This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so will be a contempt of court.

Case  No: UK13C00062

Neutral Citation Number: [2013] EWCC B19 (Fam)
IN THE PORTSMOUTH COUNTY COURT
(sitting at BASINGSTOKE COUNTY COURT)

Date: 4th December 2013

Before :
HHJ MILLER QC

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Between :

	Hampshire County Council 	Applicant 	
	- and -		
	Mother	First Respondent	
	Father	Second Respondent	
	Child 
(through her Children’s Guardian 
Jo Paice)	Third Respondent 	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Hearing dates: 2-4th December 2013

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

JUDGMENT
HHJ Miller QC : 
1.	The application before the court
This case involves a young girl called Child, born on the 26th August 2005, making her now aged 8.   Her mother is “Mother” aged 44 and her father is “Father”, aged 42.

2.	In its current phase this case was brought before the court by Mother’s application for a sole residence order at the end of 2012, but it became a public law matter on the 30th September 2013 when the Local Authority made an application for an Interim Care Order.  This came about due to rising concerns voiced both by a psychologist instructed in the private law proceedings and by the Cafcass Officer who is now the Guardian.  Child was made the subject of an interim care order on the 10th October 2013 since when she has been in foster care.  This hearing is listed both as a fact finding and in order to determine whether the threshold criteria are met and the appropriate placement for Child until final hearing.  

3.	The history of the case.
The parties had a relationship between 2003-6, as a result of which Child was conceived.  They separated in May 2006 when Child was 9 months old.  In October 2007 an order was made for shared residence, after which Child spent 5 nights a week with her mother and 2 with her father, which remained in place until 2012 when Child was almost 5.

4.	Prior to Child’s birth Mother was known to have an alcohol problem which became alcoholism, and it continued through the pregnancy (although her intake did reduce) and afterwards.  Mother eventually accepted that she had a problem and received lengthy treatment, becoming finally sober in March 2007 prior to the making of the residence order.  However, it has subsequently transpired that alcohol was only the visible end of much deeper-seated problems that Mother had struggled with for years, and which have surfaced again in her relationship with Child.   She is said to have suffered from depression for many years, and has taken medication throughout.  

5.	By January 2012 Child was reported by Mother as having bad nightmares, wetting herself, and having facial twitches and a painful stomach.  She was seen by a paediatrician who found no problems, so she was referred to CAMHS.

6.	In August 2012 Mother told both Children’s Services and the police that Child had spoken to her about inappropriate sexual behaviour by her father (allegedly pinching her hard, playing with her “boobies” and putting his leg over her).  After contact was made with the police, but before the video interview, Mother also reported that Child had put her vagina near her face and said that Daddy licks her bottom.

7.	Contact was stopped while the police interviewed Child, but although she talked of all initial 3 matters, none appeared to be sexual in nature.  She said that when she was asleep in bed with her father (she was sharing a bed with her parent in each home as she did not want to sleep alone) she felt things touching her boobies.  She woke but her father was asleep facing away from her and did not answer when she whispered to him.  She said that in the morning she had asked him about it and he said he hadn’t touched her.  He suggested it must have been the fish in the fish tank, but she said she thought had had done it.    She said her father did play a walking game with his fingers over her body when she was wearing clothes, but that he never touched her private parts.  She also denied that she had ever put her bottom anywhere near her mother’s head, and that her father had never touched her with his tongue.  

8.	A core assessment was undertaken by the Local Authority commencing in August 2012 as a result of which contact was suspended.  Child told Children’s Services that she liked visiting her father 2 days a week.  The view of the Local Authority was that something unacceptable had happened, but that Child was confused about what was acceptable and unacceptable.  

9.	A month later, however, in September 2012 Child was talking to an art therapist at CAMHS when she repeated that Daddy was touching her boobies when she woke up, but told her he hadn’t.  She also said she didn’t like it.  

10.	Mother applied to the court in late 2012 for a sole residence order, but in January 2013 an order was made re-instating contact to Father, fully supervised by his sister.  The sister made a statement in September 2013 stating that whenever contact took place she never left Father alone with Child, that contact was always happy and relaxed and she exhibited full notes she made of every contact.  It is right to say that an assessment was done of Father’s sister in these proceedings, which spoke of her in glowing terms.  

11.	By early 2013 it was noted that Child was absent from school a lot.  After contact re-started Mother alleged that Child had said she wished she had never been born and felt sick.   She also said that Child reported having seen her father drop his pants and dancing with no pants on so that she had seen his “willy”, saying “it’s hairy, it was horrible”.  This was after one contact supervised by Child’s aunt in which she is clear that nothing untoward happened.

12.	By this stage, the Cafcass Officer in the proceedings had become concerned about the mental health dynamics of what was going on and  spoke to Children’s Services.  They visited Child on the 7th February, and found a gaunt child who was not eating, but with a “wild imagination”.  She spoke at length of zombies and ghosts, but she made no disclosure to the Social Worker who felt that Mother’s certainty that Father had abused Child may have been prompting Child to say things.   The Guardian also formed the view that Child was picking up this up from Mother who may be questioning her inappropriately about sexual abuse by her Father.  A Family support worker was assigned to the case to offer parenting assistance to Mother.

13.	Further allegations were made by Mother in April 2013 that Child had spoken to her about more abuse, this time that her Father made her wear “Spanish knickers”.   Again, Paternal Aunt’s contact notes make it abundantly clear that Child had a perfectly normal time in her family.  By contrast Mother reported that Child was soiling every day.  The family support worker made a note of her discussion with Mother and Child about this matter.  She records that Child told her that she had played hide and seek with her father (which Paternal Aunt does not refer to, though she says there was lots of rough and tumble and that they had an Easter Egg hunt) and that she had had to wear her Spanish socks.  Then she records Mother “prompting”, saying was that all or was there something else too, and Child said he had to wear her Spanish knickers too, that she changed in the bathroom and had to leave them when she left.   

14.	Child was interviewed again by the police on the 15th May 2013 as a result of these allegations.  The note in the police file reads “Child made no disclosure of being invited to try on certain types of underwear, even when asked directly.  According to Child her aunt T is always with her and her dad when she visits.  She showed no signs of worry or distress during the interview”.

15.	Children’s services agreed that Mother should cease to allow the contact supervised by Paternal Aunt.  Later that month Child was also said to have told her Mother that Father wears a daisy in his hair, and also a bra and a woman’s dress.  She also reported Child saying that Father is doing Gangnam dancing and pulling his pants and knickers down, and that Child was displaying anxiety ticks again.

16.	In June 2013 the police finally concluded their examination of Father’s computer, and informed the parties that nothing inappropriate had been found, and their investigation was at an end.  The Cafcass Officer, though, recommended that a psychological report was undertaken, as she believed Child was picking up on Mother’s anxieties.   

17.	Supervised contact was re-started, recommended by the Cafcass Officer, and again it was supervised by the paternal aunt in July 2013.  Mother alleged that immediately Child was told, she had 3 massive tantrums, smacking her face and asking for a hammer.  One contact session took place at which the aunt recorded that “straight away Child was smiling and chatty.  No shyness at all with her father, being intermittently clingy and climbing all over him”.   Afterwards Mother again asserted that Child was showing worrying behaviour, soiling the bathroom floor, having tantrums and nightmares, threatening self-harm and showing twitches and compulsive bodily mannerisms.  

18.	Thereafter there were just 2 more sessions of contact before Child told the family support worker in August 2013 that Daddy was touching her boobies and doing the walking game again.  She said the same to a Social Worker, saying that F is doing Gangnam dancing and pulling his knickers down.

19.	The matter came back to court and all contact save for the purposes of the psychological report was ceased.  MG, the psychologist appointed in July 2013 to write the report for the private law proceedings, had commenced her report by this time, and contacted Children’s Services with her concerns that Child was very thin and did not seem to be eating properly.  As she explained in evidence, not eating is a way that children wrest control of their lives by using a coercive eating pattern.  As a result a report was obtained from Dr B, a consultant paediatrician, who said that Child has grown in weight and height along the same centiles for some years, so she was not concerned except that she felt that Child was suffering psychological trauma.

20.	The contact to Father for the purposes of MG’s report took place on the 31st August, and was filmed by her.  Others have seen the video recording of the contact on the 31st August, and it is clear that Child is happy and composed at all times.  MG was of the view that it went very well, but she was contacted by Mother the same evening to say that Child was self harming.  Mother took her to hospital where she told medical staff that Child had cut herself on Mother’s bracelet, then rubbed it with kitchen roll to hurt herself more.  A very small cut was found.  Child apparently later told CAMHS that she had cut herself accidentally on a sharp piece on her mother’s bracelet, and had no idea why she was taken to hospital.  Mother told the doctors however that “last week Child had tried to throw herself under a car, leave the house in the night, get a knife to hurt herself and wanted to kill herself”.  

21.	Subsequently Mother has denied that she ever told the hospital that Child was attempting to self harm (in her statement in these proceedings).  She also was to tell MG much later that she had heard Child telling a medical professional that she wanted to split herself in half with a knife, but there is certainly no record of anything so concerning being said in the hospital notes.  

22.	Child was discharged from hospital to her Mother’s care, but as the Cafcass officer was expressing continued concerns, a Child Protection Conference took place and daily social work visits were instituted.  Father made an application for an Interim Residence Order to himself or his sister, and the matter came before the court when directions were made.  A fact finding was later directed and the Cafcass Officer was appointed Guardian.

23.	On the 24th September 2013 MG contacted the Local Authority to tell them of her grave concerns as a result of the investigations for her report.   Her view was that Child is suffering real emotional abuse and that her physical safety could be in jeopardy if she stayed with her Mother once the report was disclosed.  Thereafter care proceedings were issued by the Local Authority.  M did not attend the first hearing, but the high level of support was ordered to continue.

24.	There was a contested hearing when an Interim Care Order was made by HHJ Black on the 10th October 2013, at which the care plan for foster care was endorsed.  Child moved the same day and has settled very well indeed with her foster carers.  Weekly supervised contact to each parent has taken place since that time.

25.	A number of assessments were directed and have been completed with great speed.  Parenting assessments have been done in respect of both Mother and Father.  The assessment of Mother was negative, but of Father it was positive.  The paternal aunt and her partner were also assessed and have proved suitable for a long term placement for their niece.

26.	The position at the start of the hearing
Mother did appear on the first day of the hearing, whereas she had not appeared on many earlier occasions at court, or had left before the hearing concluded.  I was told that Mother’s position is that she still maintains that Child has told her spontaneously of the abuse she has suffered at her father’s hands, but she accepted that the court would not be in a position to make findings of sexual abuse on the evidence available.   The unsatisfactory nature of the allegations is now compounded by the expert psychological report of MG.  She confirms what the Guardian, some Social workers and indeed the police have suspected as the case has developed, that Child’s allegations have arisen from the concerning relationship between Mother and daughter.  MG found in terms that the allegations against Father are false.

27.	Given the positive parenting assessment of Father, the Local Authority’s care plan is for rapid rehabilitation to Father, taking her out of care within   about a week.  She will therefore be with him in good time for Christmas.  Father lives alone but works from home, and has a supportive family so that he is fully able to care for Child.  It is proposed that contact to Mother should reduce while the move is made to Father’s home, but that she should continue to have a short weekly contact session, fully supervised in the community.  

28.	In those circumstances Mother has not retracted her allegations, but has not sought to persuade the court to make any findings of sexual abuse.  She also does not accept the matters set out in the threshold document (which are founded on MG’s report) but did not challenge them.  In the circumstances I have heard evidence from MG herself as to threshold, and also as to contact and therapy for Mother and Child.  Father also gave evidence, but as Mother did not seek to persuade the court to make any findings against Father, I did not require her to give evidence.  She failed to turn up on the second day of the hearing of the evidence, saying she had been too distressed by the events of the first day.

29.	The alleged sexual abuse
Many different allegations have been reported by Mother as having come from Child, but as Ms Howe has pointed out on behalf of the Local Authority, they fall into two categories: matters that have been repeated by Child to professionals in some form (but often without a sinister gloss) and matters that have never been referred to by Child in speaking to anyone other than allegedly to Mother, and in some cases specifically denied by Child.  When Child was questioned by the police in August 2012, she did refer to the matters that Mother initially alleged she had said (the boobies and walking game) but the police took the view that there was nothing untoward in what she said.  There have been times when she has repeated the actual allegations to professionals, for example to the art therapist at CAMHS, but there has been little consistency in what Child has said.  In my experience, allegations from children are more likely to be true when spoken about freely and given context by a child, but there has never been any here.

30.	The matters reported by Mother but specifically denied by Child are concerning – for example putting her vagina hear Mother’s face and Father licking her front bottom.   It is also very concerning that Mother has related many instances when she said that Child had behaved in a distressing and self-destructive way, but this was never witnessed by anyone else at all.  No concerns have ever been raised at school, for example, where she has been doing well.

31.	Both the Cafcass Officer and Social Workers had begun to wonder whether Child was repeating what her Mother wanted to hear, before MG came into the case and prepared her very thorough evidence-based report.  MG as a Psychologist works together with a team of psychiatrists and psychotherapists who review each other’s work and provide assistance to each other.  I was very impressed by MG as a witness.  In addition to her obvious academic qualifications and the detailed theory she has applied to her report, she came across as articulate, careful, thinking and mature.  She was able to explain her opinions simply and clearly.  She has clearly spent many hours interviewing each of Mother, Father and Child in order to get to grips with the complicated psychology of the family in general, and Mother in particular.

32.	The threshold document succinctly sets out MG’s main findings as to Mother’s problems.  She was taken through each of the headings and confirmed that they accurately represent her view.  The nub of her opinion is that Mother has unresolved issues from her own childhood which have resulted in significant mental health problems which have been poorly medicated for many years.  She is suffering significant distress, fear and emotional instability, also resulting in agoraphobia.  Despite successfully overcoming alcoholism, she has many problems which have not been addressed and she needs long-term help.  

33.	As a result of her mental health difficulties, MG’s view is that Mother has presented a distorted view of her Father to Child whose relationship with her is insecure and compliant, resulting in her making false allegations.  Mother has adopted those allegations and herself made false allegations about Father.  She catastrophises every event, and is wholly unable to prioritise Child’s needs over her own. 

34.	The unsatisfactory nature of the evidence of any form of sexual abuse of Child by her father would on its own not have enabled any Judge to make a finding that anything inappropriate had happened.  Child has never made allegations of any sort in a formal interview.  The matters she has talked of have often been strange (for example “Spanish” knickers) and have also been changing and inconsistent.  But when this is allied to the careful and authoritative opinion of MG, who has analysed the family dynamics with great thoroughness and fairness, the allegations are wholly untenable.  

35.	MG has also looked comprehensively at Father’s psychological make-up.  She says that much is known now of the psychology of paedophilia, and that Father’s profile and his attachment patterns do not correlate with those of abusers, whether familial or not.  She says that his relationship with Child is co-operative and loving, although very affected by the proceedings and it will need help to improve. 

36.	I should mention some facts that emerged from the parenting assessment on Father, as the author of the report apparently spoke to the police about the allegations that had been made.   She says that the police investigators told her that their view was that Father was innocent of the accusations levelled against him, and that they were alarmed at the frequency and style of reporting, and felt Child had been coached by Mother.  They said they were surprised when they met Child, given the allegations that Mother claimed she had made.  

37.	I have also been referred to some emails from the police in which they set out serious concerns about Mother’s allegations as early as January 2013.  The police noted that Child was only 7, but Mother was reporting allegations from Child that must have happened at least 5 months previously, whereas anyone who deals with young children knows that their memory for events is very short.  They noted that these disclosures came only days after Mother had lost a bid to prevent all contact.  Mother had clearly asked a number of leading questions, despite being told not to do so, and there was concern that she had allowed Child to know that she was emailing the police about these matters and that she had allowed her to overhear phone calls previously.  

38.	MG says that she found that Mother’s large number of extreme allegations were not substantiated, which has compromised Child’s safety to a great degree.  She says that the boundaries between what is real and what is not have been blurred for Mother as she has tried to make sense of her own history.  The allegations made by her about Child’s behaviour are the most extreme allegations of mental distress and behaviour by a child that MG had ever encountered, including in her research.  She said in evidence that it would not be possible for Child to have experienced such a degree of distress at home without it spilling out into other parts of her life, which it never has done.  She therefore concluded that Mother was again catastrophising.  MG said that Child has found herself compelled to make the allegations against her father in association with her highly insecure pattern of attachment with her Mother.  In evidence MG said that Child is both coercive and compliant, that she can therefore both confuse and conflate information and be deceptive. 

39.	I do accept the matters that I have set out above from MG’s report, having heard her evidence and being satisfied that she is both properly qualified to give this opinion and that she has investigated this case with great thoroughness and skill. I therefore have no hesitation at all in saying in terms that the allegations of sexual abuse are not proved against Father, and that he is not a risk to his daughter Child.  

40.	MG says that the allegations have been fabricated by Mother, but says they could have arisen from distorted thinking or from deliberate deception.  I am urged by the Local Authority and Father to say that there is an element of both distorted thinking (arising from Mother’s psychological problems) and deliberate false allegations in what she has done (evidenced by the more extreme examples of allegations not supported by Child and the fact that Father has always said that Mother threatened him with sexual allegations if he did not comply with her wish to change court orders).  

41.	My finding is that while Mother has indeed been the victim of her psychological problems, she has also consciously created some of the allegations here.  I have been told that the Guardian is also of the view that there is a combined explanation for the allegations.  The timing between contact re-starting and the next allegation being made is too much of a co-incidence for there not to have been some volition on her part.  There are also examples of Mother embellishing stories as – the addition of the alleged threat of self harm she over-heard Child make to a nurse or doctor on the 31st August when she was questioned about it by MG is a good example.

42.	It must be understood by Mother that her allegations that Father has sexually abused Child have been found to be totally unfounded, created by her both unconsciously and consciously.  She must also understand that what she has done has been hugely emotionally damaging to Child, who will take a long time to recover her own psychological equilibrium, even with her Father’s help.  She must never allow herself to make such allegations again, or she will risk never seeing her daughter.  

43.	Threshold
Threshold has not been conceded by Mother, so I need next to look at this matter.  

44.	I have already stated that I found the evidence of MG concerning Mother’s psychological make-up compelling.  She has gone back into Mother’s past to find the root cause of her current mental health difficulties with a thoroughness I have not often encountered before.  She sets out the difficulties from Mother’s childhood and traces the development of her depression, her alcoholism and her needy self-focus which has caused such a damaged relationship with Child.  She says that her psychological state impacts significantly on her ability to parent and that without extensive therapeutic intervention she will be unable to give Child stable and responsible care-giving.  

45.	MG says “I do not believe Mother is able to parent Child or keep her safe … her actions … are causing both physical and psychological harm to Child on a daily basis.  My assessment of Mother indicated both overt and covert hostility towards Child resulting in a highly inconsistent attachment behaviour”.  

46.	Child now presents as both compliant and coercive.  As a result of Mother’s false allegations of sexual abuse, she has been the subject of intrusive examination and questioning on many occasions, including twice by the police.  Mother’s constant allegations of extreme disturbed behaviour by Child has never been witnessed by any professional, but it culminated in the hospital stay in August 2013 when Mother alleged that she had been self-harming, causing inappropriate medical intervention.  

47.	MG’s view is that Child has been caused significant emotional and physical harm.  The emotional harm is obvious from the history of the case, but the physical harm is also present.  Part of Child’s presentation in her Mother’s care is that she had restricted her eating intake.  Since being placed in Foster Care she has begun to eat well, and her school are saying that she is a different child.  MG says that if Child were to remain in her Mother’s care she would be at very significant risk of mental ill health herself, specifically an eating disorder, depression, substance abuse, somatic disorders and severe anxiety.

48.	Nothing I have heard in the case causes me to question any of the threshold matters that have been succinctly extracted from MG’s report.  They are an accurate distillation of MG’s views and she specifically confirmed that each is correct in her evidence.  No challenge was made to any of her opinions in evidence, as it had been made clear before the case started that Mother did not want to try and undermine MG’s evidence.

49.	It is very clear that Threshold is crossed in this case.  I accept that each of the matters set out in the Threshold document is made out on the balance of probabilities.  In respect of paragraph 3, I agree that the words “or a combination of both” should be added after the first comma.  In respect of paragraph 11, MG said that the words “very high” should be inserted before the word risk in the first line, with which I agree.  

50.	The future for Child
An interim care order has been made in this case already.  The Local Authority do not ask that I make any change currently to Child’s status, but that the interim care order is renewed as appropriate and that I approve the care plan for rehabilitation to her Father.  MG is to be asked to prepare an addendum report on the next phase of the rehabilitation.  If it goes successfully, the case will return to court in about 3 months’ time for a Residence Order to be made to Father, and for contact to Mother to be reviewed.  I turn therefore to the care plan.

51.	Child has only been in care for about 6 weeks, but is already a transformed child.  She is now eating properly and sleeping well.  She has stopped what MG described as her coercive behaviours as her foster carers have dealt with her calmly and firmly.   She is happy in the foster carers’ home, but is apparently desperate to know that she will have moved before Christmas. 

52.	MG said that at first Child was quite aggressively trying to get physical contact from her father at contact, but she has since become gentler.  This therefore shows that trust between them has increased, and that each of them has the other in their minds, so attunement between them has increased.   It therefore seems that their relationship is already heading in the right direction.  

53.	Father’s parenting assessment was done by Ms Alison Love, a family support worker, and is dated 25th November 2013.  She was not required to give evidence in the case.  She said she has no concerns if Child moves to live with her father, that he was honest, co-operative and reflective.  Her view is that he will accept advice and work to promote Child’s best interests.  He can provide a good standard of care for Child and shows emotional and physical warmth to her.  He has already started on the video interactive guidance (VIG) as recommended by MG, and he said in evidence that he found it very helpful.  He will clearly support any further work which needs to be done with Child either during or after the VIG work.  He told me that he will take advice as to how to talk to Child about what has happened, and about her mother.  

54.	Father admitted that he has found the allegations and the investigation deeply traumatic, and accepted that he may have been mildly depressed.  He is clearly delighted that he has the prospect of caring for his young daughter. As a witness Father came over as sensitive, reflective and honest.  I have no doubt at all that he will make an excellent carer for his needy young daughter and work hard to help Child away from the difficult place that she has been taken to by her mother.

55.	In this case there is no balance to be made between different options for Child.  I should make it clear that I do not doubt that Mother loves Child very deeply.  But having found that the sexual allegation are not proved, that Threshold is crossed and accepted the evidence of MG that Mother cannot safely parent Child, Father is the obvious place for the Local Authority to turn.  I fully approve the care plan.

56.	Father is understandably concerned about his relationship with Child’s school going forward, as it would appear from statements seen recently by the parties that a number of parents have taken sides with Mother, who has a demonstrable history of portraying herself as unjustly victimised in order to get support.  I hope that a course can be agreed between the Local Authority and the Guardian that will properly inform the school and support Father.

57.	Contact
Contact for Mother will take place, but MG was clear that it needs to be very tightly managed.  She agreed that there should be no contact for a short time while the placement is made, although a letter to Child could be appropriate from Mother.  

58.	Recent contact for Mother MG has called “toxic”, as it has not been a positive experience either for Mother or child.   She said “I am concerned about the relationship of mother and daughter, the lack of attunement is so acute.” There have been a number of instances of Mother saying inappropriate things to Child, which she said must be prevented.

59.	MG said that Mother needs specialist psychiatric help to identify the issues and formulate a long term plan to reduce her anxieties and her medication, which needs to happen together.  I hope that she is able and willing to access such assistance.  It is very clear from a letter from her treating consultant psychiatrist that he is unaware of much of what has been going on, and he should be given access to MG’s report in the hope that he can promote the necessary treatment for Mother.

HHJ JANE MILLER QC
4th December 2013