No information that is capable of or may lead to the identification of the children or the parties to this case may be published.

Case No.  RG16C00639 & RG17C00104
IN THE FAMILY COURT

Before:
HIS HONOUR JUDGE MORADIFAR

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

In the matter of:
Re E and N

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

Mr Alex Forbes, counsel for the local authority, instructed by Mr Fernando Sumudu
Miss Jillian Hurworth counsel for the mother instructed by Alan Durling of Asghar and Co
Miss Louise Desrosiers counsel for the father instructed by Manjit Rai of MMA solicitors
Miss Hayley Griffiths, counsel for the children instructed by Sarah Hindle of Stone king LLP

Date of the hearing:
8 to 12, 16 May 2017

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

JUDGMENT
His Honour Judge Moradifar:

Introduction
1.	The local authority applies for care orders in respect of two very young children, E who was born on 15 March 2016 and N who was born 7 January 2017. The local authority’s final plan for both children is one of adoption. The local authority alleges that the father is extremely violent towards the mother, he has raped her, controls her, has at times prostituted her and is a drug dealer. The local authority further alleges that the parents are not able to separate or remain separated from each other. It argues that this poses an unacceptable risk to the children that neither parent is able to protect the children from. If I find otherwise, the local authority accepts that there is a need for further assessment of the parents and that the mother should attend a residential unit with the children.
2.	The parents deny that the father has behaved in the way that the local authority alleges. They both challenge the local authority by stating that it has mistaken the identity of mother’s former partner (“R”) with the father. This mistake has cascaded through the professionals involved with this family. They each oppose the local authority’s care plans for adoption. The mother, with the support of the father, states that she should be given the opportunity of a further assessment in a residential setting.
3.	The children’s guardian supports the local authority’s position if I find that R and the father are the same person. Otherwise he would support a further assessment of the mother and the children in a residential setting.
4.	Therefore the central issue is the identification of the perpetrator of the horrific acts of violence and domestic abuse upon the mother. This person is either R or the father.
The law
5.	The parties have made detailed submissions on the law for which I am grateful. I have incorporated the main body of those submissions in this part of my judgement. 
6.	The local authority seeks to prove the allegations against the parents. It must do so on a balance of probabilities. Nothing more and nothing less. In considering the evidence before me, I must consider each relevant piece, give it appropriate weight and consider the totality or the “wide canvas” of the evidence before me. This fundamental principle has been stated on many occasions. In 2013 Baker J observed in Wiltshire Council v F and Others [2013] EWHC 2747 (Fam) 
“In determining any issues of fact, the burden of proof lies with the local authority and the standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.  The court remembers and applies the rule that the findings of fact must be based on evidence and, in particular, in this case, I remind myself of the observation of Munby LJ (as he then was) in Re A (A child: fact-finding hearing: speculation) [2011] EWCA (Civ) 12:
"It is an elementary proposition that findings of fact must be based on evidence including inferences that can properly be drawn from the evidence and not on suspicion or speculation."  
Furthermore, when considering care proceedings, the court must take into account all the evidence and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence.  An important part of the evidence in this as in every case is of course the evidence provided by the child's carers.  The court must form a clear assessment of their credibility and reliability.  When considering that evidence, and particular where it appears that lies have been told, the court must bear in mind that it is common for witnesses to tell lies and the court must be careful to remember that a witness may lie for many reasons such as shame, misplaced loyalty, panic, fear and distress.  The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that she or he has lied about everything.”  
This was reasserted by the President of the family Division in Re A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11 who expressed in the following terms;
“i) Fact-finding and proof. It is for the local authority to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the facts upon which it seeks to rely. Findings of fact must be based on evidence and not on suspicion or speculation (Re A (A Child) (No 2) [2011] EWCA Civ 12.  If the local authority's case is challenged on some factual point it must adduce proper evidence to establish what it seeks to prove. Whilst reliance is often placed upon material to be found in local authority case records or social work chronologies which is hearsay (often second- or third-hand hearsay) a local authority which is unwilling or unable to produce the witnesses who can speak of such matters first-hand, may find itself in great difficulties if a parent not merely puts the matter in issue but goes into the witness-box to deny it.” 
“The local authority, if its case is challenged on some factual point, must adduce proper evidence to establish what it seeks to prove. Much material to be found in local authority case records or social work chronologies is hearsay, often second- or third-hand hearsay. Hearsay evidence is, of course, admissible in family proceedings. But, and as the present case so vividly demonstrates, a local authority which is unwilling or unable to produce the witnesses who can speak of such matters first-hand, may find itself in great, or indeed insuperable, difficulties if a parent not merely puts the matter in issue but goes into the witness-box to deny it. As I remarked in my second View from the President's Chambers, [2013] Fam Law 680:  "Of course the court can act on the basis of evidence that is hearsay. But direct evidence from those who can speak to what they have themselves seen and heard is more compelling and less open to cross-examination. Too often far too much time is taken up by cross-examination directed to little more than demonstrating that no-one giving evidence in court is able to speak of their own knowledge, and that all are dependent on the assumed accuracy of what is recorded, sometimes at third or fourth hand, in the local authority's files.”  It is a common feature of care cases that a local authority asserts that a parent does not admit, recognise or acknowledge something or does not recognise or acknowledge the local authority's concern about something. If the 'thing' is put in issue, the local authority must both prove the 'thing' and establish that it has the significance attributed to it by the local authority.”
Aikens LJ in Re J (A Child) Re A (A Child) [2015] EWFC 11 (para 56) provides the following summary;
“
a.	In an adoption case, it is for the local authority to prove, on a balance of probabilities, the facts on which it relies and, if adoption is to be ordered, to demonstrate that "nothing else will do", when having regard to the overriding requirements of the child's welfare. 

b.	If the local authority's case on a factual issue is challenged, the local authority must adduce proper evidence to establish the fact it seeks to prove. If a local authority asserts that a parent "does not admit, recognise or acknowledge" that a matter of concern to the authority is the case, then if that matter of concern is put in issue, it is for the local authority to prove it is the case and, furthermore, that the matter of concern "has the significance attributed to it by the local authority". 

c.	Hearsay evidence about issues that appear in reports produced on behalf of the local authority, although admissible, has strict limitations if a parent challenges that hearsay evidence by giving contrary oral evidence at a hearing.  If the local authority is unwilling or unable to produce a witness who can speak to the relevant matter by first hand evidence, it may find itself in "great, or indeed insuperable" difficulties in proving the fact or matter alleged by the local authority but which is challenged. 

d.	The formulation of "Threshold" issues and proposed findings of fact must be done with the utmost care and precision. The distinction between a fact and evidence alleged to prove a fact is fundamental and must be recognised. The document must identify the relevant facts which are sought to be proved. It can be cross-referenced to evidence relied on to prove the facts asserted but should not contain mere allegations ("he appears to have lied" etc.).

e.	It is for the local authority to prove that there is the necessary link between the facts upon which it relies and its case on Threshold. The local authority must demonstrate why certain facts, if proved, "justify the conclusion that the child has suffered or is at the risk of suffering significant harm" of the type asserted by the local authority. "The local authority's evidence and submissions must set out the arguments and explain explicitly why it is said that, in the particular case, the conclusion [that the child has suffered or is at the risk of suffering significant harm] indeed follows from the facts [proved]."

f.	It is vital that local authorities, and, even more importantly, judges, bear in mind that nearly all parents will be imperfect in some way or other. The State will not take away the children of "those who commit crimes, abuse alcohol or drugs or suffer from physical or mental illness or disability, or who espouse antisocial, political or religious beliefs"   simply because those facts are established.   It must be demonstrated by the local authority, in the first place, that by reason of one or more of those facts, the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering significant harm.   Even if that is demonstrated, adoption will not be ordered unless it is demonstrated by the local authority that "nothing else will do" when having regard to the overriding requirements of the child's welfare.     The court must guard against "social engineering". 

g.	When a judge considers the evidence, he must take all of it into account and consider each piece of evidence in the context of all the other evidence, and, to use a metaphor, examine the canvas overall.”  

7.	I am not bound by or limited to the findings that are sought by the local authority and must make such relevant findings that are justified by the evidence before me. Credibility of the witnesses is central to the issues before me and I have, as I must, applied the principles that are set out in R v Lucas (1981) QB 720. I have ensured that the rights of each of the respondents to a fair trial pursuant Art. 6 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (1950) have been observed. There can be no interference with those rights unless such an interference is in pursuance of a legitimate aim, necessary, proportionate and in accordance with the law. 
The allegations
8.	At this juncture in the proceedings and for reasons that I have detailed below, the local authority invites me to make the findings that are detailed in paragraphs 5, 6 and 7 its schedule of findings document which states as follows;
“1. Prior to her pregnancy, the mother has been a regular user of drugs.
2. The mother has consistently used cannabis from approximately 1st January 2016 through to 29th June 2016.
3. The mother continues to use cannabis.
4. The father has used cannabis, cocaine and MDMA (Ecstasy) from approximately the end of January 2016 through to the middle of July 2016. The father continues to use drugs.
5. The father has sexually exploited the mother by prostituting her.
6. The father has controlled the benefits received by the mother.
7. The father has subjected the mother to domestic abuse and violence.
8. On the 29th and 30th June and 1st July 2016, the father attended at the offices of Slough Children's Services Trust where he was shouting and hitting doors and making staff fearful for their own safety. Further, on the 4th July 2016, the father attended at the offices of Slough Children's Services Trust offices, punching the reception glass door twice, picking up his bicycle in a threatening manner and putting staff in fear for their own safety, and shouting and screaming obscenities and threats in the reception area.
9. On or around the 28th & 29th June 2016, the mother and father refused to leave the hospital and became verbally abusive to hospital staff. The mother threw a computer keyboard and mouse which hit the receptionist.
10. The father has a history of anti-social, and violent, behaviour. 
11. On the 21st September 2016 the Police attended the property of the mother and father. The mother and father had been smoking cannabis. The father had been smoking a lot of cannabis in the last couple of weeks which resulted in him having a medical episode that caused him to freak out. The father had smashed the mother’s head against a sink and smashed the house”
Background
9.	The mother is twenty years old. She is a care leaver having been in the care of the local authority as a child. Her life experiences have at times been horrific. These have included introduction to illicit drugs and sexual assault by a professional in a position of trust whilst she was a teenager. She has been involved with taking illicit drugs and the sale of the same. She has been raped and sexually exploited. The majority of these acts have been perpetrated on her by R. Although there have been other incidents where she has had sex with multiple men in exchange for drugs. It is unsurprising that the mother has suffered with episodes of poor mental health that at times included self-harm.
10.	The father is twenty years old. When he was about ten years old he travelled to the United Kingdom from Uganda to reside with his father. Sadly his mother had by then passed. He is reported to have three sisters and a brother. Little is known about his family as he has chosen not to share a great deal of information about them.
11.	The father has another child from a previous relationship. That relationship was at an end before he faced allegations of rape and domestic abuse by his former partner. The matter went to trial at the Crown Court in September 2015 where he was acquitted.
12.	On the parents’ cases they met in 2015. The father states this was around February or March, whilst the mother would say around June or July of that year. In any event they both agree that they did not start their relationship until late July or Early August 2015. 
13.	E was born thirteen weeks prematurely on 15 March 2016. The local authority applied for care and supervision orders in respect of E on 16 June 2016 when he was due to be discharged from hospital. E has been the subject of an interim care order since 8 July 2016 and continues to be accommodated in local authority foster care.
14.	The proceedings in respect of E continued with the parties being permitted to instruct a psychologist and subsequently an independent social worker.  The parents remained in a relationship. It is stated by them both that they have been separated since November 2016. Mother gave birth to their second child N on 27 January 2017. On 30 January 2017 the local authority applied for care and supervision orders in respect of N. He was made the subject of an interim care order on 31 January 2017 when the two proceedings were consolidated.
15.	The final hearing of this matter was due to start before me on 8 May 2017 with a time estimate of five days. Prior to the hearing, the local authority was in possession of a statement by the mother’s personal advisor and applied to withhold its disclosure on the grounds of Public Interest Immunity. I granted this application pending the local authority obtaining appropriate injunctive relief to safeguard the professionals and as asserted by the local authority the mother’s safety. Having obtained such relief, I ordered the disclosure of the statement and the exhibits attached thereto.
16.	Unsurprisingly this caused a great deal of concern for the parents’ advocates who required time to study this document together with their respective clients and to take instructions on the same. I invited the parents to make such applications as they wished in respect of a potential adjournment of the case, it being clear prior to the disclosure of this document that the five day time estimate was insufficient. No party applied for an adjournment. I did however allow the parties ample opportunity to consider the documents and to produce a written responses.
17.	The local authority’s position has been clear from the outset. Whilst there are a number of issues that the local authority seeks the court’s findings, the key issue in deciding the progression of the case is whether the mother’s previous partner R is the same person as the father. If not, the local authority accepts that the mother should be further assessed with the children in a residential setting. Therefore the parties agreed that the remaining days could be utilised to resolve this narrow but important factual issue. I approved this course of action once I was satisfied that each of the parties have had sufficient time to consider and reflect on the recently disclosed statement.
Evidence
18.	I have considered all of the relevant case papers that have been placed before me. In addition I have heard the oral evidence of DM who is the Child Protection Conference Chair, TW who was the mother’s personal advisor, the mother and the father.
19.	DM was the first of the witnesses to give evidence. She confirmed her statement and her note to be accurate and that she had been the Child Protection Conference Chair since 4 November 2016. Her evidence mostly concerned the father’s behaviour in the course of a Child protection Conference which took place on 16 January 2017. She was suspicious that the parents had arrived together, despite understanding that they had separated. She saw the father alone and explained that there was an expectation in respect of his behaviour. The father having understood this, attended the meeting but was disruptive and increasingly aggressive. He left the meeting and returned on several occasions. On the last occasion he left in anger and damaged the door on the way out. She expressed surprise that the mother did not seem to react to the father’s behaviour. The professionals were concerned for the mother and offered to take her home but she declined. She then went to the toilet taking her telephone with her. DM was suspicious that she was calling the father and asked the mother if she could see her telephone. The mother refused stating that she was treated like a child.
20.	I next heard from TW who was the mother’s personal advisor. She confirmed her statement in these proceedings together with case notes exhibited to that statement to be true. She further confirmed that her statement to the police and the information from her in the police logs as being accurate. TW told me that she was the mother’s personal advisor from June 2014 to August 2016. She had a good relationship with the mother. Given her skill set and experience, she is allocated the more challenging cases. At the relevant time she was allocated thirty five cases. She keeps “meticulous” notes given the type and number of cases that are allocated to her.
21.	TW described the mother as varying in her presentation. Sometimes she talks a lot and can give a lot of detail and at other times not. She can present differently due to “her substance misuse and emotional wellbeing”. She denied knowing anything about the mother having a relationship with R. TW was pressed and she denied any knowledge of R or that the mother suffered any abuse at his hands. She was clear that if any such discussions had taken place, these would have been noted. She stated that there were many more notes running to thousands of pages. By reference to her note of 27 May 2015 (Z21-22), TW was clear that the mother told her about her “drug dealer” and that he was called “Jamal”. During a joint visit the mother played a recording on her telephone of “Jamal” who was talking about the girls he kept in London. She further stated that when she visited the mother in October 2015, she showed her a birthday card that the mother said was from “Jamal” and was signed by the father using his first and second name. She said that the father was present. TW thought it was “strange” that a birthday card would be signed with his full name. TW adamantly denied any telephone conversation with the mother in the course of which the mother sought to correct TW by stating that Jamal was not the father but R. TW continued to deny that she was mistaken in the identity of the two men which extended to her email dated 3 May 2017 detailing a conversation with the mother on 23 March 2017. TW confirmed that the mother described “Jamal” to her as six feet tall Somalian man who wore a full beard. She was unable to say if this description fitted the description of the father as she had not met him at that time. TW confirmed that her description of the person cycling away from the mother’s address was that of “Jamal” (F99). Having met the father, she described him as initially quiet but was always courteous and polite. 
22.	The third witness to give evidence was the mother. She confirmed that her statements to the court are true. She explained that during the incident at the hospital she was confronted with two security guards and the midwife. The midwife was able to calm her down and she decided not leave the hospital. She also spoke to the father on the telephone for about five minutes. He was confused about what was “going on”. She further confirmed that the father who is also known as “Jamal” owed money to a drug dealer. She and the father smoked a lot of cannabis. 
23.	She accepted to “a certain extent” that her life experiences have made her vulnerable. She accepted that in July 2007 she slept with two men to pay off £120 that she owed to a drug dealer. Similarly after taking cocaine with unknown males in November 2014, she woke up to one of them having sex with her. She stated that until recently she trusted TW and as her adviser she had a close relationship with her.
24.	 The mother described R as a highly controlling man. If they were not together, he would call her every forty five minutes. He took her money for a period of about two or three weeks. He gave her drugs and she did not pay for the drugs. Sometimes he would withhold drugs as a means of controlling the mother. She denied that he prostituted the mother. She told me that R was too possessive and would not wish her to sleep with any other men. She was frightened of him. She agreed that he is a highly dangerous man and that it would not be safe for children to be exposed to him and he may potentially cause significant harm to any child. Sometime in June or early July 2015 R left without warning. Mother expected him to return but he did not. She waited for him for a period but realised that he had gone leaving no trace. She met the father at least two weeks after R had left. She estimated to be “possibly” in late July or early August. She met him on the High Street when she asked him for a cigarette. He introduced himself as “Jamal”. She accepted that there was no possibility that R would be known as “Jamal”. 
25.	The mother told me that she and the father may have pushed each other two or three times in their relationship. On one such occasion she was pregnant but this did not lead to any injury. She stated that he was not like R and no man has ever treated her as well as the father has. She told me that she has never described R as Jamal. She told me that R had become involved in her life again in January or February 2015. She would not have told TW about this as she was worried that it would be reported to “social services”. She accepted that in May 2015 the father would have been twenty one years old “turning twenty two” and that R would have been twenty three years old.
26.	When confronted with the record of her conversation with the independent social worker in which she states that she and the father met in February 2015, she told me that the report is full of mistakes and that here appears to be a lot of mistakes that are potentially caused by the author “cutting and pasting” the information. Similarly she told me that the record of her response to the local authority’s schedule of findings is a mistake. In her response she states (A58 para 6);
“The mother first met the father on a date that she cannot exactly recall, possibly February or perhaps March 2015 but there was no relationship at that time between them. The relationship did not occur for at least three months afterwards. The father has not controlled the mother’s benefits.”
27.	The mother was taken to the police logs of 12 June 2015 in which there is a description of her partner’s controlling behaviour and drug dealings. At the end of that document the mother has completed a questionnaire in which it is recorded that she is frightened of what might happen if she talks to the police. Later there is reference to this person being in possession of a small handgun. In these documents this person is identified as “Jamal”. When asked if she agreed that this conduct is attributed to “Jamal”, the mother responded by stating that “there is no one called Jamal”. She further stated that the descriptions are all of R. She told me that she does not need protecting. There is no reason why she could not call the police now.
28.	The mother accepted having some contact with the father but denied being in a continuing relationship with him. She accepted that she had met with him on 29 April 2017 and they had been seen walking down the High Street together. She stated that the father had an issue with his own father and needed a place to stay for a short time. He knew that she would not be at her address as she was staying with her mother and she gave him the keys to stay at her property. She further accepted that she and the father have had text and telephone communications. She told me that this was about their children. The mother also accepted that she and the father met in November 2016 before walking together to the local authority offices for the Child Protection conference. She stated that they had not planned this and did not tell the professionals as she was concerned that they would interpret this as the parents being in a relationship. The mother accepted that there was an incident in September 2016 when the police were called. She told me that the father had smoked a lot of cannabis and had a reaction akin to a panic attack. She denied that he “smashed her head against the sink” in the kitchen. This, she said was a mistaken recording and that he “smashed his head against the sink”. She told me that the father did threaten to shoot the windows in the house. She suffered no injuries and this is corroborated by the police who attended and checked her.
29.	Finally I heard the evidence of the father. After struggling to recognise his signature, I allowed him to consult with his counsel before returning to the witness box. He confirmed that his statements to the court were true and accurate. The father stated that his name is not and has never been “Jamal” and that this name has no connection to him. He was unable to explain why the name under his signature at the end of his statement (C73) includes “Jamal” other than saying that he did not see it. He did not think that it would matter and that it would be removed. When it was put to him that he became aware of the relevance of the name “Jamal” only after the disclosure of the police documents, he replied “no idea”. He was adamant that he first met the mother at around March 2015 and was unable to explain why he states June or July 2015 in his statement (C70 para 3).
30.	The father agreed with the mother’s account of how they met each other. He stated that he was confident that this was in March 2015 and that the mother was mistaken. He agreed that they did not embark on a relationship until late July or August 2015. He speculated that perhaps the mother was referring to the time that they commenced their relationship and not when they first met. He told me that they would see each other as friends and in company of other friends which included a girl referred to as H. The first occasion they met again after the meeting on the High Street, was a party at his house and the mother stayed that evening. Other times they would meet and “hang out” in the local park. When challenged on the contents of his interview with Dr Wilkins (E71 para 38) he assured me that this was a mistake.
31.	He told me that he was aware of some of the abuse that the mother had suffered at the hands of R. He stated that he felt emotional about it. He thought that it was disgusting and that it makes him feel angry. As with the mother, he agreed that the description of R is that of a person who would be unsafe around children. The father denied being violent towards his first partner or the mother. He accepted that in some circumstances he can lose control but this was related to being treated unfairly by children services.
32.	The father stated that he was not on “Facebook” but that he may have an account from when he was at school. He has not used it for two years although he may have allowed some of his friends to use it in the past. He denied being friends with a person called Jamal. He also denied knowing anyone by the name that I will identify as JL. He denied having any knowledge of this person. He was asked why the profile picture is a picture of him and the father asked to see the picture. He was unable to explain why his relationship status was recorded as being in a “new relationship” on 31 December 2014, although there is some doubt about the accuracy of this date which may be August 2015.
33.	At this point I adjourned the case to allow the father to seek advice from his counsel before which I gave him a warning pursuant section 98(2) of the Children Act (1989) of the consequences of any potential lies that may told under oath. Having consulted with his counsel he refused to provide his assurances that he would not tamper or delete any social media accounts in his name or pseudonyms or to produce the pages of those accounts. As a result I ordered the local authority to file and serve a statement setting out the detail of the relevant social media pages that it seeks to rely on, the father to produce the pages of his social media accounts and that he must not alter or delete any pages or the contents of any of his social media accounts. 
34.	Subsequently the father produced his fourth written statement which he swore as being true. The father accepted that has used the name Jamal and that his denial of his association with this name was out of fear of being mistaken for R and the consequences that this would have for his children and the case. He told me that he has used the name since his school days and that ordinarily he would introduce himself to “girls” as “Jamal” so that he could avoid further contact with them if he chose to. He denied that he and R are the same person. He expressed his frustration that children services have maintained for a long time that he is R and this has clouded everything that they have done in this case. He maintained that he met the mother in March 2015 and only started a relationship with her in August 2015 when he moved in with her. He had not seen any physical evidence of R including any photographs. He denied that the social media status of being in a “new relationship” related to the mother and speculated that this may have been left as relating to his previous relationship. He denied ever taking cocaine and told me that he has only ever taken cannabis. Father accepted that the description of “Jamal” by TW in her notes of June 2016 (Z53 and 55) described him and continued to deny that he was R. He finally told me that he and the mother have separated as this was the expectation. He still loves the mother but they have remained separated.  
Analysis
35.	Counsel for each of the parties have provided me with detailed written submissions for which I am grateful. I have read and considered those carefully. For the sake of brevity I will not rehearse those in this judgment. I would like to express my gratitude to all counsel in the case for their industry and the way in which they have each conducted their respective cases in challenging circumstances that have been brought about as a consequence of late provision of information and the conduct of the father in the witness box.
36.	Whilst there are material differences between the parents’ evidence, there remains some important common ground between them. They both state that their relationship did not start until sometime in July or August 2015. The father has used the alias “Jamal” and this name has never been used to describe or refer to R. No party is suggesting that TW has lied or is an untruthful witness. The analysis against TW’s evidence is that she has come to the wrong conclusion about the identity of R, father and “Jamal”. In so doing, she has assumed that R and the father or “Jamal” are the same person. Furthermore her evidence identifying the father as R is not reliable. This mistake has cascaded through to other professionals and recordings by professionals. Therefore any documentary evidence that the local authority relies on to corroborate TW’s evidence and the local authority’s case, must be approached cautiously as it will be based on the wrong assumption in respect of R’s identity.
37.	The notes that are attached to TW’s statement are far from complete. As she confirmed in her evidence, the complete notes run to thousands of pages. This is an important factor that I weigh into the balance when considering her evidence. When considering these notes I have taken into account that some of these notes were not entered onto the system in the form that they have been disclosed for a period of time.  Furthermore I have further considered in the context of TW’s work commitments during the relevant period.
38.	 The first document in which “Jamal” is mentioned is TW’s note of 27 May 2015 (created and finalised on 28 May 2015). The mother is recorded as stating that “she was planning to move her new drug dealer into her home… he has two/three houses but needs to stay with her for a while”(Z22 para 12 and 13). The mother confirmed that she was using cocaine every day and in discussions about safeguarding matters she talked about meeting new friends through “Jamal (the dealer) who is 21 yrs from Slough and deals full time”.
39.	On 5 June 2015 (notes created and finalised on 8 June 2015) the mother is recorded as referring to men staying at her home and spending the evening “bagging up drugs for sale”. She further reported that “he has been taking my money for the last two weeks, he has told me that I have to give it to him”. The name “Jamal” does not appear until later in that conversation when the mother states that she has to do his laundry for him. The mother then played a tape recording of “Jamal” in conversation in the course of which he tells the mother that she is different to his other girls, that he has “many many girls working for him” and that she would be safe as she knows all of his “boys” who work for him and as long as she is with him, she will be looked after. The mother then stated that “Jamal” likes to know where she is and calls her every forty five minutes. In two recordings of 10 June 2015 (first created on the same day and the second on 11 June 2015) mother disclosed that the “drug dealer” is living with her and has taken charge of her home, money, food and drugs. When warned about the risks of eviction, the mother is reported to state that this is because “she got free drugs”. In the second note of the same day, the mother discloses an incident of domestic abuse by reference to “Jamal”. In the note of 16 June 2015 (created and finalised on 17 June 2015) the mother stated that she is “scared to answer and take calls from anyone especially TW as Jamal is trying to encourage and instruct the mother to disengage from Social Services”. The mother is then recorded as giving an account of being assaulted and abused by “Jamal” at 5 am that morning.
40.	 The note of 16 July 2015 (created and finalised on 16 July 2015) records that communication with the mother was facilitated on “Jamal’s” telephone number. Mother confirmed that there had been an altercation involving “Jamal” and “H” and that “Jamal” was dealing cocaine. In discussions about TW’s concerns about sexual exploitation the mother stated “Jamal was no longer asking the mother to sleep with his friends” TW observed that the mother “failed to be able to see that she was sleeping with Jamal in exchange for food/drugs. So in… her mind there was no change required”. It is noteworthy that during the period above, the mother is representing as undernourished and under the influence of drugs. She is noted to have forgotten and missed appointments.
41.	In the notes of 4 August 2015 (created and finalised 13 August 2015) the mother is recorded as stating that she and “Jamal” are now in a relationship and that he will be meeting his mother next week. Mother gave a good deal of detail about drug dealing and at paragraph 24 she stated that “she knew that I (TW) wasn’t in agreement but she was now in a relationship and that Jamal was treating her very different now and making sure “his boys respected her and treated her with respect… she no had to do chores or anything he asked and that the whole dynamic had changed”. The notes of 28 August 2015 (created and finalised 2 September 2015) make further reference to drug dealing by “Jamal”. The mother is noted to make further reference to the father’s child from his previous relationship by his correct name.
42.	The next set of notes concern October 2015. These include references to “Jamal” owing a lot of money to drug dealers. On 28 October 2015 mother is aware that she is pregnant (seven weeks and five days) and that “Jamal” is happy but concerned that the mother may run away with the child as this is what occurred with his previous girlfriend. Mother appear to be presenting better and the father’s criminal trial concluded with his acquittal in the previous month. 
43.	By November 2015 the mother is presenting as more emotional (Z75) and expressing concerns. She is noted as stating that she and “Jamal were not going to engage with services… they were going to run away… they would not be allowing any social services over their door step… Jamal would speak to me (TW) but no one else”. Mother is further recorded as stating;
“…she was scared that Jamal would find out she had disclosed that he sold drugs and took drugs, and what his reaction would be…there was a part of her that was worried about if there was any truth in Jamal’s DV/Rape…
She would lie to social services and tell them that Jamal was not dealing drugs… she would tell them what they wanted to hear.”
44.	The notes continue into 2016. On 29 June 2016 (notes created on 1 July 2015) TW states that she observed “Jamal “outside the office pacing up and down and going in and out of the reception and approached TW’s car. Furthermore there is a note of a conversation over the telephone between “Jamal” and TW on 28 June 2016. The father readily accepted that these notes correctly referred to him and identified him.
45.	I found TW to be an accurate and reliable witness. This is not to say that she is infallible to making mistakes and misunderstanding information that is given to which she subsequently may believe to be true. This is perhaps best illustrated by her initial description of “Jamal” as six foot tall. This is clearly not a description that can be attributed to the father. Similarly the assumption that she had seen “Jamal” cycling away from the mother’s address which was not confirmed by the mother.
46.	I have considered the contents of her disclosed recordings against each of the parents’ evidence. The contents of the notes from 27 May 2015 provide the first time that “Jamal” is mentioned. On the father’s case he and the mother had met by then and this raises the possibility of the mother mentioning the name on purpose so as to avoid identifying R, or a mistake being made by TW. On the mother’s case, this would have been impossible as she and the father did not meet until July 2015. The mother further told me that R left in early July 2015.
47.	In mid-July there was an incident that involved H and “Jamal”. The father in his evidence identified H as one of their mutual friends who appeared in one of the photographs on the father’s social media account. Neither parent has ever made any connection between H and R, nor that she was part of the social group involving R. It is common ground between the parents that their relationship did not commence until late July or August 2015. In early August 2015 the mother described a change in “Jamal” and the “dynamics” in her relationship with him. This is not a description of a new relationship that was formed in late July or early August. Furthermore the mother is noted as referring to drug dealing and debts in connection with drugs. Even if allowing for TW attributing this to the wrong name, the theme is consistent and is clearly evident long after R had left the mother and disappeared without a trace. Whilst the mother did not agree in her evidence that the debts were of the level that is recorded, she did agree that they referred to the father. Reference to the father’s alleged drug dealing is noted as late as 5 November 2015 in the context of the mother’s pregnancy and the couple’s intentions.
48.	The general theme in the mother’s evidence in these proceedings have been largely consistent. In my assessment of her evidence, she tried her very best to give an accurate account of disputed facts. I note that when giving her evidence, she was answering questions about events that took place more than eighteen months ago and during parts of that period she was heavily under the influence of illicit drugs. The mother gave her evidence clearly and with a great deal of detail. The impact of her life experiences was clear to me which was displayed through her obvious vulnerability. When pressed on important issues, she became more suggestible and began doubting her account. This was most obvious when questions on behalf of the father sought to persuade her that she met the father earlier than she recalled. Therefore it is not surprising that the mother may be seen as minimising the perceived risk and difficulties in her relationship with the father. In my judgment the mother remains emotionally connected and reliant on the father. I found her evidence on the issues before me unreliable. Her assertion that the father (“Jamal”) first came into her life after R’s departure is internally inconsistent and unsustainable in the light of the evidence that demonstrates otherwise. Her attempts at minimising the father’s past reported behaviour as reported by her or otherwise the suggestion that the recordings had been tampered with lacked credibility. Where there are material disputes of relevant facts, I overwhelmingly prefer the evidence of TW. 
49.	The father commenced his oral evidence with a disastrous and desperate attempt to disassociate himself from his alias “Jamal”. This included stating that he did not recognise the signature above the name that included “Jamal” and that he had assumed that this would be removed. Thereafter he maintained that he has no connection with the name “Jamal”. He maintained this position until the very last moment when he felt the weight of the evidence against his assertion. I take into account the circumstances in which the father has made his subsequent admissions. I fully recognise the magnitude of the local authority’s care plans in respect of his children and this can lead a parent to make desperate and unwise decisions. However his actions cannot be condoned. I do not find that his conduct is fatal to his credibility. There are aspects of his evidence that were reliable and corroborated by other evidence. This included the circumstances in which he and the mother met and separated, that he continues to love the mother, that he met the mother in February or March 2015 and when under pressure he has the propensity to lose his temper and control. I found his evidence on the issues before me to lack credibility. In my assessment of the father’s evidence, he found himself in such a precarious position against a background of lies such that he could only make admission to disputed facts where he found no other option. 
Conclusion
50.	Having considered the relevant evidence before me in the context of the “wide canvas” of this case, I find that the parents met in February or March 2015. In addition to his names, the father has used the alias “Jamal”. The father’s conduct towards the mother is as described by the mother and noted in the notes of TW. In my judgment August 2015 marked a change in the parents’ relationship and the father’s behaviour towards the mother improved. Mother’s pregnancy marked another change in the parents’ relationship. The significance of the father’s reported past conduct and the issue of Jamal’s identity was not obvious to the parents until after the proceedings had been issued. The parents have each attempted to maintain a lie about the true identity of the person who perpetrated the horrific acts that the mother reported to TW. In my judgement the parents’ respective positions has become more entrenched with the passage of time fearing the consequences for them and their children. The evidence about the incident in September 2016 is not sufficiently cogent to support a finding that the father smashed the mother’s head against the sink. There is no evidence that the parents live together or that there is a sexual relationship between them. However there is clear evidence that the parents remain emotionally connected or reliant on each other.
51.	My findings are as follows:
a.	The parents met in February or March 2015.
b.	The father initially introduced himself to the mother as Jamal and has used the name in the past.
c.	In 2015 the father:
-	Was a drug dealer
-	Had debts relating to drugs
-	Used the mother and her premises to deal in drugs
-	Sexually exploited the mother by making her have sex with his friends
-	Provided the mother with illicit drugs 
-	Controlled the mother by withholding drugs from her and controlling her money for period of three weeks in June 2015
d.	R’s identity was made up by either or both parents to deceive the professionals and the court about the true identity of the father. If R was made up by one of the parents, the other knew that this person did not exist and assisted the other by maintaining a lie about R’s existence.
e.	The parents have misled the professionals and the court about the true identity of the father.
f.	The parents continue to have an emotional connection and reliance on each other.