The Father v SM

I am concerned with a number of applications with respect to a little boy, N who is three and half years old. The main application is for adoption, but within these family proceedings there are also applications for child arrangements and non-molestation orders.

The applicant for adoption is N’s father and I will refer to him as such. The respondent is N’s surrogate mother. I will call her SM. They met in about 2018, and then in 2020 agreed that SM would carry a child for the father, who was seeking to be a sole parent. After a failed first attempt when SM miscarried twins, the second implantation in 2021 was successful, using a donor egg and the father’s sperm.

Whilst she was pregnant SM stated that the father became abusive and controlling. She says that he made her sign the first surrogacy documents and, following this, signed them himself purporting to be her. She decided that she did not want to hand over the baby to him at birth. A referral was made by the midwife to the multi-agency safeguarding hub (“MASH”) and a pre-birth assessment started. During the course of that, the father was asked to undergo hair strand testing. The first test suggested use of cocaine. Two subsequent tests were negative.

After N was born, he was placed in foster care. The father underwent a parenting assessment, which was described as broadly positive, subject to some missing information. A further report was also positive, with the social worker recommending that N be transferred to his father’s care with a short period of monitoring and support. The report states that the father was making progress with parenting skills and that a positive bond was noted, and positive working relationships with professionals. The local authority applied to withdraw their application for public law orders and N moved to live with his father.

That order was made by a circuit judge on 31^st October 2022. A child arrangements order was made in favour of the father, as well as an order for parental responsibility. A prohibited steps order was made preventing SM from removing N (then called a different name) from his care. There was also a specific issue order which allowed the father to remove N from the jurisdiction for up to two months. This was on condition that he was not taken to a country which was not a signatory to the 1980 Hague Convention. Paragraphs 7 and 8 were to remain in force until N was 18.

The father applied for a parental order but as SM did not agree (and that is one of the conditions for the making of an order), the application was dismissed on 27^th February 2023. There is a recital on an order dated 8^th February2023 in which it was stated that SM would not agree to the making of a parental order, but she would agree to adoption.

Following the dismissal of the parental order application, the father made an application to his local authority to be assessed for an adoption. There was a significant waiting list and he was only allocated a social worker in November 2023. The assessment took some time for a number of reasons which I will not set out here, but they included the fact that the father was unavailable for a substantial period because he was travelling abroad.

In April 2024, the International Child Abduction and Contact Unit (“ICACU”) referred the family to children’s services at the request of the Spanish authorities. A child welfare investigation had taken place where the father and N had been staying just before Christmas 2023. Allegations had been made to the authorities by staff at holiday premises there that the father was neglecting and mistreating N. N was briefly removed from the father but returned after an assessment when it was concluded that the evidence of physical abuse was unsubstantiated. The report from the Spanish authorities stated that N was seen by a doctor who did not record physical abuse, nor did he appear to show emotional or physical discomfort or behavioural difficulties. The father was said to be initially angry when told about the allegations but provided requested information after initial resistance. He was seen to have an authoritarian educational style. The report concluded that there were no urgent or serious risk indicators to justify N being kept away from his father, despite suspicions of mild/moderate risk factors related to negligence towards psychological needs and a suspicion of occasional use of corrective physical abuse. As the family’s habitual residence was in England a referral was made to the authorities here to consider any intervention. Once informed about this proposal by the Spanish authorities, the father was said to have shown an ‘excessive reaction of anger, and uttered different threats to the technicians’.

By this time the relationship between the father and the allocated adoption social workers had broken down, leading to the father declining to work further with her. He, nonetheless, issued the application for adoption in July 2024. The Rule 14.11 report was filed with the court in August 2024 but the social workers said they were unable to provide a full assessment and recommendations. In the course of the assessment, and after the decision had been made by the adoption agency to refer N to children’s services, the father sent a number of abusive emails, the contents of which I shall return to later.

After speaking to the Guardian who had been appointed to represent N, the father was persuaded to re-engage with the adoption agency for the report to be completed, and also to apologise for the messages he had sent. He agreed to meet with the new social worker and to allow enquiries to continue. He also said he would behave respectfully and not use abusive language.

The assessment therefore continued. A new social worker was assigned to the case, along with the same manager. In October 2024, the father took N to X European country, and an application was made for a passport order. Cusworth J made an order that he should be returned to the jurisdiction by a fixed date. This order was not complied with, but N was returned a few days later.

Meanwhile, the case was set down for a final hearing of the adoption application. The adoption agency filed an updated Rule 14.11 report. Between the first report in August 2024 and the report in November 2024, the social worker was able to visit N’s nursery, interview the father on MS Teams, visit the family home on one occasion and see the father and N on another occasion at the offices of Cafcass, and contact the nursery about N’s attendance. There was to be a final MS Teams visit (organised as such at the father’s request; the social worker states that the intention had been for there to be a face to face visit) which was cancelled by the father just before the meeting was due to start.

In the final report, the social worker stated that the agency felt unable to make a final recommendation. At her suggestion, I made a section 37 direction for the local authority to carry out an investigation. That report was filed on 19^th March 2025. The social worker concluded that N was being provided with a good enough standard of care and that any intervention was not warranted.

The Guardian filed a final report stating that he wished to hear evidence from SM and Ms. H before making a recommendation.

At the final directions hearing, I ordered SM to file a schedule of allegations that she sought to prove against the father at the final hearing and for the father thereafter to file his responses.

At the final hearing it became apparent that there would not be time for me to hear all the evidence so as to determine the allegations and make a final decision as to the application for adoption, especially as the Guardian and the agency wished to have some time for reflection having heard the evidence. In those circumstances I decided to use this hearing as a fact finding hearing. I indicated to the parties that I did not think it would be proportionate to determine the allegations that were made concerning the surrogacy (the schedule is not numbered) but to start with the allegation which is headed ‘(SM) misleading professionals’ and the ones following that. I also stated that the ambit of the hearing should include consideration of the emails sent by the father and his conduct towards professionals and others. The fact of that conduct is not in dispute, but the significance of it is.

The summary of relevant principles set out by Baker J (as he then was) in Re JS[2012] EWHC 1370(Fam)still provides very helpful guidance for judges in fact finding hearings. The burden of proof lies with the body or individual who makes the allegation. The standard of proof that must be applied, both as to the making of a finding and as to the identification of a perpetrator is the balance of probability. Findings of fact must be based on evidence, including inferences that can be properly drawn from the evidence, and not on suspicion or speculation. Evidence must not be evaluated in separate compartments, and a judge must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence, and to exercise an overview of all of it before coming to conclusions.

There is no ‘pseudo burden’ on a parent, or any obligation to prove the truth of an alternative case by way of a defence and the failure by that party to establish the alternative case on the balance of probabilities does not, of itself, prove the case Re X (No 3)[2015] EWHC 3651 (Fam) and Re Y (No 3)[2016] EWHC 503 (Fam), Wolverhampton City Council v JA and Ors[2017] EWFC 62.

In Re H (Children: Uncertain Perpetrator: Lies) [2024] EWCA Civ 1261, Peter Jackson LJ said this at paragraphs [20-23]:

“[20] Lies, where they are admitted or alleged, will form just one part of the overall evidence in family proceedings. The underlying purpose of the Lucas direction is to ensure that proven lies are assessed with a sense of proportion. In relation to welfare, it has been said that they should not be allowed to hijack the case (Re Y [2013] EWCA Civ 1337 per Macur LJ at [7(4)]) and, as I put it in Re K (Children: Placement Orders) [2020] EWCA (Civ) 1503, [2021] 2 FLR 275, [2022] 4 WLR at [29], that the link between lies and welfare must be spelled out.

[21] The same discipline applies to fact-finding. The court's view of a witness's overall credibility and reliability will naturally contribute to its evaluation of whether it can accept their evidence on the critical issues. If it concludes that lies have been told, it will consider what weight, if any, should be given to that aspect of the matter, after due consideration of any explanations that have been offered. That is part of the normal process of sifting and weighing the evidence, and explaining the result. The family courts encounter many forms of bad behaviour and they are used to assessing their true significance for the issue in hand. There is no special rule of evidence for lies.

[22]I would therefore make one observation about the description of good practice in Re A, B and C. At [58(iii)] it is said that the court should seek to identify the basis on which it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie(s) is guilt. That draws on the slightly different jury direction in the Crown Court Compendium at 16-3, which requires that a lie is only capable of supporting other evidence against a defendant if the jury are sure that it was not told for a reason advanced by or on behalf of the defendant, or for some other reason arising from the evidence, which does not point to the defendant's guilt.”

It must also be borne in mind that discrepancies and inconsistencies in evidence can arise in ways that are not sinister or a result of bad faith, see Lancashire County Council v C, M, and F (Children: Fact Finding Hearing)[2014] EWFC 3.

The allegations made by SM against the father are that he misled professionals by falsely stating that he lived at a particular address when he did not, that he falsely told the author of the section 37 report that he had not been reported to the RSPCA for cruelty to animals, that he forged a document that was purported to come from his employer (Ms H) in order to explain a hair strand test that was positive for cocaine, that he neglected N during stays in Y European country and Z Far Eastern country by leaving him in dirty nappies, leaving him alone when he went to do a driving test, ignoring his entreaties for attention, and, on one occasion, slapping him on the face when he was a toddler. She also alleges that he is a cocaine user and that he took cocaine when he was responsible for caring for N. She also alleges that the father gave N incorrect milk as a baby in order to save money.

The evidence in support of these allegations comes from the evidence of Ms H and, to a lesser extent, SM, from some of the events surrounding the seizing of the father’s passport by the Tipstaff, and from the report from the Spanish authorities.

Both Ms H and SM state that the father has behaved very vindictively to them by bringing proceedings against them for a variety of matters in response to their criticism of him. The adoption agency and Guardian also express concerns that the father is not cooperating with their enquiries, and that he responds to issues that they raise by acting vindictively and abusively towards them. As the agency professionals and the Guardian have raised questions as to whether the father is giving a true account of himself and his life with N, that is a serious issue and one which I will consider here as well. These issues have been raised repeatedly in these proceedings.

I read all the documents in the three bundles provided to me, and the position statements of the parties. I heard oral evidence from the paternal grandmother, Ms. H, SM and the father.

Mrs. E is clearly a devoted mother and grandmother. She was involved in the surrogacy arrangements and is strongly supportive of her son. Her involvement in N’s life is clearly to his benefit and would appear to be a strong protective factor for him. She spends a considerable amount of time with him, and so must take some of the credit for his presentation and good development.

Her evidence strongly aligned with that of the father, indeed she frequently referred to some notes which he had typed up for her. She had no criticism of her son at all, even suggesting that some of his most offensive emails might be justified by his right to respond to what others had said about him. She repeated the father’s case that Ms. H was an alcoholic who could not be relied upon and said that her sister had noticed that SM was ‘not right in the head’. She said her son had no flaws as a parent at all and was totally supportive.

She did not seem to be able to give details of such things as the name of the hotel where she stayed when she comes here every month to help care for N, or exactly where and when the father works. She appeared anxious to avoid doing or saying anything that would undermine his case. In those circumstances, I would not have confidence that she would inform the court if she was aware of any concerns about her son, or be open to professionals in general.

Ms H is the owner of holiday apartments where the father has stayed on a number of occasions. She says she first met him in 2012 when he was in a relationship with one of her friends.

She said that the reason given by her friend for the ending of the relationship was the father’s excessive cocaine use and violence. In her statement, she said that there were a number of incidents in the summer of 2023 when the father brought N to Z Far Eastern country which caused her to worry about the care he was providing.

She said that the father left N on his own on one occasion when he went to do a driving test, and that she woke up to hear him crying. She said that her staff reported to her (when she was in another country) that he would regularly smack N and that, as a result, she suggested that they should report this to the authorities. She said that there were times when the father showed love and affection to N but there were other times when he would be mean to him and leave him alone when he needed to be consoled. She said that she believes he was addicted to cocaine and that she had witnessed him using it. She said that he inflicted intolerable verbal abuse towards her.

She said the father had asked her to be N’s godmother but after the report to social services in Y European country they were not on good terms. She said that he brought legal proceedings against her after the report about N, that he had forged a contract of employment and also that she had had nothing to do with a reference that he provided to the court in England about his drink being spiked, and that, therefore, he must have forged it. She stated categorically that she had never signed such a statement, or ever seen it before it was shown to her more recently. She said that none of the statement could be true, including details such as various people reporting that they had fallen ill after a live concert, the father being carried back to his room or there being reports of stealing or anything like that. Her oral evidence could not have been clearer or firmer about this.

She gave examples of what she said was the father’s neglectful behaviour to N, which included a failure to take him to hospital when he was ill, leaving him in a boat with strangers so he could have a good time and swim to shore, and taking him to a cheap nursery in Z Far Eastern country so he could enjoy himself. She described him as taking a lot of cocaine. She said that her motivation in coming to give evidence was because she wanted N to be safe. She loved him and felt he needed someone to care for him who had ‘no ulterior motive’. She said that because of what she had done the father told her that he was going to continue to attack her until the day she died.

Ms. H also said that the father had told her that he had managed to get an order for maintenance against SM, and that he had laughed and laughed when he told her that. She said that had really concerned her and she told him that the best thing he could do was to have a good relationship with her, so as to bring N up in a state of love and care. In response, he had laughed and laughed again, a laugh that was ‘kind of mad’.

The consequence for Ms. H of making such allegations has been that she has been targeted by the father and been sued by him for various matters in Y European country. She told me she had brought proceedings against him too. It was clear that she had a poor opinion of him, but in the context of everything that has gone on that does not seem surprising.

There were some aspects of her evidence which were a bit vague. She was not able to give very precise examples of the father leaving N with strangers, apart from the boat incident and her recollection of timing was muddled. Nonetheless, I noticed how often what she said about the father was consistent with other evidence in these proceedings. The father has said that she is an alcoholic. I do not know whether that is true but her evidence to this court was clear and coherent. She obviously manages a number of businesses abroad, which suggests that she is competent as a manager. I had no sense at all that her evidence was affected by drink or malice, or that she and SM had collaborated to make up allegations. I could see that she was not prepared to be intimated by the father, either in these proceedings or any others.

When SM gave evidence, as someone who has a non-molestation order against the father, special measures were put in place, including the father being behind a curtain so that she could not see him (nor he her). A Qualified Legal Representative (“QLR”), Ms. Obi, was appointed to ask her questions.

SM was obviously anxious when she was in the witness box, and when there was movement behind the curtain where the father was sitting, appeared to be distracted. Much of the evidence that she relied upon, so far as the allegations that I have been deciding, came from Ms. H, and so it was not easy for her to answer direct questions about that. She presented as somewhat vulnerable.

SM told the court that Ms. H contacted her via social media in April 2025, and that they quickly realised that they had similar experiences of the father, including the abusive and horrible way he treated them, and the vindictive issuing of proceedings. SM thought some of the information that Ms. H told her was important and therefore asked if she would provide a statement. She said she asked Ms. H why she had provided a letter for the father to say his drink had been spiked, and Ms. H told her she did not know what she was talking about, and indeed that she had done no such thing.

SM said her experience of the father was such that she did not believe much of his evidence. She also said that he frequently took cocaine when she knew him. He took it several times when they went to a Pride festival together, and also again when she went to his flat the night before they travelled abroad for one of the IVF procedures. That evening he went out of the flat and came back with a large bag of cocaine. After taking cocaine, she has seen him become frantic, irrational, and aggressive. She had not seen him taking it when they were abroad but she was not staying with him or his mother and therefore not around all of the time. She did say, when asked, that she did not notice him behaving in a such a way as to suggest he was under the influence.

Ms. Obi asked SM a number of questions about the surrogacy arrangements as it is part of the father’s case that she had made up allegations against him and had demanded extra money from him for the surrogacy. In response, SM stated that the father had forged her signature on a number of the documents, claimed in one of them that she was his wife, and demanded that she only eat certain things and follow the advice of a nutritionist that he employed and she knew nothing about. She said she found his behaviour to be abusive and controlling. It was for these reasons that she changed her mind about the surrogacy. She did not accept the father’s evidence that she had turned on him because she wanted him to give her more money.

As she gave evidence it was apparent that the toll upon SM as a result of her having refused to agree to the making of a parental and now an adoption order has been very great. On several occasions, she became very distressed and said that the father had not only brought several sets of proceedings against her but also members of her family such as her sister (the father admits this is true). This had led to her suffering problems in her own family. She pays maintenance from her benefits to N. She said that she feels extremely guilty for the situation whereby N is living with a father who she believes to be extremely abusive and a serious risk to his welfare. She said she had asked herself why she went ahead with the surrogacy (on two occasions) especially when she had seen the father consume cocaine in that way. She said she loved N and felt responsible for him.

The mother gave her evidence on the afternoon of the second day and the morning of the third. The father brought N right up to court before the day started, meaning that SM saw him for the first time for three years. That had a great effect on her and she was very emotional. It was her view that the father had done this quite deliberately to discomfort her. She said that he had also deliberately used a very recent photo of her taken from social media even though he was blocked from her account, just to show her that it could be done.

The father gave evidence last as he was responding to the allegations. He has represented himself throughout these proceedings, so I am familiar with his presentation. There have been times in the past when his presentation has been angry and agitated. During the five days of these proceedings, he was calmer, and to me, very courteous throughout.

Much of the evidence about his behaviour to other people speaks for itself, coming from his own documents and emails. One of the most striking examples is the email he sent to the agency social workers when they made a safeguarding referral: ‘Go fuck yourselves you silly bloody cunts!, I will sue you in all the courts in the world…as I said, go and fuck yourself and I’m saying this in written form so that it stays on the record you are a massive waste of space and waste of existence. Do you think I am scared of you? You cannot be more wrong. Go and fuck yourself as deep as you could possibly be fucked!!’.

The father later apologised for this after speaking to the Guardian, but he has gone on to make many more offensive comments in these proceedings. He described the original social worker as a ‘despicable old woman’ and told her she would regret all the harm she had done. He said she was a ‘poor, spineless person’.

In his first of two position statements for this hearing, the father stated that SM has an anti-social personality disorder and that she has failed at motherhood. He said that her conduct and attempts to contravene the success of the surrogacy led him to address many written warnings to her, to say that certain lines should not be crossed. He said that she chose to ignore those warnings and has been reported to the police for breach of the prohibited steps order. He said: ‘it is worth remembering that her conduct and defamation of character brought about a civil claim for defamation which she lost’.

The father further stated that Ms. H’s actions were fraudulent and malicious and that she was doing this because he had instituted actions against her for fraudulent invoicing. He has issued further claims against her for defamation and fraud. He filed a police complaint against her for ‘sneaking about’ his rented property in Z Far Eastern country.

He further stated that the adoption agency’s report was biased and flawed, and that the Guardian was incompetent, rude, slow and irrelevant. He has reported the Guardian to the police for harassment and abusive language and refers to three complaints made to Cafcass which he says have been filed by different individuals. He said he was shocked at the social worker’s lack of culture and taste and that her allegations and concerns about him are fabricated.

In the second position statement which he said was in response to the adoption agency’s report, SM and the Guardian, the father said that he was pursuing civil remedies and complaints against the adoption agency and the social workers. Additionally, he had made complaints to the police for discrimination, incitement to hatred and antisemitism. He referred to the social worker as having a low IQ (there are repeated insults throughout his statement as to her intellect, including that she is ‘perfectly idiotic and brainless’). He made repeated references to her being from Redhill, and also said that she had a ‘pungent body smell’ and that he could not stand it. He suggested that she was old. There are many other comments of a highly derogatory and personal nature, which is somewhat ironic given his own claim that he has been discriminated against.

The father made a number of complaints about the Guardian as well. He said that he had repeatedly brought up his sexuality in conversation. He said he had reported him for harassment and abusive language to the police and asked for special measures in court. In order to avoid any difficulties, I agreed that he could position himself in court so he did not have to see the Guardian, but made it clear that this was without any suggestion on my part that his complaints were valid. On one day, he sent an email to my clerk stating that the Guardian had raised his voice at him when he was asking counsel to move away so that the Guardian would not be in his sight ‘because of current restrictions’. He said ‘there is already a pending criminal case against [the Guardian] and I don’t need to escalate this further; thus if you could please make a mention of this tomorrow while in court this would be really appreciated. I am also reporting this instance to the officer in charge of the case ’.

In one of his responses to the schedule of allegations, the father threatened SM with further litigation and said ‘I, however, operate a strict tit for tat approach and every attack from her resulted in a legal claim against her’.

He told the court that being a father was the best thing in the world and that he was focussing on giving N the best upbringing. He would never harm him, and only had his best interests at heart. All those who suggested otherwise were wrong. He pointed out that he had completed a parenting assessment successfully in 2022 and that he had got on very well with the Devon social worker and the foster carer. He also noted that the section 37 report had been positive and gave no support to the concerns raised by the other professionals.

Throughout these proceedings, and in his oral evidence, he has presented as entirely unashamed of the way he has treated individuals such as Ms. H, SM, the social workers and the Guardian. Even though he said he was sorry for his choice of words (especially in relation to the emails in August 2024) he justified it by saying that they had treated him poorly. He said that he had thought what he said was funny but accepted it was in fact abusive.

In his oral evidence, the father repeated what I find to be his threats of ongoing litigation and complaints to those who would seek to stand in his way. He said that being in the seat of one of the social workers would be ‘a bit wobbly’. He said that his threats to sue people were not threats but promises. He agreed that he had made complaints about various people involved in this case to their respective professional bodies and allegations to the police. At one point, he said that the social worker deserved the personal remarks he had made about her in the position statement because of the way that she had treated him in the proceedings.

The father was an extremely challenging witness and often refused to answer questions or responded with personal remarks and questions of his own to counsel. For this reason, I had to intervene on many occasions to ask him questions myself as he responded much better to me and I was more able to establish his answers. Nonetheless, it was still difficult to get him to focus on the questions, and he frequently used them as a platform to make speeches and allegations of his own and to deflect proper and necessary enquiries.

He denied ever using cocaine, whether that was before or after N was born and was adamant that his drink had been spiked in Y European country. He said that it was Ms. H’ personal assistant who had arranged for the letter to be sent, but did not really explain what conversations he had had with Ms. H about it. He referred to SM and Ms. H as ‘two snakes trying to spit venom into my life’ and said that they had both lied, ‘massively’.

He absolutely denied ever neglecting N, physically abusing him or failing to meet his emotional needs. His response to all of the allegations was the same, namely that they had no substance at all and were false and malicious.

Given the father’s application for the return of his and N’s passports which he renewed before the hearing, he was asked a number of questions about his passports and identity documents, and also information about his address (the latter formed part of the schedule in any event), work and qualifications. He was also asked about breaching the order of the circuit judge of 31^st October 2022, which required him not to remove N from the jurisdiction for more than two months and to countries which were signatories to the 1980 Convention only. The details from the passports show he travelled more extensively than this during 2023 and to countries such as Dubai, Malaysia and China (the latter two only briefly). He said that he had not attended that hearing and he had not been told about those orders by his legal advisors.

I found the father’s evidence to be evasive and inconsistent. He was quick to try and deflect questions by making accusations about others and by attempting to undermine counsel asking the questions. His evidence about numerous matters, including his travel arrangements, his educational and working history, and his lack of knowledge of the terms of the 2022 specific issue order restricting travel, lacked credibility. The same applies to his evidence about his flat being mistaken for one seen on the Airbnb website as available to let, and what he said about the individual who was in his flat when the police visited to execute the passport order. He responded to the allegations made by Ms. H and SM by making allegations about them and their respective characters.

Most of the evidence as to the way the father has treated the agency social workers is incontrovertible. They have not given evidence before me yet, so that I am not able to make any findings about the quality of their work, but nothing can justify the father’s conduct and repeated use of abusive and derogatory language.

What is more troubling still is the father’s response to being challenged about it. It is quite obvious that he does not really see that he has done anything wrong. He has apologised for the worst remarks but when questioned he is quick to justify his behaviour. He lacks an appreciation of social norms and displayed no concern for the feelings of others. At times he seemed to display a sense of satisfaction at causing distress, which he sees as a justifiable response to what he perceives as unfair criticism.

Further, the father uses threats to undermine and disrupt those who express concern about his behaviour or seek to investigate matters which are relevant to the care of his son. For the most part he threatens to, and does, litigate and complain against and about people, but it can go further. His repeated references to the social worker coming from a particular town appeared to be an attempt to suggest that he has information as to where she works or lives (and I have no idea whether the father is wrong or right about that). The complaints about the Guardian, which the father first suggested were because he made homophobic and racist remarks, and then in his oral evidence because he called him obese, lack substance and it is worrying that he has repeatedly suggested that the police investigation (which he instigated) is a reason for his requiring the Guardian to desist from looking at him at all, either inside or outside court. The police have not been in contact with the Guardian and I would be very surprised if they suggested that he change the way he carries out his investigations in this case.

I will then turn to the allegations about the father’s treatment of N. Most of the allegations about this come from Ms. H, as SM has not seen N since shortly after he was born. Much of what she said about her experience of the father chimes with that of other people. She said that it was the father who first brought proceedings against her after the referral to Spanish social services. I accept her evidence about this. Not only was what she said clear and cogent but the father has displayed this pattern of behaviour elsewhere. In his responses to the allegations, he said he operated a ‘tit for tat’ policy. There is no force in the argument that Ms. H has been motivated by revenge to make up allegations against the father. Her hostility to him is a result of what he has done, nothing else, and she has shown courage in being willing to assist this court when the father has made it quite clear he will retaliate.

Ms. H also said that the father could be nice one minute and an ogre the next, something clearly experienced by professionals during the course of these proceedings. His amusement at getting maintenance from SM for N had shocked her. I accept what she has said.

Some of the evidence Ms. H gave about N being neglected lacked detail, or at least she was not able to give much by way of specific example. In this category, I would include the father giving N cow’s milk instead of formula, the father having sex in his room when N was a baby, and the fact that the father used a poor quality nursery in Z Far Eastern country when he was there on holiday. The same applies to the example she gave of the father leaving N with people he did not know, albeit she did give an example of him leaving N on a boat when he swam to shore and went to a restaurant.

Although, I did not disbelieve any of the evidence given by Ms. H, I consider that what she was speaking to a general view about the father expressed to her by others rather than that she had witnessed all of the matters I have set out in the paragraph above. Other people, including her staff reported concerns to her. It is difficult to make findings about evidence which is hearsay; all I can say is that Ms. H was not the only one who was worried about N.

There is no evidence that anyone witnessed the father slapping N, or at least anyone that can be identified and named. The concern arose from a mark on N’s face which was thought to show finger marks, indicating a hand print. The photograph that I have got is not of sufficient quality for me to identify it was a slap. I note that N was seen by a doctor, on 21^st December 2023 who was not able to identify a mark on his face, and that N himself was assessed and not found to be demonstrating what is described as emotional discomfort or behavioural difficulties. In those circumstances, there is insufficient evidence for me to find that N was slapped by the father, then, or at any time.

I do, however, accept Ms. H’ evidence that there was an occasion when the father left N alone in his cot to go out, without telling her. I accept that she only found out when N was crying and she went into the room to find him alone in a soaking nappy. She gave detail about this, and I am clear it was a specific event which stood out in her mind. I also accept her evidence that the father would be warm and loving to N on some occasions yet fail to respond to him on others (and for a long time), working on his computer in another room in the house and leaving him to cry. This inconsistent behaviour is a pattern which has been seen by others. It was described in the child protection report from Y European country, although those allegations were made anonymously and have not been tested.

I also find that the father has been a regular user of cocaine and that his absolute denial to this court about that is untrue. The evidence about this comes from both SM (albeit only before N was born) and Ms. H. I accept what each of them said about it. SM’s evidence about this included contextual detail, including that he took cocaine every day when they went to attend a Pride festival, and that he bought a big bag of this on the night she was at his flat before they travelled abroad. She said that when he took cocaine it affected his behaviour so that he became erratic, frantic and aggressive. Ms. H described the father telling her that he was going to a nearby bar called ‘Granny’s’ to buy his cocaine. She said that the father continued to take cocaine to her knowledge when he was solely responsible for N. Indeed, she said his cocaine use was something which was well known.

I then turn to the allegation that the letter produced by the father which he said was from Ms. H, in order to explain a hair strand test which was positive for cocaine, was false. The account of events in the letter itself sounds implausible. The explanation is different to the one he gave to the independent social worker, Ms. Jeffrey, which was that he attributed the test result to a pill that a friend had put in his drink, telling him that it would help him to relax. In his oral evidence, the father suggested he was referring to a separate event but I do not accept that. If it was, he would have told Ms. Jeffrey about that too.

In his oral evidence (and in questions he put to Ms. H), the father suggested that it was Ms. H’ personal assistant who had sent him the letter, implying that this could be why Ms. H had trouble remembering it. I know that her signature appears at the bottom of it but there are a variety of ways that it could have got there, either because it was a photocopy of a real signature or someone actually copied it. Having heard from Ms. H who was quite adamant that the letter did not come from her, and taking into account the rest of the evidence, I am satisfied that Ms. H did not write or see this letter, and that the father produced it to try and bolster a false explanation to the court. This is a very serious finding about the father’s willingness to try and mislead the court and others.

I am not able to find that the father falsely represented to the professionals that he had been living at a particular address when he was not, albeit I do accept that he let it out to someone for a short holiday. The father’s evidence, given to Cusworth J on 7^th November 2024, raises suspicions, particularly because at one point he said his flat was being repainted and therefore it was a good time for N to be in Paris and at another that it was only being touched up and was in good enough condition to be lent to a friend of a friend, her husband and two children. Further, the statement of Ms. Land, the Tipstaff, says that the occupant of the flat said that he was renting it from the father for four days as a holiday home, which sounds more like a formal arrangement than a friendly one. Nonetheless, this does not mean the father and N were not living there at other times.

I would be very concerned if there was evidence the father had been cruel to animals, as it might suggest a lack of empathy and willingness to harm those who are vulnerable and/or dependent. The evidence presented to this court is not sufficient for me to make such a finding. There is no independent evidence that the father was referred to the RSPCA by the vet, albeit I accept the evidence of SM that the father said something to that effect to her.

In all the circumstances, I make some findings as sought against the father but not all. I have made some findings about neglectful treatment of N, his use of cocaine and the effect on his behaviour as witnessed by SM, that he produced a false document to mislead the professionals about a drugs test result, and as to his abusive and intimidating behaviour to professionals who question or criticise him.

Finally, it is apparent from the evidence that the father breached the specific issue order made on 31^st October 2022 in that he took N out of the country for longer than a period of two months, and also to countries which were not signatories to the 1980 Hague Convention (for example, Malaysia, China and the UAE; Z Far Eastern country is a signatory but there is no treaty with the UK). I did not believe his explanation that his legal representatives had never explained the terms of the order to him.

The findings I have made above must be set alongside the positive parenting assessment carried out within the care proceedings, the recent section 37 assessment and the observations of both the Guardian and the social worker about the bond between father and son. The commitment shown by the father within the care proceedings, in which he had to learn how to be a father from scratch, travelling several times a week a long distance for contact and observations, was very considerable. I note the recent evidence from the nursery which is that N is excited to see his father when he comes to pick him up and that he is always properly turned out. Further, I note the social worker’s evidence that N shows no reluctance or fear towards his father and that she and the health visitor have seen evidence of good bonding. This is not something that can be manufactured or put on for show. There is a lovely photograph of N with his father attached to the father’s latest statement which shows them both looking close and happy. All this evidence is extremely important and reassuring too.

I must also record that the father is capable of being polite, pleasant and respectful in court. He has listened and responded to requests to speak in turn, despite finding it difficult to listen to what is being said about him and his care of N.

The father is obviously able to maintain a good physical standard of care for N for much of the time, and N’s reaction to his father suggests that he is used to receiving affection from him. These things are all very positive. Nonetheless, the findings I have made above do raise questions as to whether it is in N’s best interests for the father to be the only person with parental responsibility for him, and whether he is at risk of future harm, due to his father’s behaviour, lifestyle and use of drugs. It is no function of the state to prevent a sole carer from travelling the world with his child as long as the care he provides is good enough, or to interfere with family life on the sole grounds that a parent is abusive and unpleasant to other adults, but the concerns here go further than that and relate to N’s safety and wellbeing. I also bear in mind moving around frequently may mean that any safeguarding issues are not picked up, and if they are, the father’s response may deter people from reporting them.

In addition to the findings, I have made above, in these proceedings there have been numerous occasions when I would describe the father’s behaviour as being impulsive and changeable. His plans about going abroad often seem to change suddenly. He has come to court at the last minute and sometimes late. Rather than to return for this important hearing in good time, he returned on the Eurostar on the morning of the first day. I note from the assessments that it is said that he has changed and cancelled plans and then been away for protracted periods.

The father’s abusive behaviour towards professionals, not only demonstrated by his very inappropriate and offensive emails, but also his threatened and actual complaints raise further questions not only about his psychological functioning but also as to whether his behaviour is affected by drug use.

I will invite the parties to consider what further investigations should take place. Hair strand testing is one possible investigation, together, perhaps, with a wider psychological assessment.

I will also consider whether there should be further evidence provided about the father’s employment. The fact that the father has been willing to produce a false document said to be from Ms. H raises question marks about the veracity of other documents produced by him in support of his case. This includes documents from his place of work, including evidence about his role, need to travel and salary.

If, as he says, the father has held down responsible professional employment over a protracted period of time, this would be positive evidence about him and his ability to function with other people outside the confines of these proceedings. If he has lied about it and fabricated those documents it would be very worrying, for it would undermine his presentation as to who he is, how he lives his life, and how he supports himself and N.

I sincerely hope that the residual anxiety I have as to the veracity of his evidence about this is misplaced. My doubts come about (a) because of concerns about the veracity of the father’s evidence generally; (b) because of my finding that he fabricated evidence from Ms. H; (c) because of the evidence of the agency social worker that when she searched the father’s name and workplace online she found a platform with a photograph of someone different; (d) because of the father’s frequent travel which seems a little at odds with his need to work full time within the UK time zone; and (e) because of his offensive and erratic behaviour to others in these proceedings which would not be tolerated if repeated in a reputable workplace.

I realise how intrusive direct enquiries with the father’s employer could be, but I hope the father will understand how very helpful it would be to his case for the evidence he has given about the responsible job he holds and the stability of it, could be verified. The way in which this might be achieved is something I will consider at the directions hearing following the handing down of this judgment.

Finally, it is vital that the father cooperate with these further enquiries and that he does not try to limit or undermine the Guardian’s investigation. The Guardian has a duty to promote N’s welfare in these proceedings and to carry out his investigations as he, and not the father, sees fit.

I will, therefore, adjourn the proceedings and list it for a final hearing. In the meantime, I will invite the parties to propose directions for the filing of further evidence, including expert evidence.