent with the account he had provided (H7). I have seen photographs of the injuries at H10.

Dr Peter Morrell, a well known and respected expert in his field, was instructed to undertake an expert paediatric overview of the injuries. His report at E10 states that petechiae are caused by trauma (which may include blunt force trauma) by a squeezing of the small blood vessels. Pressure on the chest and neck would have caused the petechial bruising. These were consistent with the account given by B, in that the petechial marks to the right side of the neck could have been caused if B had been gripped tightly around the neck with a hand.

No party sought to call or challenge either Dr Dubberley or Dr Morrell at the hearing although commentary was made about their written evidence within submissions, in particular the father’s written submissions which advanced a number of points.

In particular, submissions were made as to the marks seen under B’s eyes, Dr Morrell opining they were less likely to be secondary to attempted strangulation as there was no conjunctival or eyelid petechiae observed by Dr Dubberley. It was unclear, in the father’s submission, as to how it was said that the father caused the bruising to B’s chest. C could have done so on B’s account.

I turn to the children’s ABE interviews.

At the time of B’s interview by the police on 1.5.24 he had been placed away from the care of his parents for around 12 days. He was a week shy of his 7^th birthday, so still aged 6. CS was present and DC Flint undertook the interview.

B presented as confident and articulate. He told the interviewing officer his dad had strangled him, it made him feel sad. He was equally clear that the social workers should not have taken him away from his parents.

He said this candidly, without any hesitation and that is apparent from the video.

He said it (the attempted strangulation) happened in the living room of the family home, which is different from what he originally said at school on 19.4.24 (when he said it was on a car journey), also saying when asked he hadn’t been at school that day (a Thursday). So there are some discrepancies between the account given by B in his ABE interview and the initial account. He spoke of his father throwing a hard can at his mum’s bad leg which made her cry so he and C gave her a big hug. He also spoke of C punching him and smacking him giving him black eyes. It came across as though the can and the strangling were all one occasion but at times it was not clear when the timing was.

No intermediary was present. The interview lasts about 18 minutes. It is apparent that B, nearly 7, was a good reader. His speech was clear and he was able to express himself clearly. He was reasonably fluent and quite expressive. He gestured how his father had strangled him, placing his hands around his neck. His sense of timing of events was that to be expected of a 6-year-old, in relation to C giving him the black eyes, saying this was after daddy had put his hands around his throat. He said that daddy had said sorry to him the same day.

He went on to say positive things about his daddy, that he was a kind person, and would put the TV on and give them chocolate. His mummy was also a really nice person. He said she would call daddy a retard.

C was ABE interviewed on 1.5.24, the same day, with the same people present. She was aged 5 years 10 months at the time. The interview lasted about 15 minutes.

She told DC Flint that daddy had grabbed B’s neck. B was crying. It was in the car. They were driving back from pool, having dropped mummy off at pool. She later replied that they were going to drop mummy off at pool. C said that daddy had smacked her on the bum. She also said she had smacked B in the eye. She went to say that her daddy made her feel sad, angry and worried, because he shouts, and he once hit mummy on the leg with a can. Her mummy made her feel happy.

C’s speech was reasonably clear for her age, and what she said was easy to understand. Like her brother she was not clear about dates and timing.

In relation to the police material including the ABE interviews, none of the police officers involved in the investigation have been called to give oral evidence. A number of material criticisms have been levelled at the way the children’s interviews took place, primarily within in the father’s written submissions:

The father and mother point out there have been a number of inconsistencies in the accounts given. In his ABE interview, B said he was in the living room at home when his father strangled him whereas on 18 April 2024 he said they had been in the car. After his interview he told the social worker SQ (F15e) that his father didn’t really strangle him, just put his hands around his neck but not his throat, and lifted him by his neck, which he liked.

Much later, at supervised contact on 19 December 2024, B said to his mum “Daddy didn’t strangle me and I don’t know why I said it.” On 6 January 2025 B said to the allocated social worker that daddy didn’t do it (strangle him) he threw a can at mummy’s leg that day…. Daddy was playing and he put his hands on my neck, it’s been 8 months now, they have learnt their lesson, I want to go home.”

It is also pointed out on behalf of father that the local authority has not always believed B’s allegations and that explanations of carers (including the mother and of maternal grandmother Ms D) have been preferred to what he has said on three occasions in 2024 and once in 2025. For example, on 28 February 2024, B was seen the Ms H at school to have a large bruise on his right cheek and Children’s Services accepted the mother’s account that this was an accident. They have made allegations about family carers paternal grandfather Mr D, and, separately against his aunt and uncle.

It is also said that the children physically fight with each other and tell untruths about their actions. C has been physically aggressive to her brother and this tends to support the parents’ assertion that she could have caused the marks to B’s neck noted at the child protection medical on 19 April.

The children are very clear that they want to return home.

It is not challenged that Ms D, teaching assistant, asked B how he had sustained marks she noticed to the left side of his neck, and that he replied that his father had strangled him, when asked how he had come by them. Nor is it challenged that B told Ms H, the safeguarding teacher, that this had happened in the car, that his dad had been really cross, he (B) was being noisy, and that C had done something to his eyes. He told her C was there, and that they were waiting for mum.

I accept these written accounts as set out within the case recordings and the police statements of Ms D and Ms H.

It is curious that the mother steadfastly maintains at this hearing that she did not see any marks to her son’s neck before school that morning, yet (1) these were visible to Ms D at around 8.50 am, and also (2) the mother refers in her police statement dated 1 May 2024 at G100 to showing the father a bruise on B’s collarbone which he said must have been done by C hitting him with the tablet. I will return to this later.

I will deal with the two local authority witnesses from whom I heard oral evidence, next. They were both unsensational and matter of fact witnesses.

I formed the view that overall, CS’s evidence was clear, especially her recollection about what B had said to her on 19 April at school. Her case entries on the log were of good quality in terms of the central matters, although I accept she clearly did not record everything verbatim that she said to B. There was no evidence that she had sought to lead or influence B. I accept her evidence that she had not read the case logs or familiarised herself with the case history before she and her colleague arrived at the school.

B told her C had smacked him in the eyes and that daddy had stopped the car after dance, and had got out and strangled him. He gestured by placing a hand around his neck. He also spoke of both himself, and his sister being smacked by the father. I accept that this is what he said and gestured to CS.

I consider that AM’s written recordings of speaking with C provide the court likewise with material that can be relied upon. Again, I do not consider, having heard AM give oral evidence, that there is evidence that AM led C.

The two social workers spoke to the children separately and I do not find there is evidence of contamination, despite the submissions of the father and mother. I accept AM acted in good faith and in accordance with good practice. Her account, that it took C a few minutes and some space to feel more comfortable before talking about what had happened, fits with what can indeed be observed on her ABE interview, which took place at a later stage.

C told AM on 18 April that she had seen daddy hitting B and grabbing his neck yesterday after school. She said that mummy was at pool. I am able to accept that this is what C told her.

Just because I find those witnesses and their written recordings reliable does not of course mean that everything the children have said, including to Ms D (B’s teaching assistant) and to Ms H, the safeguarding lead, is true or that the court must accept it. I have to consider this evidence against the other sources of evidence, including inferences that can be properly drawn from the evidence, in surveying the wide canvas.

I accept that in relation to B’s account in the ABE interview there are some discrepancies, as pointed out and relied upon by the parents. On 18 April 2024, he said, to school and CS, the assault by his father happened in the car, yet to DC Flint in his police interview on 1 May, he was unclear about what day it had happened. He said he hadn’t told any of his teachers at school about it, and that it had happened in the living room at home – although he then goes on to talk about the incident when his father threw a can at his mother, which both children talk about having happened at home.

I take into account that B was aged not quite 7, and that children of that age are commonly unable to put a date (or day) and time on events. He was, as I have remarked, articulate and confident – and was reasonably clear about his central allegation which was that his daddy had strangled him. This was terminology B used (the word “strangle”) and he was matter of fact about it - and equally swift to get across his point that he did not want to live with his nanny and grandad (and wanted to return home to his parents).

B was positive about his mother and, although not as positive about his father, he was not seeking to be unduly negative about him or to portray him in a bad light. I note the father’s assertion in his oral evidence that his son “makes up lies, he tells stories to get people into trouble.” That is not how B came across to me in his police interview. He was not sensational. It was very clear to me upon watching the ABE video interview that B, after being placed away from his parents for two weeks or so, really, really wanted to go home.

I accept that in relation to C’s interview (again with no intermediary present) that there was an element of leading in the questioning at G141. However, C was clear that it looked to her as though daddy was strangling B and it hurt him. B was crying. She said that their father had slapped bums. The questions which followed were open and do not seem to me to be leading. C was clear that mummy was at pool. Her account of their movements that evening is actually quite detailed. She said it (their father’s behaviour) had made her feel angry and worried. She spoke spontaneously of daddy hitting mummy with the can.

No party has sought for either child to give evidence or for a Re W style consideration to take place, and I have not heard direct evidence from either B nor from C.

I factor in the medical evidence within the bundle. Dr Morrell’s report dated 9 October 2024 confirms that petechiae are caused by trauma where the small blood vessels are squeezed and are damaged and leak blood. The petechial bruising to B’s chest and neck, and which can be seen in the medical photographs, are consistent with pressure being applied out with normal handling, consistent with excessive force being applied. The marks to the neck are consistent with pressure being applied by a hand. This is consistent with B’s allegation of strangling but I note the medical evidence is not of itself determinative of the alleged assault of B; I have to consider the totality of the evidence about what is said to have happened.

I now turn to the evidence of the parents. Whilst the mother started her evidence by speaking with genuine pride in her two children, sadly, when asked about disputed matters in the threshold documents, her views and the way in which she spoke about them was completely different.

It was striking that when what B is reported to have said to school over the years from 2021 to 2024 onwards was quoted to the mother, she presented as emotionless and hostile. Even taking into account, and her case, which is that none of what B has said about his home life and how he has claimed he was treated is true, she did not present as remotely curious as a mother as to why he might have said these things. She did not seem saddened or troubled as to what he reported he was experiencing and how he was feeling.

The mother blamed other family members (whom she did not name) for having used abusive language to B, such as calling him “a little shit” so that is where he must have learned it – but otherwise she gave no details of any such incidents or reports, and nor was this mentioned in her statements. She did not seem at all concerned in the witness box that members of her family or alternatively of the father’s family might have spoken to either child in this manner.

The mother presented as rigid, fixed in her views and she had little hesitation in asserting that her son was lying. I detected very little empathy for her children when it was put to her that their experience on 18 April was scary and they were both crying. Save to say that the father is stricter than her when it comes to discipline, she was unswervingly loyal to him when it came to questions about how he tended to parent the children. She maintained she had never witnessed him swearing at the children in her presence.

She denied and minimised the domestic abuse incidents (including what the children had reported about the tin can) which were put to her, saying that since the father had done his perpetrators course there had been no temper issues whatsoever, which seems idealised, given that this was a family under some strain, with house moves to temporary accommodation and the involvement of Children’s Services over quite a long period of time.

It seemed to me plain from the mother’s evidence that her allegiance is to the father over and above prioritising the children. This is a troubling observation by the court.

Unfortunately, I was far from satisfied that the mother was telling me the truth about material matters. Her main priority in the witness box seemed to be protecting her partner and herself. Whilst it was pointed out on her behalf that if the father really had assaulted B by gripping his neck, and she was present, she would hardly have sent her son to school the next day with visible marks to his neck, I have (a) the anomaly that in her s. 9 police statement she refers to pointing out a bruise to B’s neck to the father that morning, which he said was caused by C hitting him with the iPad and (b) the first accounts, given separately, by each child to professionals on 19 April, that mummy was at pool (C)/that they were waiting for mummy (B).

The father’s views, expressed in his oral evidence, about what B had reported about life at home were strikingly similar to that of the mother. He said that B makes up lies, tells stories to get people into trouble. The children were being told “blame daddy,” he said. I was unclear as to which individual or individuals the father was saying had told the children to blame their daddy. He seemed to take little or no responsibility for the children’s feelings that their parents were unkind. He didn’t present as a father who was interested as to why his son and daughter would feel this way about him. He seemed to see himself, rather than the children, as the victim in all of this.

Sadly, the father, too, like the mother, presented as rigid in his thinking, and very much blaming of the children, especially B, a little boy, who has spoken out of being scapegoated, and on numerous occasions, of unkind, abusive treatment in the family home.

The father displayed little compunction in saying that C, his daughter, who has been placed outside his care for 15 months, “can be evil.”

Whilst all parents can feel exasperated with their children at times – that is an inescapable part of parenting – this is a striking thing to say in the witness box when you are fighting to get your children back, as I accept these parents are. I was troubled by this aspect of his evidence. He seemed to have very little idea that for him to hold this view of his young daughter could be emotionally hurtful for her and even though she is of course not present in the courtroom.

The father appeared at times to be getting agitated and hostile although I make allowances for the pressures of giving evidence which is far from easy. He didn’t seem to have any insight into why or how the children might feel scared or worried about their experiences. I was troubled by his insistence he had no knowledge of any marks to B on 19 April 2024 despite what the mother had said in her police statement that she had showed the father the bruise to B’s collar bone and he said it must have been from C hitting B with the tablet: G100.

Sadly, I find that the evidence of the parents was unimpressive and self-serving. Each seemed to be protecting themselves and the other parent.

I turn to the threshold pleading and the findings sought

I find that, in relation to the domestic abuse allegations pleaded at para 6 a, b and d of the local authority threshold document dated 20 May 2025, that these are proved. In relation to item 6 a that this does represent two separate incidents although close in time, I have considered M145 – 6 and what the parents said about this in the witness box. I do not make a finding that the father held the knife to the mother’s throat as such but find that he got it out and was waving it about in proximity to her. This is alarming behaviour and falls within the definition of domestic abuse. I accept the father’s admission about this and his other admissions in respect of 6 b and d. I find that the mother has minimised the extent of the domestic abuse incidents including in relation to 6 a in particular.

I will return to 6 c (the throwing of the tin can at the mother by the father) later.

I turn to paras 7 and 8 of the pleaded threshold which relate to emotional harm, shouting in the family home and calling the children names. I find, having considered all of the evidence including my assessment of the parents in the witness box, that I can place reliance on what B in particular (although C has reported matters too) has been saying over the years to school. He repeated abusive words which he said had been directed to him. I reject the parents’ explanations that they had learnt these words from other family members. This was vague and not mentioned in any of their statements.

Applying the revised Lucas direction, which reminds me that a witness may lie for many reasons, including fear, panic, misplaced loyalty and so on, I find that the parents have not been honest with the court about what was going on in the household and it was emotionally abusive for these young children to be subjected to the derogatory language and behaviour described by them, B in particular. I am concerned about the father’s ability to regulate his temper when frustrated and the mother does not appear able to step in and protect her children. This finding by the court (that the parents have not been honest and have lied) does not mean that all other matters set out within the threshold pleading are proved, and this does not automatically follow.

In relation to para 9 of the threshold document (unstable housing) I note that the father accepts in his response that this is made out, whereas the mother does not. I have not been asked to make findings about what the mother is said to have told the housing officer in late 2024 and 2025 about having care of the children and I do not do so.

Having surveyed the evidence about housing, I find it is more likely than not that the parents failed to engage with services attempting to assist them in this regard, in particular in relation to issues from December 2023.

I turn to the central allegations of physical harm. I have borne in mind the skilful submissions made on behalf of both parents by their counsel, and I am grateful for the written document presented by Mr Cleary on behalf of the father.

In relation to para 5, which predates the events of 18/19 April 2024, this relates to an incident (from the very helpful and comprehensive chronology drafted by counsel from the local authority, this is said to be on or shortly before 7 March 2024) when a bystander contacted Social Care being concerned that the father had grabbed B by the ear in public. The father disputes this but accepts physically grabbing B (intending to seize him by the coat) as he was running off. I do not think B has ever said anything directly about this incident. I decline to make any particular finding about this incident as there is insufficient evidence about it, save to say that on the father’s own account, he appears to struggle to manage the behaviour of the children. He is a large, well built-man, and I can see why another parent or bystander might have been concerned.

I turn now to paras. 1 – 4 inclusive of the threshold document which relate to 18/19 April 2024, the trigger events for these proceedings. The medical evidence (specifically about the marks to the neck) are consistent with what B’s account to members of school staff and the social worker CS on 19 April, and what he demonstrated in the ABE interview. What is noteworthy is that B when asked about the bruises, which were immediately visible to Ms D, said that his dad had strangled him and that his dad gets very angry. What B was saying about his father getting angry were in line with what he had been consistently telling school over the course of several months. They are also in keeping with my own findings in relation to what was going in in the household (under the headings of domestic abuse and emotional harm) and there was a pattern.

I note B repeated his account to Ms H and said it had happened in the car when that they were waiting for mum. He went on to tell CS that his father had strangled him. He said to CS that C had smacked him in the eyes (Dr Morrell’s expert opinion is that the petechial bruises around the eyes would be consistent with being hit by a 5-year old).

C was spoken to independently by AM and said that she had seen daddy hitting B, he saw him grab his neck and had got out of the car and strangled B. She said that mummy was at pool. She also said that daddy had been smacking their bottoms. It seems to me that I can attach weight to what the children each said on 19 April, their initial accounts. I have considered the evidence of the parents about contamination (the mother said the children could have discussed/concocted matters during the evening of 18 April) but I do not find there is any real evidence of this.

I accept that B was less clear about when and where the incident of alleged strangling took place in his ABE interview, less than a fortnight later on 1.5.24, saying it was in the living room. I accept there was no intermediary present. It does not seem to me though from having watched the interview, as though B was trying to get any member of his family, whether his father or C into trouble or to fabricate what he said about the assault upon him. He wanted to go home. He said some positive things about his father (and mother). He was reasonably matter of fact. He comes across as a boy who has a sense of what is right and wrong.

As father’s counsel in particularly has ably pointed out, there were indeed some inconsistencies in the ABE interview compared to B’s initial accounts given to Ms D, Ms H and CS on 18 April 2024. So although it seems to me that I can place some weight on what he said in his ABE interview, I consider I ought to - and indeed do - place greater weight on what he said on 19 April 2024. That was was of course the day after the incident, and therefore a contemporaneous account.

I also accept that C has been consistent in saying that mummy was at pool when the incident happened. She was quite specific, saying they were outside the block of flats where they were temporarily residing. The parents accept that the mother did have an administrative matter to attend to relating to her hobby of playing pool that evening after school. But they assert that the mother was present in the car, in the front passenger seat, while the father was driving. There are some inconsistencies, as counsel for the father points out, in C’s accounts of having been smacked by the father. I accept that some of questions put to C in her ABE interview were leading. She presented as quieter and more shy than her older brother. She was aged 5.

I accept that B has said different things about the incident during the life of these proceedings, in particular on 19 December 2024 he whispered in contact that “daddy didn’t strangle me” in the presence of the mother. He later told the allocated social worker this on 6 January 2025, saying “daddy didn’t do it [strangle him] he threw a can at mummy leg that day and I wanted him to learn his lesson… daddy was playing and he put his hands on my neck, its been 8 months now, they have learnt their lesson, I want to go home.” It will be deeply obvious to B, who is an able child, a very good reader as his mother proudly observed in the witness box, that he is placed away from his parents because of what he has reported. He did not say to the school staff or in his ABE interview that the marks were caused by his father playing. Interestingly he referred again to the throwing of the can at mummy’s leg again.

I turn to consider whether on the balance of probabilities, the mother was present in the car as both she and the father say.

The children said on 19 April 2024 she was not. I note the parents’ statements filed within these proceedings and their police statements, including the father’s police interview. The mother has given an account of being present in the car and the children being told to “pack it in” multiple times. She was asked about this in detail in her oral evidence. I have considered the mother’s account that when CS first spoke to her about it on the phone on 18 April 2024 and the mother said she was not there, that she thought they were referring to a different occasion. The mother seemed to have no regret or insight in the witness box about having prioritised picking up C and taking her to her activity rather than supporting B for his child protection medical – or even hearing what her child might want to tell her himself about what he said had happened. I weigh into the equation the detailed account given by the mother in her police statement, soon after the events in question, and within the statements in these proceedings.

Within the father’s police interview at G77 he says “I think [the mother] mentioned that he had a mark but I’m not I’m not exactly sure.” Later in the interview he denied having seen his son’s bruising before school on 19 April. As I have already observed, this is not in line with what is in the mother’s s. 9 statement. The father was asked about this by counsel for the guardian in cross-examination. He said the mother had not showed him the bruise to B’s collarbone - he had not seen it until later on when she showed him the photo. It seemed to me that the father’s evidence was vague about this and I am not persuaded he was telling the truth. Was the mother asking him about this because she had not been present and so did not know that C had been hitting B with her iPad in the back of the car?

I have to weigh all of these matters up against my assessment of both parents’ credibility and what they have said about this in the witness box. I have found that CS was a reliable witness and I can be satisfied with the accuracy of her documented case recordings. I remain troubled by the mother’s unswerving allegiance to the father. She refuses to countenance the proposition that he has acted in an untoward way towards the children, and has, as I have already found, minimised incidents of domestic abuse (including shouting, which the children were subject to) despite his acceptance of matters.

If she was there, and the incident happened as the children have described, she has arguably failed to protect the children from the father’s conduct. If she was not there, and the incident happened, the logical finding is that both parents have made up a story to protect themselves, in particular the father.

I find I am able to attach weight on what B and C both said on 19 April 2024 about what happened in the car, and who was present, as the local authority invite me to do. I remind myself the burden rests on them and I find they have discharged this burden. Having surveyed all of the evidence, including their accounts in the witness box, I find that on the balance of probabilities I am unable to accept the parents’ account that the mother was present. Regrettably I find that the mother, and the father too, have been dishonest about this.

I find that it is more likely than not, that the father was frustrated and enraged by the children squabbling in the back of the car. I find he got out of the car as both children have described and assaulted B by grabbing him around the neck with both hands, using excessive force such that it caused the petechial bruising referred to in the medical evidence and visible in the photographs.

I accept Dr Morrell’s opinion that the petechiae to the right side of the neck was caused by pressure applied to this area, consistent with being held firmly by his neck. I need not determine if it was caused by being held by one hand or two. The father is a large man with a heavy build. B was not quite 7 at the time. It would have been painful, it resulted in bruising, it was scary behaviour for both of his children. B and C both used the word strangling which is entirely understandable. It was inappropriate and it was abusive. It caused physical harm to B and emotional harm to both children.

I note C’s account that she was smacked by the father. I note what the parents say about the lack of clarity about whether she is saying this happened as part of the car incident. I consider I can place reliance on what C has said, on 19 April 2024, and later, on 23 April 2024 to staff and social workers about having been smacked. I find that the father has smacked both children on their bottoms and that this caused them emotional harm. I make no finding as to whether this happened on 18 April 2024 specifically but I find he has done this more than once. So I do not find para. 3 of the threshold found as pleaded but I do make a finding.

I turn to the specific allegation (para 5 c of the threshold pleading) that the father threw a tin can at the mother. This is denied by both parties who say there was an accident, a tin fell on the mother and she was hurt and blaming the father but it was not a deliberate act on this part. I note that this was first raised by B on 4 March 2024 to a member of school staff, Mr A, from whom I have not heard oral evidence: CPOMs logs, C175 of the bundle. B said at lunch club that his father had chucked a tin at his mum, this happened the night before.

Neither children have referred to it as an accident. I consider both children’s accounts. They were spoken to individually on 19 April 2024 when B told CS about it. At G91 of her interview, unprompted, C told the interviewing officer about her father hitting her mother with a can. I find that the children have spoken about this repeatedly, on a number of occasions, unprompted and spontaneously - because it was upsetting and memorable for each of them. I can attach weight to what each child has said. I am unable to accept the parents’ account of this being an accident and I find they have not told me the truth, as with other matters.

So I find para 5 c made out.

I therefore find that the threshold criteria are satisfied and invite the local authority to draw up a document which reflects the findings made by the court.

I express my thanks to the advocates for their able and focussed assistance in this matter.

I will direct statements in response from the parents within 14 days of the approved judgment being released to them and note that the matter is already timetabled in respect of welfare.