London Borough of A v X & Ors

Today, I am concerned with ‘B’, born on [redacted]. His mother is Miss X. His father is Mr Y. The child was made subject to an interim care order and spent some time in foster care following bruises being seen on his body in October 2023. He is now in his mother’s care having moved there under a transition plan and an interim supervision order made on 27 August 2024. This is an application dated 11 May 2023 for a care order, but it is now agreed that B should live with his mother under a supervision order.

I heard this matter on 14, 15 and 16 January and hoped to conclude it on 17 January 2025, but it became clear that we were missing police evidence. It was obtained on the morning of the final day. As a result, the final hearing was adjourned and an application was subsequently made for Evidence Matters to comment on the father’s phone downloads which were obtained from the police.

Although delay is not desirable, it has led to a period of testing of the Working Together agreement and B being in his mother’s care. I am really glad to hear that the father has been seeing B with the support of the maternal grandmother and the reports are that that is going really well.

On 7 March this year, I had a hearing to make sure that we were ready to complete the final hearing in this matter. On that occasion, the father had yet to provide the details of P, a friend he said who could supervise contact and the paternal aunt had declined further toxicology testing. I directed a witness statement from Mr Y’s cousin and partner and made it clear on the face of that order that I may draw adverse inferences if that was not provided.

The matter was listed on 23 April for the father to be recalled and give evidence about the Evidence Matters report and the phone downloads. He did not attend on that occasion but is in court today for the judgment.

Miss Khasriya represents the local authority; Miss Badejo, the mother; Mr Alleyne-Brown, the father and Miss Burt, the guardian. I am very grateful for all of their assistance. Because Mr Y was not here earlier this week, I should explain for his benefit that Mr Alleyne-Brown in his absence made lengthy and detailed submissions supporting his case and said everything that could conceivably be said on Mr Y’s behalf to support the position which he adopts.

The issues are for this final hearing, the dynamic of the relationship between the parents and the allegations that the mother makes of domestic abuse, and the injuries which B suffered and the causation of those. Both issues are relevant to the contact that B has with his father.

By way of chronology, B has been known to the local authority since before he was born due to concerns about domestic abuse and the parents’ relationship arising from January 2021 onwards. He was subject to a child protection plan since 18 March 2021 and born in July that year. In September 2021, his mother spent some time in a refuge and his father made an application for a child arrangements order in September 2021.

A section 37 report was undertaken by Another Local Authority in January 2022, which recommended B should remain in the mother’s care and have unsupervised contact with his father. A child arrangements order was made on 13 January 2022 stipulating contact arrangements for B and his father with handovers taking place between a third party in a public place. This arrangement proved to be ineffective and the local authority subsequently received nine police reports.

The Local Authority started pre-proceedings in June 2022. Later in that year, the mother issued her own private law proceedings.

On 19 April 2023, the mother dropped B to the father when she was made homeless. Thereafter, there were concerns about her mental health. The local authority arranged a contact centre for the mother to see B. The systemic family assessment which led the local authority to be particularly concerned for the family was dated 13 April 2023.

The systemic family assessment concluded that “neither parent had demonstrated during the assessment that they were able to mentalise B’s needs to protect him from further physical, emotional harm and neglect. Both parents remained preoccupied with the dynamic of their relationship which had created an impasse and B was positioned by both as central to their views of one another”.

The assessment recorded that “B is therefore likely to continue to suffer harm in either parent’s care until they are able to mentalise his lived experience and the impact of their continued stipulations, high levels of conflict and domestic abuse on his global development”. This was the catalyst to the local authority issuing public law proceedings.

In May 2023, the mother drunk a bottle of Amaretto and took 16 ibuprofen as set out in her first statement.

The initial ICO hearing on 15 May 2023 was ineffective due to the lack of a guardian. The private law proceedings were consolidated with the public law ones. On 19 May 2023, neither parent opposed B staying with his father, a written agreement and an interim supervision order.

On 4 October 2023, the mother saw some bruising at contact with B. According to a child protection medical on 5 October 2023, some of these marks appeared to be non-accidental. B was placed in police protection. An interim care order was made on 6 October 2023 for B to be placed in foster care.

By the hearing of June 2024, B was spending overnights with his mother, although that appears to have started without court oversight or approval and from January 2025, all parties were agreed that B should remain living with his mother under a supervision order.

I remind myself as to the law. The burden of proof is on the person who alleges something happened and the standard of proof, the balance of probabilities. I remind myself in accordance with the case of Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838, that I need to consider all the evidence in this case. Evidence cannot be evaluated or assessed in separate compartments. A judge in these difficult cases must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to the other and exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence to come to a conclusion.

Findings of fact must be based on evidence including inferences that may be drawn and not suspicion or speculation. I remind myself of the case of Re R [2024] EWCA Civ 153. The court must grapple with and draw conclusions from all the evidence, both lay and medical. It is wrong to describe medical evidence as the canvas against which other evidence may be considered. Medical and non-medical evidence are both vital contributors in their own ways to the court’s decisions. Neither has a precedence over the other.

It is not strictly speaking the court’s task to determine how a child’s injuries were sustained, but to thoroughly evaluate the cases presented by all parties. Judges are to set out whether each of the witness’s cases is accepted in the manner described and if not, why not. This is a fundamental issue when assessing the credibility of the witnesses.

There are a number of statements in the bundle which are hearsay. That means they have not been tested in cross-examination and I remind myself of the limitations of that kind of evidence. The weight to be attached to it is a matter for me to decide. The child protection medical and many social work documents fall within this category.

The father did not attend the final day reserved for his evidence and he did not respond to counsel’s calls or calls from his solicitor on that day. Although, I am satisfied that he was aware of the hearing. I will return to this later in the judgment, but as a matter of law, I remind myself about adverse inferences as set out in Re C (A Child) (Fact Finding) [2022] EWCA Civ 584. Particularly the guidance given by the Court of Appeal at paragraphs 21 and 27 of that judgment.

At paragraph 21, the Court of Appeal reminds us of the case Wiszniewski v Central Manchester HA [1998] P.I.Q.R. 324. The Court of Appeal goes on in paragraph 27 to summarise the principles in that case as being consistent with the observations of the House of Lords in the case of R v IRC & Anor ex parte T.C. Coombs & Co [1991] 2 AC 283. Lord Lowry set out that:

“ In our legal system generally, the silence of one party in face of the other party's evidence may convert that evidence into proof in relation to matters which are, or are likely to be, within the knowledge of the silent party and about which that party could be expected to give evidence. Thus, depending on the circumstances, a prima facie case may become a strong or even an overwhelming case. But, if the silent party's failure to give evidence (or to give the necessary evidence) can be credibly explained, even if not entirely justified, the effect of his silence in favour of the other party, may be either reduced or nullified.”

The Court of Appeal went on to look at the observations of Holman J in Re U (Care Proceedings: Criminal Conviction: Refusal to Give Evidence) [2006] EWHC 372 and a passage approved by the Court of Appeal in Re T and J (Children)A Mother v Local Authority & Ors [2020] EWCA Civ 1344.

The Court of Appeal that Lord Lowry’s observation “does no more than describe and illustrate the very broad discretion the court must draw to adverse inferences which must be exercised in a very fact specific context”.

Moving on, I remind myself of section 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act. I remind myself of practice 12J and in particular, the definitions in practice 12J of coercive and controlling behaviour. Coercive behaviour means “an act or patterns of acts of assault, threats, humiliation, intimidation or other abuse that is used to harm, punish, frighten the victim”. Controlling behaviour means “an act or pattern of acts designed to make a person subordinate or dependent by isolating them from sources of support, exploiting their resources and capacities for personal gain and depriving them of the means needed for their independence, resistance and escape, and regulating their everyday behaviour”.

I remind myself of the case of H-N and Others [2021] EWCA Civ 448 and the totality of the dicta in that case. But particularly, I highlight for my own guidance paragraph 32 which reminds me that not all directive, assertive, stubborn or selfish behaviour is abuse. I remind myself of paragraphs 51 and 56 and the importance of judges looking at the overall picture to see if a pattern emerges from the evidence.

I asked counsel for submissions on the approach I should take in the light of this case, H-N, Miss Badejo asked for a degree of granular findings but both she and Mr Alleyne-Brown agreed that it was important to look at the big picture.

I remind myself of the case of R v Lucas [1981] QB720. Just because somebody lies about one thing, does not mean they have lied about everything, and that people have different reasons for lying: to bolster a just cause, out of shame or a wish to conceal disgraceful behaviour from their family.

I remind myself of paragraphs 57 and 58 of the case A, B and C [2021] EWCA Civ 451. Counsel in their closing submissions highlighted the elements of untruthfulness that they perceived in the father’s account that pointed to the causation of the injuries not being the way that he presented them.

The evidence of the parents is of utmost importance and it is essential that I form a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability, that is BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC. The parents must have the fullest opportunity to take part in the hearing and the court is likely to place considerable weight on their evidence and the impression that it forms of them ( Re W and Anor (A Child: Non-Accidental Injury) [2003] FCR 346).

Mr Alleyne-Brown has not made an application to recall his client or for his client to give evidence prior to giving judgment and therefore, I have embarked on the judgment at the time scheduled.

I remind myself, finally, of the words of Macur LJ in Re M (Children) [2013] EWCA Civ 1147.

“Any judge appraising witnesses in the emotionally charged atmosphere of a contested family dispute should warn themselves to guard against an assessment solely on the basis of their behaviour in the witness box and to expressly indicate that they have done so.”

That is particularly important in this case in which the mother came across as very emotional and distressed, and the father explained to me that he does not show his emotions. Indeed, he told the court at the end of his evidence in January that his grandfather had passed away that morning. I bear in mind the guidance of Macur LJ when I consider his evidence. He was giving evidence particularly on a difficult day for him. I remind myself of how somebody comes across in the witness box is not a reliable indicator of whether they are telling the truth.

When I look at the evidence, I have considered it all and read the bundle several times, so I may not mention all the evidence in what is already an over long judgment, but I bear it all well in mind. The recordings evidence that the mother produced, I have listened to. The weakness of this type of evidence is that the mother knew she was recording and the father did not.

She arguably leads him into certain topics, like on the September 2020 recording where they discuss ex-partners. On 3 October 2020, it is clear that the recording ends when the father realises that the mother has been recording him. So, recordings like this are only ever capable of providing a snapshot of conversations that the parties have. It is particularly important that they are placed in the context of the relationship as a whole.

In a similar way, text messages are a snapshot and I was not able to listen to the audio or video files embedded which sometimes are key to understanding the messages that follow them. These messages are an instantaneous form of communication often sent on the spur of the moment and without time for reflection. The mother said in evidence that they are not punctuated and of course that makes them harder to interpret. Similarly, the tone of a message is very hard to judge. For example, it is difficult to tell if someone has been sarcastic or joking.

The messages give a partial insight into the parties’ relationship. But clearly this couple communicated a lot by text, so it does give you an idea of the state of their relationship which I would characterise as jealous, abusive and, on both sides at times showing a shockingly callous approach to the other partner taking an overdose.

By way of oral evidence, I will summarise the impression that each party made on me. Dr Rahman was an authoritative witness without in any way being blinkered or inflexible in his thinking. He struck me as very careful and thoughtful in his answers and doing his utmost to help the court within his area of expertise. He was not dogmatic but clear and insightful.

What struck me about the social worker’s evidence is how well she knows the family. She was often taken to passages of the bundle but what became clear is that she could recall without looking at the written evidence, the evaluation of the issues off the top of her head and she had a recollection of all the major and significant factors and events which was consistent with what was written down in the bundle. She was an impressive witness who is clearly very experienced and child focused. She struck me as even handed in her comments. Although it is clear that she found the father difficult to work with at times, it was clear that he had also been quite child focused and she gave him full credit for all the positive things about his parenting that Mr Alleyne-Brown put to her.

The mother was a detailed and fluent witness, and her recollection of events was spontaneous, unstudied and compelling. She accepted she had physically assaulted the father in 2021. She accepted she had sworn and she could be argumentative. However, she was clear that she was reacting to the father’s abuse and that he was controlling and coercive. Her evidence may not have been given in those terms at the beginning of the relationship and her realisation of the dynamic which characterised the relationship appears to be something that has dawned on her as she has done domestic abuse work.

She was frequently tearful and distressed, and struck me as someone who is very fragile and vulnerable. However, it was clear to me that she was in a very different place to where she was at the beginning of the proceedings when she described being at rock bottom and said she did not want to be here. She showed a real determination to rebut those lines of questioning that suggested she should have called the police, or she should have left sooner, or that there was no medical evidence. She tried to impress on everyone in court what it was like for her from the perspective of having experienced abuse.

Despite her vulnerability, she had a good understanding of domestic abuse. She had a clear focus and purpose in B and she seemed rightly proud of the progress he was making. She has kept her job throughout these proceedings and that seems to illustrate her strength of character. She was not against B seeing his father and she says B really likes it, and that it was positive and she accepted that contact would need to progress as B grows up.

The father clearly loves his son, that was evident from what he said in the witness box. However, his evidence as a whole was unconvincing. His description of the fall in the park was shifting and unclear. In response to the mother’s allegations of abuse, there was a pattern in his evidence of deflection, digression and minimisation in the way that he responded. He sometimes spoke in a rather formal way, using language that is not common outside the courtroom like the mother “will allegate against me” or “I refute that”. That gave his evidence the air of being studied and lacking spontaneity.

The guardian’s evidence was clear and focused. She was even handed in relation to the parents and gave father credit for the reduction in his cannabis use. She made it clear that the social worker should do so too. She thought it was imperative that the local authority and the parents had a written agreement which set out clear expectations. We now have that agreement and it has been working as far as I have been told for the last few months. I must give all parties in the courtroom real credit for that.

The threshold has been agreed in large parts, save for the provisions about B’s injuries. What I am going to do now is set out my findings of fact, both in relation to the injuries and the findings of domestic abuse that the mother seeks in relation to the father.

Starting with the mother’s allegations of domestic abuse. By way of background, I am satisfied that Mr Y has had a full opportunity to respond to the allegations and I want to give both parties real credit for the parts of their behaviour that they have been both able to accept was abusive. But there is a real gulf between what the father accepts and how the mother characterises the relationship.

In his final statement, he says,

“I prepared statements in this case specifically in relation to the allegations made by Miss X which I will not comment on any further. I do not consider even at their highest this would pose the level of risk that Miss X suggests, which would require ongoing specialist supervised contact within the community.”

There was an extent throughout his written and oral evidence that he tries to shut down the allegations made against him. There is a pattern in his response to the allegations that he tends to accept those elements of the allegations which are clearly evidenced in contemporaneous communication and dispute those for which there is no corroborating evidence.

By way of background, I have the evidence of social services who have known B the entirety of his life. What they have recorded the parents have said gives me an insight into the relationship because both parents have given accounts to other people. I have already talked about the systemic family assessment back in 2023 in which it is recorded Mr Y seemed to minimise domestic violence incidents or claim it was Miss X who had instigated or carried out the abuse. His initial response to that assessment says “there has been no impact on B either physical or emotional”.

The mother is recorded as being preoccupied in her relationship with the father. The writer does not decide if there was domestic abuse but observes that if these allegations are true, then it presents a high risk and they go on to analyse the impact on B. They also record what Miss X told them, that she was subjected to lengthy arguments over three hours, pushed on to the bed where B was laying, she alleges that Mr Y punched her while she was holding B, kicked her while she was recovering from B’s birth, called her several times a day, insisted on video calls to check where she is and there are times where she recalls shouting out the window for help as she was not allowed to leave the property.

That record back in 2023 echoes what the mother said in her evidence and the specific allegations that she seeks were clearly mentioned to the assessor at that time. The 2023 assessment goes on “Miss X admits she slapped Mr Y during the argument on 20 January 2021. She admits calling him frequently to understand his whereabouts and she accepts she has driven to his friends and family looking for him when he has not responded. She also has left parcels on the doorstep, put a bracelet for him on the windscreen of his car and brought B to his workplace”.

There is the mother’s report for the child protection medical on 5 October 2023 when she says that Mr Y was physically violent towards her during the pregnancy but did not leave marks. She reported to the assessor that the Father displays controlling and coercive behaviour and has threatened to keep B away from her. Miss X says that B has witnessed his mother being dragged and shouted at and screamed at.

We then have the mother’s report to Dr George. She says that the relationship was good at the start but then the Father became jealous about her speaking to other men and she suffered physical and emotional abuse at the hands of the father of her son. When asked why she did not leave the relationship, she stated she thought he would be a better person after she had the baby.

She reported being terrified of Mr Y but feel it is safer to have contact with him rather than not. She describes the father as being “abusive, manipulative and coercively controlling her”. Dr George includes in the report a summary of the mother’s GP notes. It is clear that in 2021 the mother told the GP she was a victim of domestic abuse on three occasions and twice in 2023.

The father has also spoken to third parties. He consistently denied to the independent social worker that he was abusive to Miss X throughout the assessment. Their analysis was that he passed the burden of blame on to Miss X for all the conflict in their relationship, describing her as mentally unstable and seeking conflict. The independent social worker found the mother at that stage to be entirely focused on B and ensuring his return to her care rather than remaining in the toxic cycle of her relationship with Mr Y.

The social worker in her evidence, and she has worked with both parents, says that she bears in mind that just because Mr Y comes across in a certain way to her (the social worker) does not mean that he behaves that way to the mother. However, there was a consistency in how both the mother and the social worker can perceive Mr Y.

The social worker said he was aggressive in his tone on the phone to her, very arrogant and trying to put words in her mouth. She said he raised his voice and shouted at her, lost his temper on the phone quite often. She pointed at the history of him being aggressive with others including the social worker in Another Local Authority and the independent social worker.

This social worker is experienced and comes across as very robust, yet she described the father as intimidating and hostile. She took the view that the father ringing the independent social worker trying to persuade her to change her recommendations shows extremely controlling behaviour.

What struck me about what the social worker said in evidence was that it chimed exactly with what the mother said. The mother said too that the father would claim that she had said things which she had not and made her feel like, and I quote, “a nutjob.” The mother’s response was to record the conversations she had with the father and the social worker’s response to him was to refuse to communicate by phone at times.

Looking then at the specific allegations. Number 1, that throughout the relationship, the parents’ relationship after separation and at times in B’s presence, the father was verbally abusive to the mother, called her names such as tramp, slag and cunt. He insulted and denigrated the mother through text, WhatsApp and social media. Mr Y accepts this verbal abuse and using words such as those described by Miss X.

However, in his initial response at A77, he does accept responsibility but then goes on to minimise, justify and rely on Dr George’s report in doing so. To his credit, he did not try to refer to Dr George’s report in the witness box in this way, but he still seemed to respond to the mother by justifying his behaviour rather than simply accepting it. I have read the WhatsApp messages; I have listened to the recording RT2 in which the father calls the mother a “cunt” and a “thick shit”.

In these recordings, I have heard the father raise his voice, his tone is unpleasant, the words used and their tone are clearly abusive, and I am satisfied from what I have read and heard that this was habitual and his way of behaving throughout the relationship and not just a one off. I am satisfied that allegation 1 is made out.

Allegation 2, is that throughout the relationship the father was emotionally and psychologically abusive when he made light of the mother’s suicide attempts or referred to her as crazy, as delusional, which contributed to a decline in her mental health. Mr Y accepts that he used derogatory abusive language that would have had an impact on her mental health.

Again, in his full response he seeks to minimise or justify saying that covid had a role and that she does not speak to her aunt and uncle. He goes on,

“I am concerned that people do not really understand that Miss X is manipulative. She is not silly, she is a call handler for the police and has calls throughout the day from different people, victims, etc. I am concerned she knows how to play the system and knows how to get me arrested.”

I have reviewed the entirety of the evidence and would highlight the following as being consistent with Miss X’s allegations. RT3, that is a recording on 5 May 2022, Mr Y can be heard telling the mother to jump in front of a truck towards the end of the recording. That has not been transcribed but it is clearly audible. There are also a couple of messages on WhatsApp in which the father tells her to jump in front of a bus. The midwife who looked after the mother while she was pregnant said that the father said to her that the mother was mad, absolutely mad. That is F8. The father accepts this allegation and the evidence is there in the bundle which makes it out. I therefore find it proven.

On 27 July 2020 during an argument, the father followed the mother to her car, prevented her from leaving by taking her car keys. The mother walked away and the father shouted insults and abuse at the mother, threw the keys at her which hit her on the back. He slapped her glasses off her head causing the centrepiece to cut Miss X’s head.

Exhibit RT6 is a string of WhatsApp messages that cover this date. The father seems to start by apologising but then becomes abusive. I do not have the audio notes. He starts by saying,

“You deserve better than me and what I have put you through. It is not fair on you. You should not be in this position.”

At K31, the mother says in a message on 27 July,

“Saturday was bad enough. You hurt me physically on several occasions. The glasses on my head hurt a lot and you brushed it off with crocodile tears. You smashed my keys to pieces and they all had sentimental value and cannot be replaced. I do not even know what to say. I am disappointed and hurt, really hurt.”

She goes on,

“I am not innocent, but I do not detach (sic) you putting hands on me.”

At K34,

“You broke three things which were sentimental to me. You hurt me physically and emotionally and you think that sorry makes it okay.”

At K37 on 28 July,

“… keys at me which you fucking cut me up,”

she says. At K42 on 28 July, there is a run of messages between them, the mother saying,

“I have got scabs on my head, Y.”

Mr Y replying,

“I know.”

To which she says,

“From when you got my glasses.”

Later on 28 July, she goes on,

“Why did you break my keyrings and smack the glasses off my head and throw keys at my back?”

At K55, the father seeks to minimise. For example, she says to him,

“Well?”

and he responds,

“I have not hit you.”

“No, you threw things at me,”

the mother comes back.

The father’s written responses appear to actually refer to a different occasion, but in any event, he does not accept slapping the glasses off the mother’s head. The mother’s evidence in court was detailed and consistent with her earlier accounts. She described the motion with which the father swiped the fashion glasses away from where they were perched on her head.

She did not overstate her evidence and described the injury as “a little indentation, not a massive cut but if you tapped it, you would get a bit of blood on your finger”. She was also clear in her response that the father was talking about a different occasion. She was also able to give an account of that in granular detail.

The father’s evidence in cross-examination did seem to describe the same incident as the mother remembered in contrast to his written response. He described throwing the keys a distance of 50 to 100 metres towards the mother up an alleyway. That seemed improbable to me. He seemed to accept that he did throw the keys but minimised it. He would not engage with the allegation about the glasses saying,

“I am not going to entertain a lie.”

The mother’s account is consistent with the contemporaneous messages and is detailed. I find the allegation made out. But I would amend the finding to make it clear that the injury by which the glasses centrepiece cut the mother’s head was very minor in its nature.

In relation to 21 September 2020, it is alleged the father threw a phone at the wall which bounced off and hit the mother’s face. He threw a soft toy, and the label caught her eyebrow and caused a cut. The father attempted to prevent her from leaving the room by holding her foot. He ripped her shoe off causing a bruise. The father stood in the doorway during the argument preventing the mother from leaving.

The father’s response was that he recollected this incident about Instagram and liking people on social media. He says,

“I did throw my phone. I chucked it over my shoulder. I was not looking in her direction. It hit the wall, but I do not know where it went. I do not know if it is going to bounce off the wall and hit her. I had no intention to hit Miss X at all. I also picked up a teddy, threw it over my shoulder as I was walking out of the bedroom. I do not know if I had caused an injury. The rest of the incident is not true. I did not rip off her shoe. This did not happen at all. There is no photo of her foot. There is a little cut on her eye but as I say, I was not looking at her and I did not know it hurt her. I do not really have anything more to say about this incident.”

The cross-examination by Mr Alleyne-Brown opened with Mr Alleyne-Brown saying to the mother, the father accepts your account but not the bit about preventing you from leaving.

Exhibit RT7 is a recording of seven minutes. That relates to this allegation. When I first listened to it, I struggled to see how it was relevant because it is the mother and father discussing previous partners and ordered a pair of shoes. It is unpleasant, jealous, disrespectful and distrustful, but it does not evidence any of the specific allegations made.

The mother explained that this was a seven minute extract of about a three or four hour long argument in which the father prevented her leaving the room. In oral evidence, the mother gave a detailed description of the layout of the room, where they were, the throwing of the phone and the teddy bear. The messages she exhibits from this time period are consistent with her account.

So, on 21 September, she says,

“I have a brushed (sic) foot, bruise under my eye and a scab on my eyebrow. How do you think it is going to look, Y, after everything that has been said.”

She goes on later that evening,

“Own the fact you are aggressive and you use throwing things as a form of releasing anger. Because I ignore you, does not give you the right to throw things about your room. Now, I have to explain a cut and a mark on my face after everything that has been said.”

There is an audio message to ‘C’ who I believe is her cousin on 20 September 2020. She messages at 20.23,

“He fully will not let me leave.”

There is at K78, a picture of a red mark under her eyebrow. At K79, a scratch on her head and a red mark under her eyebrow. It is not clear to me if that is the same side of her face or the other side of her face at K78. That is all consistent with her written case and oral evidence.

The father in cross-examination accepted throwing the phone but denied all other aspects of the allegation. In response to throwing the teddy, he replied that, “there is nothing in the WhatsApp messages about throwing the teddy” and that he did not recall throwing it. That is in contrast with his written response in which he says he did throw the teddy. He acknowledges he did see a couple of marks on the mother but not at the time.

Overall, the mother’s account was cogent, and I find this allegation made out. However, I do not have evidence of injury to the foot and the matter is pleaded in somewhat emotive terms,

“ripped my shoe off causing a bruise.”

I cannot find on the balance of probabilities exactly what happened to the foot and therefore I will simply remove those words from the finding as I record it.

The next allegation is that on 28 January 2021, the father refused to return the mother’s car keys unless she transferred money that the father had paid towards a deposit. He poked her in the head and kept her in the room for four hours. In addition to the parents’ statements, I have the notes taken by the social worker shortly after this incident. That is in the child and family assessment of 2 February 2021.

It is recorded that, and this is the social worker speaking as if to B,

“On 28 January 2021, your mum called the police as she had had an argument with your dad as they both claimed owning the same car. Your mum reported your dad refusing to give the car keys back, assaulted her and would not give her back her phone. So, she pushed him as he would not let her out. On police arrival, your mum was very upset and crying.”

The social worker goes on to give a very detailed account of what the parents told her.

The father’s response to this in writing is that the mother thumped him on the back. He says,

“I sat up on the edge of the bed and she was punching my back.”

She admitted in the bodycam footage that she had done this.

“I put my hands on the back of my head to prevent her hitting me,”

he says.

“She stopped hitting me and I spoke to her. I did have my finger on her forehead and told her to stop hitting me. She was crying and saying she did not know what to do with herself anymore and I comforted her. I did not keep her in the room,”

he goes on.

“She was free to leave the home or the room whenever she wanted.”

The child and family assessment recalls that the mother called the midwife during this incident and the mother told the midwife that the door was not open whilst the father told the midwife that it was. The child protection conference held on 18 March 2021 at which the midwife was present as was both parents, at this conference the mother said that father was not controlling and said,

“I can be argumentative and difficult at times. People are aware of this.”

The social worker records at F12,

“Your mum’s midwife reports your dad referred to your mum as crazy and mad. Something your dad denies. Your dad reports that he said your mum was acting crazy.”

The father again in cross-examination said she was acting mad and behaving crazy. This is what he said to the social worker at the time as well, broadly speaking, and the social worker saw this as gaslighting.

The RISE assessment records that the father speaks to them on 14 May 2021 at F23. He stated he did put his finger on her forehead but attempted to justify this saying Mother had been hitting him from behind. He stated that he shouted at her also. He did not state he took the phone or the keys.

I have then got RT10 which the mother exhibits and the messages on 28 January. The mother says,

“Whatever I say you do not hear me. I should never have been put in that position yesterday, especially not while cuddling your child. Until you realise that keeping me in a room and preventing me having a phone is control, then I am genuinely not interested. Also, not once did I say I was going to put pills down my throat, so what gives you the right to say that to the midwife.”

Later on, she goes on in the messaging,

“You brought me to a point where I hit you. I could lose my job over that and you drew me to that point because you would not give me my phone back or let me out of the room.”

When the father was asked about this in cross-examination, he did not directly answer the question about whether he kept the mother in the room and he kept replying,

“She accuses me numerous times.”

He gave evidence that he was in a relationship with a woman who made up allegations.

The mother’s oral evidence again was consistent with her written evidence and the notes taken by the professionals at the time of her account. She demonstrated very vividly in the witness box how the father would hold the phone out to her then snatch it away, just as she described it to the social workers at the time. She accepts she thudded the father on the back and said,

“Let me leave the room”

and she said that he threatened to go to the police at any point about this.

The father sought to minimise the poking of the mother in the head in the witness box and he accepted that he used the word “tap” when speaking to RISE. Whilst I accept that precise language is important, the father has a tendency to be quite pedantic about semantics and at times he uses this in part to minimise or deflect attention away from his role in situations. So, for example, the clear impression he was giving the midwife by using the word “crazy” was that the mother’s sanity was in question. Regardless of whether he said acting mad or behaving crazy, the force of it is very clear.

What is striking about the father’s finger on the mother’s forehead is that this is not the application of extreme force, but it is an exercise in control. A single finger does not produce much force on its own, but it is a demonstration of your power over somebody. I accept the mother’s account of this incident. It is vivid, compelling and entirely consistent with the contemporaneous reports she gave at the time.

On 14 June 2021 during an argument, the father pushed the mother on the floor. When the mother tried to shut herself in the bathroom and lock the door, the father pulled the door hard so the lock came off. The mother was forced to contact her sister for assistance and the father attempted to overdose with tablets during or shortly after the argument.

The father’s written response is that

“I cannot find evidence where it suggests I am going to take my own life. This did not happen. I did not take any tablets. I am not sure what she is referring to. She was in the bathroom and there is a lock on the door. I did not force the door. I did not assault her. It simply did not happen.”

The mother’s statement is detailed and consistent with what she said in court. Although the father denies taking pills, there is RT11 in which the mother says to the father,

“You know, whatever. You take tablets again. I will leave you to die and will not get no fucking help.”

That is consistent with the mother’s recollection that the father did take tablets on this occasion. Of course, it is a very callous and dismissive way to respond to somebody who may have taken an overdose, but it is consistent with the fact that he did so.

Again, the mother’s report has been consistently given over a number of years. She makes mention of this when speaking to the police on 4 September 2023, saying he has physically assaulted her on two occasions, once in June 2021, pushing past her and knocking her to the floor. The mother’s oral evidence contained further detail about the medication she had in her house at the time which she said she saw the father take. She recalled they got billed for the broken lock on the bathroom at the end of the tenancy.

Her account again was consistent with her written evidence and non-rehearsed. Here as in other parts of her evidence, Mr Alleyne-Brown challenged her on points of detail. Of course, he is entitled to do so to explore her evidence which his client does not agree. But here particularly, the mother’s reply is robust about the dynamic of the relationship.

A defence of her actions was given in the witness box of someone who was controlled over a period of years. She said,

“I am really sorry if I am not providing a detailed itinerary of what happened.”

But actually, her answers were open and revealing. She explained why she could not contact the police every time and this made her narrative all the more convincing.

The father mentioned in cross-examination for the first time that the mother pulled the bathroom lock off. He tried to shut down questions he was asked, for example, by saying,

“I am not here for tit for tat with Miss X.”

In keeping with his evidence on other matters, he would refute anything that he could not find corroborated in the WhatsApp. Again, on balance, the mother’s account is more credible and this allegation is made out.

On 17 July 2021, the mother attempted to leave the house during an argument. As she reached the front door, she alleges the father dragged her back and kicked her in the crotch. The first kick was in the hallway, the second was when she walked back into the living room, during which he caught her stitches. When the mother told him she thought she was bleeding, the father pulled down her knickers and said,

“You are not bleeding. Get up now, you are pathetic.”

The father was holding B when he did this.

The father’s response is,

“This simply never happened. I have no idea what Miss X was referring to.”

Again, the mother’s written account is detailed. She produces messages which are consistent with her recollection. For example, RT12, on 12 August 2021.

“You did it the day you kicked me.”

Later that day,

“I would appreciate you not throwing things at me.”

Later that day again,

“Kicking me in my stitches.”

At K121,

“You think that sitting on your phone to your mum is being smart. Well, I hope you tell them you kicked me in my stitches.”

There is RT13 at which she says,

“I do not care about someone who pokes me and pushes me.”

Mr Y replies vice versa. At RT14,

“This ain’t his home. A home is not where you call his mum a cunt, kick her in the stiches a few days after she comes home.”

That is on 29 August 2021.

Again, later that day, she says,

“Every time gets a little worse.”

“Lol, okay,”

Mr Y replies.

“You find excuses to why you behave like it,”

she concludes. Later, on 24 September that year,

“You can kick me two days after giving birth,”

she says.

There is also mention by the mother to the police of this incident when she reports another matter on 4 September 2023. She says,

“In July 2021, just after the victim had given birth, they got into an argument as the suspect wanted the victim to attend a birthday party. He kicked her from behind which hit the victim in the vagina region, which she still had stitches in from giving birth.”

The mother’s oral evidence was vivid and consistent with her earlier accounts. She explained, she did not omit the details about her knickers being pulled down when talking to the police and they must have omitted it from their records. She explained the father was holding B when this happened and she would never play tug of war with B. The impression the mother gave me was not of seeking to embellish but reliving the incident in detail.

The father’s written case as I have said is that this did not happen and he had no recollection of what she was referring to. In the witness box, he described holding B and that they were joking around. His final position was that the incident did happen, but she exaggerated it. Mr Y’s evidence shifted throughout cross-examination. His first response when asked if he had ever kicked the mother was “no”. When pressed, he said there was an incident on the doorstep when he had shunted her foot.

When taken to the text message on 12 August 2021 at 16.19 that says,

“I kicked your bum cheek,”

he explained,

“I kicked her on the bum cheek as a joke saying, come along, chop – chop,”

which Miss Badejo clarified that he kicked her at a time when she had a baby four days ago. He said,

“I would not say kick”

and gave an explanation, to him kicking meant kicking a football. He later in evidence described it as a tap. He sought to minimise the mother’s vulnerability after giving birth saying,

“She wanted to have sex four days after giving birth.”

Again, I found this allegation made out on the balance of probabilities. I am going to amend the finding to refer to the crotch area which is a more accurate reflection of the evidence as a whole.

16 October 2021. The father refused to let the mother out of the house and took her phone. When the mother tried to shout for help, he pushed her and slammed the window on her arm which scraped her arm. She was kept in the property for several hours. B was present in the home at the time. The father’s response is,

“This in relation to an incident whereby Miss X was trying to jump out of the window. I was trying to grab her. The window might have injured her but that was done by herself, not me. She hurt herself on the window.”

The mother’s written statement is detailed. She describes an argument starting at 11 pm to 12 am and continuing to 10 am in the morning with a break at 5 am due to sleeping. It started in the kitchen downstairs and moved up to the bedroom. She describes B being in the Moses basket the majority of the time. She describes going towards the window to scream for help when Father put B on the bed and pushed me while slamming the window on my arm which scraped it. I have seen the clear graze to her arm in the photo RT15.

She goes on,

“To prevent me from leaving, he would follow me and block the doorway. When I tried to leave, he would grab my car keys, lock the door from inside and hid both my keys and his, preventing me from getting out.”

This WhatsApp also at RT16 is consistent with the mother’s recollection. This in fact is one of the most disturbing exchanges on the WhatsApp messages. It is mother threatening to commit suicide and the father abusing her and goading her and accusing her of being unfaithful.

Regardless of whether the mother had a genuine suicidal intention and whether she would act on those feelings, again it is one of the most callous sets of responses to anyone who is in a fragile mental state that you can imagine.

Then, the mother goes on to give evidence that the father withheld B from her. The text messages at RT17 are consistent with that. She says in her written evidence that he used her mental health as a reason to restrict her access to B and that is also recorded in the section 37 report at F167.

When asked about this in oral evidence, the mother maintained her account that she was at the window trying to scream for help and that the father pulled the window shut on her arm. She denied causing the injuries herself. The father’s oral evidence was that he accepted he was upset because the mother had been unfaithful and was going behind his back and he would question her. He said she was having a mental breakdown and saying that,

“I do not want to be here no more.”

Again, in keeping with his other evidence, his answers were often evasive, particularly in relation to this incident. So, “when asked do you agree that this happened in October 2021”, he said,

“I could not tell you.”

He was asked: “You say the window may have injured her?”

“I did not see any marks at the precise moment.”

He seemed to have no acceptance of the level of distress that the mother felt in relation to this incident or the distress she felt when she could not see her son for the period following this. I find this allegation made out.

This allegation is that throughout the relationship, the father exhibited controlling behaviour towards the mother by messaging her accurate details about her whereabouts when she had not given him those details and tracking her through an app without her consent. Both parents agree that they had a black box fitted for insurance purposes. It came with an app that gave the location of the car to their phones. The app also sends notifications when the tracker is unplugged.

The father’s evidence is,

“It was not a means for me to track Miss X. It is something the company was advising me that they needed to have.”

The mother says,

“The first time I was tracked was on 29 January 2021. I was on my way to my cousin’s and he texted me saying have fun at C’s.”

There is WhatsApp evidence consistent with this.

RT18 is also from this particular interaction. The mother describes driving to her place of work and reporting the father for harassment. There is a report of her call at J306 “the subject is being tracked through a tracking device that she has on her car because of the insurance policy. He also made reports that I have removed the tracker,”.

At RT19 the mother’s discussions with the insurance company are set out. She sets out at RT20 text messages, again suggesting that the father was keeping tabs on her and became abusive. The messages do appear to be consistent with this.

The mother’s oral evidence was consistent again through both her written and her contemporaneous communications. What comes across is how deeply disturbing she finds it, the father knowing where she was and she did not have an appreciation when she got the tracker and the app that the insurance company would allow the father to follow her in essence and see where the car was at any given moment. In the end, she says they cancelled the policy because it was not safe and they could not lock him out of the handset.

The father’s cross-examination did not dispute the messages. He could see the mother’s perspective. However, he would not accept he was controlling and sought to minimise and deflect this by saying,

“Controlling, that is me asking questions and why am I getting notifications to her phone. I questioned her because I thought she was lying. The only reason was to ask to find out the reason you had to lie to me.”

It seems to me on the balance of probabilities that the reason the parents got the tracker was indeed to reduce the insurance premiums, rather than the father getting it for the purposes of monitoring the mother. However, it seems likely to me that on those occasions mentioned, he did use it to find out where she was and this was deeply unsettling for her.

The father accepted the final allegation of listening to a conversation the mother had with the maternal grandmother through a baby monitor on 8 October 2021.

Standing back and looking at the big picture, the parents both accept their relationship was toxic and the arguments they had were fuelled by social media postings that could go on for days. This dynamic was deeply distrustful and often triggered by the father’s jealousy of the mother’s perceived infidelity. Both parties could be callous towards the other when in distress and it is an utterly dysfunctional dynamic.

The mother accepts she assaulted the father in January 2021. She accepts she could be argumentative and abusive, and that she told the father she hated him. She accepts thumping him on the back. However, when I look across all the evidence, it seems to me that the power imbalance in this relationship falls predominantly in the father’s favour. Her perception, the mother’s perception that the father is aggressive and controlling chimes with the way he has behaved towards the social worker and the independent social worker.

There is a clear pattern across a number of instances of him holding her phone and snatching it away from her when she tries to take it. The mother described very clearly a pattern of behaviour in which the father would be jealous. He would not let her go by blocking the door with his body, so the only way she could get past him was to physically confront him.

The mother works for the police and the father wielded real power over the mother by threatening to go to the police about the minor assault in 2021, when this would have implications for her independence and employment if prosecuted. He also withheld B from her, which caused her very deep distress. He was callous about her mental health and dismissive of it. He used it as a lever against her, presenting her as mentally unstable to the health visitor and using derogatory language to goad her about her fragility.

I look at the impact of this on B. B himself was either in utero or present as a very young baby for many of these instances. He himself as a matter of law is a victim of domestic abuse pursuant to section 3 of the Domestic Abuse Act 2021. The mother had a good understanding of the impact on a child of being present during such incidents and how he slept through this because he was used to it from being in the womb. The father did not demonstrate in the witness box an appreciation of B being present throughout these instances.

I look at the broad picture and the context of these injuries, and the risk factors and protective factors in the family in accordance with Re BR (Proof of Facts) [2015] EWFC 41.

Save for the findings of violence I have just made arising in relation to the mother, the father does not have a history of violence. He has no convictions. B was in his primary care and there are no other reports of injuries of concern or the father mistreating B. Indeed, the professional evidence talks about a very warm relationship between the father and B. The father has no mental health problems.

Against that, I found a significant history of domestic abuse and controlling coercive behaviour. There is also an established pattern of cannabis misuse. The father says he does not use around B, but the mother says his use is pervasive.

The chronology about the bruises is as follows.

On 4 October, B attended contact with the mother at the contact centre. She saw extensive bruising on his buttocks, legs, back and grazes on his face. The social worker did have to text B’s father for an explanation about how this happened. The father accepted this in oral evidence, that the social worker had to contact him and accepted to Miss Khasriya that the social worker texted him first and he called her back.

In relation to the causation of the bruises, the father has explained how they took place. The burden of proof, of course, is not on him and the burden of proof is not reversible. There is the case of Lancashire County Council v R [2013] EWHC 3064. There is no pseudo burden on a parent to come up with an alternative explanation. The burden of disproving a reasonable explanation is on the local authority.

The context for the bruises, they were spotted by the mother at the contact centre. The first record of what the father said happened is in the contact book, which was an entry made for the 4 October contact.

“B fell over when at a birthday party. He cried for a minute when I was checking him and then he continued playing.”

Father makes no mention of marks or bruising. He gives no date or context of the party, where it was or who else was there. The social worker then texted him and he rang her on 4 October.

The social worker’s note is when the father called her,

“Father has minimised the injuries, explaining on 3 October at a family member’s home, B fell from a height, a climbing frame on to a hard surface. Father said B cried for two to three minutes then went off to play.”

The guardian attended B’s house to meet him and the father for a pre-arranged visit on the afternoon of 4 October. She noted no concerns about B’s interactions with his father. The father told her B had a horrible fall.

Her record is,

“The father said they had gone to the Natural History Museum for the day with his friend and his children. It was for one of the children’s ninth birthday. Mr Y showed a video of B responding to a dinosaur at the museum. He spoke of how they had also gone to the Fountain. Mr Y said on the way back they went to the friend’s local park and B was playing a very short distance away, a matter of feet. He was on a wooden ramp on the climbing frame when my cousin’s partner S was there also. B dropped off the edge. He spoke of watching B fall almost in slow motion and ran to him. Mr Y said B cried for 10 to 15 seconds and then went back to playing straightaway. He spoke of rubbing B and checking him but there were no marks. He spoke of how B slipped, sort of rolled and came down on his face. He said how B had had Calpol from his bag, but also his cousin’s girlfriend got some ibuprofen. He said, ‘There was no bruising even last night, a bit red but no bruising’.”

The father also gives an account at the child protection medical on 5 October, which is noted by the police and also set out in the police disclosure.

“I asked him what happened,”

said the medical assessor.

“Mr Y said that B had been with him at a park locally, on Tuesday from about 4 pm to 5.15 pm. They had been celebrating the ninth birthday of his cousin’s son. There were about 20 people in the park.”

He then goes on to give a description of the fall.

He continues,

“B’s father went to him immediately and picked him up. There had been a scooter nearby which Mr Y ensured B had not hit that. I was told that B had been laying on his back and crying. Mr Y scooped him off the floor. The floor was made of rubber pebble flooring. Mr Y recalled B rubbing the side of his head when he was holding him. Even though he had seen B hit the left side of his face on the climbing frame. He said that B cried for 10 to 15 seconds, stopped crying instantly when his father kissed his head better. He then became agitated and wanted to get down to play. The father continued to hold him which resulted in B crying and kicking to try and get down. B was given some gummy sweets which helped settle him.”

The view of the child protection medical, which has not been challenged in cross-examination, was that B sustained several injuries. One, two, three, four and eight are consistent with a significant impact on a hard surface. B’s injuries are over his buttock area where he does not have any bony prominences, indicating the significant force with which the injuries must have occurred. It is not clear how they could have all occurred from a single impact.

The bruising on the right lateral surface of the thigh, injury 7, would have been caused by significant force being applied to the skin at the time it was sustained. Although the bruising appears to be consistent with an adult hand, it is difficult to understand how this bruising could have occurred by the father grabbing him off the ground as B was reportedly wearing a nappy and tracksuit bottoms at the time of the incident. The thickness of the clothing should have protected B from the bruising.

The body map is a document that I have considered. The blood tests taken show no underlying bleeding disorder or propensity to bruising. I have then got dated 5 October 2023 a written statement that the father provided to the police. He says in that,

“On 3 October at around 4 o’clock, I was at a party in locally with my cousins and he was five to seven metres away.”

After seeing the fall, he says,

“I picked him up, cuddled him, he was rubbing his head so I kissed it better and he stopped crying and was back to his usual self. He tried to get out of my arms to go back to the climbing frame. I then tried to put him in his buggy and he started screaming. My cousin gave him sweets and that stopped him crying and he calmed down instantly. I then checked his head and I think we got into my cousin’s car.”

There is the police interview of 3 November 2023. I have read the transcript of that. In that, the first account the father gives is that the cousin picked him at 4.30 from his mum’s and they got to the park around 5. He initially said he left the park at 6.15/6.20. Later in the interview, he seemed to suggest he got to the park around 5.45 or 6. He said it was just him and B who went to London and when asked do you know how the fingerprints might be on your son’s body, he said,

“It could be two things. Me picking B up from the floor or when I had B in my arm and he was throwing himself trying to get out as I was trying to put him in the buggy. He was kicking, throwing himself around.”

When asked,

“How did you pick him up?”

Mr Y says,

“I ran over to him and I scooped him up with my left hand under his legs and then my right hand under his neck. Picked him up, cradled him, cuddled him.”

“OK,”

says the police officer.

“Did you apply any force to his bottom when he …”

“No. No,”

says Mr Y and he demonstrates placing B in the buggy.

The father goes on to explain,

“When I had gone to lay him down in the buggy, he just started throwing himself backwards and forwards not wanting to go in his buggy. So, instead of landing in his buggy, I picked him up again, my cousin gave him a couple of sweets and he was fine. Then I got the reins from underneath the buggy, held him by the arm still, tried to put him back in the buggy, same thing. He is throwing himself back and forth. So, then I put him on the floor, put his reins on and he walks around the park. I do not let him get back on the climbing frame. I literally just walked around the park with him for a few minutes and that is when we left”.

We have got father’s first statement of 14 December 2023. His first written account is somewhat confused and I will quote it verbatim.

“I can state that when B fell, he fell down from the top of the (green part of the climbing frame) and I would imagine although I was not close as I should have been as there were other people with us, would have hit himself on the foot pegs on the green climbing structure which is vertical but at an angle and this is what caused his injury.”

He said,

“I could see B hit the left side of his face on the climbing frame. Although B cried for a few moments, he instantly stopped and I consoled him and rubbed his head better. Then B became agitated and wanted to resume playing. I did hold on to him for a little bit more which resulted in him kicking out and trying to get down. I gave him some sweets to settle him and he just ran off.”

The second statement for 14 June hearing although unsigned and undated says,

“I did grab B’s leg to stop him throwing out of the buggy.”

In his response to threshold and in a conversation with the guardian on 13 July 2024, Mr Y advised that B had fallen while in the park and in the process of putting him in the buggy, he had thrown himself backwards, kicking out at him. Mr Y explained he held B while he was putting him in the buggy and maintained he did not physically strike his child, although recently suggested in his response to threshold he may have roughly handled B to put him in the buggy after his fall.

In other reports to the independent social worker, he says,

“The handprint was caused by the father holding B while placing him in the pushchair.”

In evidence-in-chief, he gave details about the fall at the playground. He described standing near silver railings with his cousin. He goes on,

“My cousin’s partner S was there chasing the three of them, B, C and D, was playing with them, chasing them around pretending to be a monster. I then came away to where my cousin was standing, back to the buggy. I briefly vaped for a couple of moments speaking to my cousin and that is when I noticed B falling. I sprinted straight over to B. I had come away, I was talking to my cousin, I turned round, B was at the top of the ramp, grabbed on to the railing which was on the left hand side, to which at that point I see B slip and come down on his face. As soon as I see that, I come running over.”

He was taken in evidence to where B was on the floor. He describes picking B up and cradling him. He then says,

“I have gone to put B down in his buggy to which B threw himself backwards. I can only presume B wanted to go down out of my arms; he was just moving agitated in my arms. I did not want B to get back down so I kept him in my arms. T has then shouted to S, get the boys, come on we are going and that is when I attempted to put B in his buggy. He flipped himself backwards, threw himself back. I had B upside down …,”

he goes on,

“… holding B by his leg. I then got B back up, picked him back up, put my arm under his bum and my arm around his back and I was rocking him.”

Later in-chief, he says,

“I was adamant, I was quite adamant to B, no you are not getting back down. As I said, my cousin gave him some sweets which settled B a bit. As I went to put B in the buggy, he has thrown himself backwards, at which point I was holding B with one hand and B was dangling upside down and I was holding B with one hand.”

He was insistent that he had mentioned this to the police saying,

“You have got my statement because I did tell the police. I told them exactly what had happened.”

There is no mention of this in any of the police disclosure.

In timing in oral evidence, he said to Miss Khasriya,

“We arrived at the museum at about 11 am, leaving about 1 pm, and then went to the park. We arrived home at 3 or 3.30-ish, at the local Park at 4 pm and the incident happened late 4 o’clock towards 5 o’clock, home by 6 o’clock.”

His timing given to Miss Badejo is different, for example, the time of entry at the museum being at 9.30 to 10 am. He gave evidence that his phone had died when in the witness box.

“My battery was dead at that point. I did not even have my battery at 7 o’clock at night. My battery was at my mum and dad’s house. My phone was in my mum and dad’s house on charge. I did not even take my phone to my cousin’s because I left it on charge and my cousin was outside beeping.”

The guardian gave evidence when she visited the father she did not see B was watchful or fearful of his father. She observed that in her experience, some children are relaxed with parents even when there have been significant injuries and others cower away.

I look at the evidence about the father’s location on that day. I have a timed ticket with an entry at 2 pm to the Natural History Museum. I also have an Evidence Matters report. The father takes issue in the police interview with the timings on some of the photos taken of him and B. It is not clear from watching the interviews whether the photos he is shown are referred to by their creation time or by their modification timing.

The father’s evidence to Miss Badejo is that there may have been an error in the timestamps on some of the photos.

“The photos, …”

he said,

“… they showed me at the police station was the edited photo which I turned around. This was after my interview. I turned around and said to the police officer, I have got my phone out and shown the picture with the original photograph and the police officer had a different timestamp to the one that he took of the filtered picture.”

Miss Badejo asks,

“What is the timestamp on the filtered picture?”

“I think there is about an hour and a half difference …”

he said,

“… between the two.

Evidence Matters were asked to comment on the timing of the photos. They say,

“I am able to comment on the veracity of the metadata save to say that the creation and modification dates identified are based on the device clock, which can be altered by the user. From the data provided, it seems that the device time and date were correct when the police examination was completed. The creation time relates to the date and the time that an image or a copy of the image is created by the device. This may not be the same time and date as the particular images taken or made as these values change if the image is shared between parties as an attachment. The modified time relates to the time and date that almost any activity connected with the image takes place. This may include each time the image is opened, closed, saved, moved, shared, et cetera. The modification time will be overwritten with each new activity. I am unable to state what action caused the recorded modification as this information is not available.”

They go on,

“The created and modified time dates are dictated by the device clock which can be altered by the user. However, if an Apple device is connected to the network, it would automatically obtain the correct local time from the network. At the time the device was examined by the Metropolitan Police, two days’ post-creation date, the device clock was correct.”

I exercise real caution about the pictures and the dating, but the evidence does suggest to me that the time and date were accurate, and the father did not take the opportunity to come to court to tell me if he manually altered the time and the date. He has had a full opportunity to do so since being aware of the Evidence Matters report.

The father did not attend to give evidence in relation to this on 23 April 2025. Although the father through Mr Alleyne-Brown in an email explains he listened to a voicemail from his solicitor which told him the hearing was cancelled, this voice note appears to relate to the hearing on 3 April 2025, not 23 April 2025. The solicitor sets out in an email how she has emailed the father a number of times about the hearing on 23 April and sent a notice of hearing.

The social worker also told the court that she saw the father the day before and he was aware of the hearing. Both counsel and his solicitor, I am told, called the father on 23 April and there was time for him to come to court albeit late if he had picked up those calls. And so, it is unconvincing to explain his lack of attendance on Tuesday due to an earlier voice message.

His non-attendance strengthens the arguments made by the other party that he is not telling the truth about what happened and I am entitled to draw adverse inferences from his failure to come to court and tell me what he knows about the photos. I make it clear that his failure to come to court on Tuesday is not in and of itself determinative of the facts, but it merely adds weight to the other evidence that the parties present that he is not entirely honest.

I look at the messages themselves and the pictures that have been downloaded. There is no mention in any of the communications we have seen of the injuries or a discussion of them. By reference to the father’s phone dying, there are messages outgoing from the father at 18.39 that evening and some incoming. There does not seem to be an obvious period during which the phone was not in use on the evening of 3 October 2023.

The pictures from that day out are modified on the device throughout the evening from 19.26 when the phone was said to be dead. By reference to the location, the father’s first photo in the museum is 14.13. The first one with dinosaurs is created at 14.30 and the last one in the museum created at 14.36. The photos in the park start with creation date stamps from 15.21 and end with creation stamps at 16.10.

I note that some photos with an earlier creation stamp reappear then with different metadata and storage details as far as I can make out. At 18.01, there is either a video or a still of B in his buggy. The Evidence Matters places this from the longitude and latitude information to being in outer London and that is suggestive of B and his father coming home.

The download suggests that images were created throughout the evening and therefore, the Evidence Matters evidence suggests that the father was on his phone throughout the day, his presence in the museum with B is consistent with the 2 pm timed entry ticket. He is in London throughout the afternoon and local to home by 18.01, and that the phone was in use throughout the evening. There is no evidence from anybody in the park, most notably of father’s cousin.

It was explained to the father in court that I would be asked to draw adverse inferences if the cousin did not provide a witness statement and I recorded that clearly on the face of the order. The police could not get a hold of the cousin either and I do draw an adverse inference in the absence of a statement from them.

I look at Dr Rahman’s evidence. In his written report, he thinks that marks 1, two, three and four can be accounted for by the fall described by the father. He says mark 7 is very typical of a slap to the area and finger marks are clearly delineated. The injury is more likely than not an inflicted injury. It is unlikely to be a grabbing action through clothing. Injury 7 is of significant concern because it is more likely to be an inflicted injury. In oral evidence, he said the photos that we have in the bundle are the ones that he had seen and that they were clear and he was able to reach an opinion.

It is important to remember that what Dr Rahman was being asked is about the consistency of the photos from a clinical perspective of the father’s account. He has not seen, as far as I am aware, the phone evidence or heard the father in the witness box, so he cannot comment on those. When he talked about timing, he says “when trying to decide how old an injury is, we need to be very careful looking at bruises and trying to give a timeframe is not scientifically based because we have looked at these sort of timeframes in the past and studies have shown the accuracy of giving timeframes is not good enough. So, we have to be very careful”.

He went on “in this case, for example, the marks might be one day old, two day old or three days old. We cannot say exactly how close to the time of the incident the marks took place”. His evidence did not suggest that the father’s account on timing and the development of the bruises was inconsistent with what he saw. He said mark 7 could have happened at a different time from the other injuries.

Counsel explored with him in detail if the father’s description of a grab could account for the injuries. He explained that “when we have children being grabbed, the force is travelling through the grips of the fingers and the thumb more than the flat part of the fingers. So, we can see a cluster of circular four bruises in a certain pattern which we recognise as a grab mark”. He refused to say it was impossible that the marks were caused by a grab through clothing with significant force, but his evidence was that it was not typical of a grab.

He considered it was possible that the father’s hands could have forcefully connected with the thigh before the fingers grabbed in answer to Mr Alleyne-Brown. He accepted it was possible that the clothing that B was wearing might lead to the marks being more diffused than circular. However, he clearly concluded his evidence by saying,

“I am not saying that these are grab marks.”

If B was wearing clothing, he was asked if the injury could be sustained in this manner. He said “it depends on the thickness of the fabric and how many layers on the child and the force applied. Depending on those factors, we may still see marks like this. His evidence was that if B was wearing clothing for mark 7, either the force applied was excessive or the clothing was not fit enough to diffuse the force”.

In relation to the force needed to produce mark 7, he said that “to produce bruises you need a certain degree of force. Normal handling, even rough handling does not leave marks like that. We can say that the force was more than you can expect from normal handling, but we do not have a measure for force like that”.

He accepts that there may be one layer of injury with the replication of the pattern further up which would be more than one slap. He gave evidence that you can get these injuries when a child has fallen from height, even with one impact. On the location of the slap mark, Dr Rahman’s evidence was he expected the palm of the hand would be towards the buttock area.

I understood this to mean that the position of the person whose hand caused the mark would be behind the child rather than in front of them. The expert’s view is clearly consistent with the photographic evidence. The location of the mark on the child’s thigh does not fit with the father’s description of how he held B.

The father’s first account to Miss Khasriya in the witness box was that his palm was on the front of B’s thigh with the fingers wrapped around his leg, and the thumb on the inner thigh when he held B in a way that might have caused mark 7. Miss Badejo then demonstrated with her thumb on the front of her thigh and her fingers wrapped around the thigh towards the buttocks. The father confirmed that was how he held B.

Miss Badejo showed him the position that Dr Rahman describes as likely being the hand position and the father’s response to this is that it was not the way he held B. So, the father did not seem to interpret the picture in the same way that Dr Rahman did and thought that the fingers were heading towards B’s bum. It seems to me that the position of the marks are not consistent with the father’s account or his interpretation of the photographs, and that Dr Rahman’s analysis is to be preferred.

I allowed additional written questions to be put to Dr Rahman rather than have him recalled. That is because we obtained additional police disclosure which we did not have at the time when he gave evidence. Rather than putting any new factual matters that may have altered his professional opinion, the questions put were really a repetition of matters that were put or could have reasonably been put in cross-examination, and his responses are dated 21 March 2025 and are consistent.

He maintained his position he cannot exclude the possibility of the injuries resulting from a single fall. He maintains it is not possible to infer from the appearance of the bruises whether the bruise pattern is more consistent with multiple impacts or a single fall. So, drawing all those strands together and analysing the injury evidence, the father’s evidence has shifted across a number of accounts that he has given and is inconsistent in a number of ways.

Firstly, the mechanism of the fall. We have the communication book simply saying he has fell over. It is later described as a fall from height.

Secondly, who went to the Natural History Museum. To the guardian it was just him and a friend and his children. To the police it was him and B.

Thirdly, the timings for arriving at the park, leaving the park and the accident itself were inconsistent.

Fourthly, how far away he was from B when he fell.

Fifth, the mechanism by which he picked B up when he tried to get him in the buggy. Mentioning for the first time in oral evidence that B was upside down, dangling by his leg when this appears in no other account. There is also inconsistent evidence about the level of force used.

Sixth, how long B cried for differs significantly across the accounts.

Seventh, the accounts differ as to whether B continued to play, run off, was put in the buggy or walked around the park with reins on after the fall.

Eight, the father’s evidence shifted into how much he saw of the fall. He gives the impression at the child protection medical of seeing the fall. He gave the impression in-chief he saw all of the fall but in cross-examination, he told the local authority he did not see all the fall and he did not see B lose his grip but his cousin did.

And lastly, whether there was anything else around when B fell and the area in which he landed. I am thinking particularly of the reference in one account to a scooter.

The father took issue with aspects of the record keeping by both the guardian and the social worker, both of whom told me they have robust mechanisms for writing up their notes on the day. Had those been the only inconsistencies in the accounts, I might have been more inclined to see it as a professional slip in the record keeping. But Mr Y’s own accounts are so internally inconsistent and the inconsistencies are apparent in almost every aspect of his narrative and are pervasive, so this pattern of inconsistency is not suggestive of the usual natural fallibility of memory.

His account of his trip back from the Natural History Museum was vague. He could not remember which Central London station he used to get home, whether he had used the Tube or the train, saying it would have been a mode of transport. So, I am afraid overall he was an unconvincing witness. When faced with the prospect of being asked about questions about the phone evidence, he did not come to court and his reasons for his absence are unconvincing. I have found that the father’s evidence on the marks is lacking credibility, shifting and inconsistent.

So, I find that the time and date stamp of the phone is more likely than not to be correct. I find that the phone does not place the father in the local park at the time and date he said he was there. In fact, there is no evidence that places the father in the park locally at the time he said he was there. There are no photographs from the cousin’s party or a witness statement from the cousin. The phone was in use throughout the time the father said he was at the party in the park and when his phone was said to have died.

I find that the father has lied about his phone being out of battery, lied about being in the park locally on the date and time in question and took photos of the local park later in October 2023 and sent them to the police in a manner that was misleading. I find that he has been dishonest in his explanation to the professionals and the court of the injuries.

In relation to injury 7, I accept Dr Rahman’s evidence this is more likely than not caused by a slap. The father has provided no credible explanation for the hand imprint. His evidence about B dangling was first given in the witness box and was unconvincing. I am satisfied that the mark was caused when in the father’s care. I asked the father in the witness box whether there was any opportunity or possibility that whilst B was in his overall care somebody else could have slapped him or hurt him.

“No, never,”

was the reply I was given.

I am satisfied that injury 7 was inflicted by the father, was caused by the use of significant force, and in the form of a slap. In relation to injuries 1 to four, Miss Badejo is critical of Dr Rahman’s evidence. But in my view, he expressed an expert view on what he could see and the story that the father had provided. The contradictions in the father’s story are not for him to resolve or respond to. On the balance of probabilities, injuries 1 to four took place during a time when B was in his father’s care and are unexplained, and they took place on or around 3 October 2023. As a result of these injuries, B has suffered physical and emotional harm.

B’s welfare is my paramount consideration. I remind myself of the no delay principle in the Children Act and the Adoption and Children Act. It is therefore regrettable that there has been such a delay to these proceedings occasioned by the lack of police disclosure and forensic scrutiny by the local authority’s solicitor as to whether they had everything they needed.

I look at B’s ascertainable wishes and feelings. No doubt, he would want to be in his parents’ care, and it is very clear he enjoys his time with his father. Everybody agrees they have a loving and warm relationship.

I look at his physical, emotional and educational needs. He has no particular needs save for a speech and language delay, and maybe given his start in life, a greater need for stability and certainty than the average child. I look at the effect on him of any change of circumstance. He has had multiple moves of residence; change in primary care between the mother, the father and the foster carers; periods when he has not seen one of his parents when living with the other.

The independent social worker says,

“I would encourage caution in agreeing a plan that results in frequent moves between homes of his parents as he has experienced a significant amount of change and disruption throughout the early years of his life. A plan which provides consistency and stability should be developed.”

The guardian was clear that he needs stability and this is key, and that this stability ensures that there is no ongoing volatility in the parents’ relationship. The parents have been in court for years now; indeed, the whole of B’s life has been one of a backdrop of conflict.

I look at his age, sex and background. He is three years old, turning four later this year. He is white, British. He has no siblings or half siblings but a wider loving family on both sides.

As I have already said, he in law has treated himself as a victim of domestic abuse. When I look at any harm he has suffered or is at risk of suffering, the threshold is crossed in very clear terms. I have made findings about domestic abuse and about the injuries. The risk of harm to him still remains if the parents’ relationship dynamic continues to be abusive and there is of course a risk of future harm arising out of the findings I have made around the injuries. I look at how capable the parents are of meeting B’s needs.

Dr George points out the mother’s clinical symptoms of atypical depression and her history. She recommends therapeutic support for the mother which she has now had. The independent social worker says that whilst there is a history relating to the mother’s mental health which is concerning and the psychiatric assessment shows ongoing vulnerabilities, it is important to note that evidentially there has now been a long period of the mother having been in a much more stable parenting frame of mind.

In relation to her parenting capacity, the independent social worker is confident the mother has the level of skills to provide B with a good level of care and is satisfied that with the right support and an ongoing contact agreement, things will be considerably more stable for B should he be returned to her care. The independent social worker finds that the mother is easy to work with and that is consistent with how other professionals have found her. The independent social worker says she is attentive, child focused and more than able to meet B’s needs.

In relation to the father’s ability to meet his needs, the independent social worker notes a warm relationship, good skills surrounding play, attentive and a good understanding of basic care needs. B was observed to have a very close relationship with the father and sought affection from him and played with him. In relation to his ability to work with others, the systemic family assessment back in 2023 finds that he had a strong view of social services, particularly the allocated social worker who he did not feel able to trust.

The independent social worker said they had a positive experience of Mr Y throughout the assessment and did not experience him as aggressive. However, he did make a long call to her after receiving her report aimed at persuading her to change her recommendations. She points out that the contact centre have raised concerns about him being passive aggressive and distrusting of their advice.

Of course, a key part of being able to work with others is being open and honest, and he has not been so in relation to the injuries and has been deliberately misleading. He has also minimised, excused and failed to take responsibility for his role in the dynamic of the relationship. In relation to cannabis, there is also a pattern of him not being entirely honest about his usage. The systemic family assessment in 2023 said that Mr Y was not entirely honest in relation to his initial reporting of his cannabis use, claiming he never used when B was in his care although it later emerged that he did.

There is a reference at J313 of him driving erratically in December 2022 and the police noting a strong smell of cannabis on him on that occasion. His father-in-law, Mr D, describes the father, Mr Y, being sleepy and laziness after using cannabis. His sister says that he will speak slow and use one word responses, avoid eye contact and distract attention from himself when he is under the influence of cannabis.

The mother’s evidence that the father smoked throughout their relationship three spliffs a day minimum and if he is not smoking it, he presents as agitated and aggressive. The father’s evidence in court was he did not smoke cannabis every day, but he accepted he should stop. He said with no sense of insight that there were no concerns whilst B was in his full time care, overlooking I think the bruises and injuries which his son suffered on his watch.

When I look at the ability of the family to meet B’s needs, it is very clear that the parents could benefit from the support of the wider family in trying to make contact time fun for B. The paternal grandmother and her partner were positively assessed as special guardianships potential in October 2023. However, sadly things have changed since then. The partner was clear when meeting the social worker in September last year that he was not prepared to supervise contact and he had holiday plans for months.

The social worker gave evidence that the grandmother had talked about social care in a negative way together with criticising the mother in supervised contact in May ’24, and on one occasion was aggressive and rude to the supervisor saying,

“Well, I will see you when you are 18”

to B and slamming the door as she left the contact room. The paternal grandmother did not declare using cannabis to the assessor but tested positive for usage since and has refused an updating test. As too has the paternal aunt whose testing suggested both alcohol and cannabis use.

The mother’s evidence was that they both smoked cannabis when she was with the father. The social worker and the mother gave evidence of the rocky relationship the mother and the paternal aunt had. The social worker gave evidence that suggested that the dynamic between the wider families remained difficult. Sadly, no one from the father’s side has agreed to be a WhatsApp group member and the social worker understood the mother’s concerns about hostility from the paternal family members at handover.

I am very glad to hear that the maternal grandmother has stepped in and is supervising contact. I was not prepared to look at an incident involving her, but I am aware that that has been before the criminal courts, so it is immensely to her credit that she has been able to put that behind them and she has sent a really positive email setting out that the first sessions of her supervision had gone really well. She spoke really in glowing terms about Mr Y and I think it is important that that email is read back to him after this hearing because it is huge credit to him and to the maternal grandmother that they have been able to arrange contact in a way that is centred around B and that they have been able to move things on.

I want to say how deeply regrettable it is in many ways that I have had to give this judgment now with all the delay that has been occasioned over a period of years at a point where the family are actually managing together Mr Y’s time with B in a way that is exemplary. I am really conscious that this judgment has had to go back and look at things in the past and no doubt dredged up lots of feelings and emotions that the parents would probably rather not revisit.

And so, I do hope that this judgment cannot be seen as a reason to go back and lick old wounds, but as a way of beginning to manage the past and put it in its context. It provides a factual foundation for us to move forward, but it should not be viewed as something that keeps pulling everyone back. I hope that this judgment does give a degree of finality and ability to move on.

I must not make an order unless it is better than making no order at all. Everybody has agreed that B lives with his mother and spends time with his father. The independent social worker looks at the importance of clarity in contact. She says there needs to be a very clear plan of contact with “no changes being made by either of them”. Her view is that B requires an ongoing relationship with his father and his paternal family, and it will be crucial for the arrangements to set out clearly what is expected and the consequences of any breach.

Again, I am really pleased to hear that the Working Together agreement that was put together for Mr Y to work with the grandmother seems to be working well, immensely to their credit. The independent social worker says that,

“I would recommend any communication takes place in the group chat which is overseen by family members.”

Sadly, that has not been possible. I have reminded myself of the contact centre’s reports, particularly of those on 18 October 2023, of the social worker statement on 15 October 2024 that sets out how the father can be negative in his criticism of the mother, and I know that contact forward will not be easy.

I am not going to make a prescribed order for contact. What is best for B is that it evolves naturally as he responds to his father and trust is built up between the parties. In my view, in order for contact to progress to unsupervised, it would be necessary for Mr Y to firstly complete domestic abuse work to help him develop some insight into his role in the dynamic of the relationship. The mother has already done that work for herself.

Secondly, the father must also work with CGL with the aim of abstinence.

It is important that he spends time with B when he is not under the influence of cannabis. In the court’s view, not using within the 24 hour period before contact with B or when B is in his care would be in B’s best welfare interests if complete abstinence cannot be obtained.

Thirdly, Mr Y must complete successfully the parenting course that I know Mr Y has started and any further work such as a non-violent resistance course or one to one work with the social worker arising out of this judgment. He must to continue to work effectively with the maternal grandmother who is supervising contact and abiding by any agreement setting out the boundaries of that contact.

In relation to a prohibited steps order, there are periods of time when the mother has not seen B from 4 September 2021 to the 8^th, and then from 17 October 2021 to 7 November 2021. The section 37 report writer was concerned about Mr Y’s ability to promote contact between B and his mother, and that would depend they thought on his own feelings towards the mother at the time.

What came through very powerfully in the mother’s evidence was her terror of B not being returned to her in the future and the powerlessness she felt in this respect. She makes the valid point that applying to the family court for his return would take time and there is some force in her observation that the private law proceedings did not seem to help these parents at all.

The guardian submits that the mother’s mental health, if it were to deteriorate, this would be harmful to B and that she needs the peace of mind that he will not be removed from her care again. The father accepts that any deterioration in the mother’s mental health would be harmful to B when he gave evidence. I am satisfied I should make an order that the father must not remove B from the mother’s care and control, or the care and control of anyone she has allowed to care for B like his school or nursery, and that he must return B promptly at the end of any contact.

I look at practice direction 12Q and section 91(14) and remind myself of the circumstances where I make such an order may be many and varied. The welfare of the child is paramount and there are some circumstances set out in paragraph 12Q which are particularly relevant to this case. For example, a section 91(14) order may be made where a period of respite is needed following litigation and when a period of time is needed for certain actions to be taken for the protection of the child or other persons.

I remind myself of the case law, the case of Re P (Section 91(14) Guidelines) [1999] 2 FLR 573 and the case of Re A (Supervised Contact) [2021] EWCA Civ 1749 in which King LJ pointed out that the jurisdiction to make a section 91 (14) order is not limited to a case where a party has made excessive applications and there is considerable scope for its greater use as a protective filter in the child’s best welfare interests.

I remind myself of the conditions of 91A of the Children Act and that the court may make a section 91(14) order when the person named in the order would put the child or another individual at risk of harm if such an application were to be made. The court must determine whether to grant leave and whether there is a material change of circumstances under section 91A.

The mother has put the father on notice of her request for a 91(14) order. It is in her position statement of June 2024, the local authority case summary for that hearing. It is in her December 2024 position statement and in her position statement filed on 13 January 2025. I can also make such an order of my own motion. It is supported by the local authority for a period of two years, which would coincide with the start of school. The mother asked for three years and the guardian says two years at least.

I remind myself of the reaction of Mr Y to the independent social worker’s report when he was unhappy with the positive report of Miss X and then wanting the independent social worker to change her view. The independent social worker says that there is much research to suggest that ongoing litigation can be used as a form of control and if it is found that Mr Y has been domestically abusive, measures should be taken to prevent this such as a section 19 order.

She goes on “repeated applications to the court will have an impact on B and should be avoided wherever possible regardless of the outcome of these findings. B has been subject to proceedings much of his life and he has the right to enjoy a private family life once these proceedings have concluded. I would therefore recommend a section 91(14) order”. The social worker accepted litigation could impact the mother’s mental health and she agreed with Miss Burt that it was important to prioritise B’s placement with the mother and that she needs to be able to trust anyone supervising contact.

The mother’s evidence on the impact of future proceedings on her was compelling. She said she was absolutely petrified that B would be withheld from her and she would have to go to court again. She described private law proceedings as getting nowhere and said it was only due to the issue of public law proceedings that we have got this far. She wanted a court order that ensured that B was old enough to tell her if the father did something wrong so that B would be safe in his care.

The father himself accepted that B “needed stability 100 per cent” and that the best way to achieve this was to avoid volatility. B has had a lot of change in his life. I have already referred to those times he was retained by his father and I have found that the father has some work to do before contact could progress. I think it is in B’s best welfare interests that the father may not make an application for a lives with order for a period of three years without the leave of the court. Nor may he make an application to discharge the prohibited steps order during that three year period.

The independent social worker initially thought that there could be a shared care order, but from the evidence I have heard and the way things stand, I cannot envisage that this will be remotely realistic for B within the next few years. He needs his dad in his life, but he also needs stability and that is best achieved at this time living with the mother and spending time with his father. I am driven to the conclusion that further litigation would be harmful both to B and his mother. I make a three year section 91(14) order in relation to a lives with application and an application to discharge the prohibited steps order.

The position about spending time orders is slightly different because the level of risk involved in spending time with his father is less for B. For example, it may be that the father is able to abstain from cannabis for the 24 hours before seeing B, although he may be unable to stop using altogether. In an ideal world, the progression of contact would take place or be structured within the supervision order. I am firmly of the view that there needs to be at least a year of social work monitoring of contact.

If during the life of the supervision order there are things still to be done to assist the father to address this judgment, the local authority should give consideration to extending the life of the supervision order. I think a period of two years for the father to do the work he needs to do and to give the mother respite from applications about contact is necessary and proportionate, so I make a two year section 91(14) order in relation to contact.

I cannot attach conditions to orders requiring the father to take specific steps before permission would be successfully granted ( Re S (Permission to Seek Relief) [2006] EWCA Civ 199). But it is permissible for a judge when proposing a section 91(14) order to identify a particular issue and suggest to the litigant that unless he can show that this particular issue has been addressed, any further application for permission is unlikely to be successful, that is Stringer v Stringer [2007] 1 FLR 1532 CA.

In my view, any application for permission is unlikely to be successful in relation to the progression of contact unless those conditions that I have already set out for the progression of contact are met and are evidenced. I would also say that any application for a lives with order is unlikely to be successful without those conditions being met and without evidence of abstinence from cannabis for a 12 month period. That is because B was injured in his father’s care, one inflicted injury and four unexplained, at a time when the evidence suggests he was using cannabis in a way that may have impacted his ability to care.

In the first instance, any application for permission to start proceedings should be referred to me on paper and the papers not to be served on the mother unless permission is given.

In closing this hearing, I wish to thank the social worker for her hard work and effective work on this case. I was particularly pleased to learn that she will remain the social worker. She is an impressive, experienced social worker. She knows this family better than anyone and I am confident that she will be able to move things on in a way that best supports B and his welfare interests.

I wish to thank the guardian for her evidence. It was very well thought out, insightful and of great assistance to the court.

I wish to thank each of the advocates for the assistance that they have given me. Miss Khasriya I know has made personal accommodations to make sure that she can finish this case. All of them have battled as have I with the dribble of police evidence and the frustrations and complexities that that has posed in this case, and each of the advocates have presented their client’s case in a way that is robust, that is clear and that has been helpful to the court.