![]() |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> England and Wales Family Court Decisions (other Judges) >> N, S & R (Children- Evidence by Intermediary), Re [2018] EWFC B93 (15 June 2018) URL: http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWFC/OJ/2018/B93.html Cite as: [2018] EWFC B93 |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
Gloucester House, 4 Dukes Green Avenue Feltham, TW14 0LR |
||
B e f o r e :
____________________
LONDON BOROUGH OF RICHMOND-UPON-THAMES |
Applicant |
|
- and – |
||
ST MT N, S & R (by their Children's Guardian) |
Respondents |
____________________
Ms Suzannah Cotterill for the First Respondent
Ms Frances Orchover for the Second Respondent
Mr Julian Date for the Third to Fifth Respondents
Hearing dates: 4-8 & 11-15 June 2018
____________________
Crown Copyright ©
His Honour Judge Willans:
Introduction:
a) Those allegations in dispute relating to the threshold[2]b) The placement decision for R
c) Contact issues
Legal Principles:
Background:
Impression of Witnesses:
Threshold / Fact Finding:
a) Physical harm: By MT physically and verbally abusing all the children using his hands and implements. By ST pulling N's hair and failing to protect the children from MT despite being aware of his actions.
b) Neglect: In allowing the children to attend school in an unhygienic state and in allowing R to witness adult sexual intimacy.
c) Emotional: In silencing the children from reporting the matters at home; in experiencing the chastisement referred to above; in witnessing parental domestic violence (DV), and; in N being subject to parental language that has left her feeling unwanted.
Were the children silenced?
i) The evidence as to the children being silenced or coerced into withholding information is scant to say the least. Plainly such a finding would be dependent on my finding as to physical abuse in the first instance. However, even if I am to make such a finding there really is little foundation for making a consequent finding of this nature. The primary evidence appears to be limited to (a) the inference of VC that reports have not been made due to coercion[9]; (b) the acknowledgment made by ST of threatening the children that they will be put into care, and; (c) S in ABE interview when asked why she had not said anything before saying; "'cause I thought I will get in trouble" and when asked who told her this replying "my dad"[10].
I draw very little from point (b) as there is really no evidence of any causal link between abuse and the threats. Indeed the chronology first raises words of this sort in a different context. Point (a) is a fair assumption to make but it is an assumption and one of a series that could be drawn in such circumstances. The children may not have reported concerning matters because they would get into trouble or because they were embarrassed to do so or fearful of the consequences. None of this requires an operating coercion from either parent. I have no basis for finding the social worker's inference more likely than any of the other inferences that might have been drawn. That leaves me with the limited words in ABE interview. On balance I am not satisfied that isolated sentence considered in the context of the interview justifies the finding sought.
Unhygienic presentation?
ii) The evidence as to the children attending school in an unhygienic state is found within school letters for each child[11]. I have considered these letters but they fall far short of proving this allegation. They essentially report much improved presentation since removal into care. R is in 'clean well-fitting school uniform…with clean hands and a clean face. This is a marked difference for R who previously did not consistently arrive at school clean or in a clean, or fitting uniform'. S's "personal hygiene is much improved, her skin appears clear and clean and her hair is always clean and brushed". N "has seen a vast improvement…since being in foster care. Her appearance and hygiene is impeccable".
However, there is no evidence of any association between this presentation and bullying as alleged in the threshold and WT in evidence confirmed there was no such evidence. Further it appears agreed there was no communication as to these issues between the school and the parents prior to removal albeit matters may have been discussed at child protection meetings. My sense is that the children very likely did on occasion leave home with clothes which were not clean and with faces and hands that were not as clean as they should have been. This seems likely given the home environment is agreed by the parents as being unclean at times and appearing like a "squat". However, I am being asked to conclude that this caused significant harm to the children. I agree that persistent poor hygiene does have such a potential but the evidence I have received falls far short of establishing this as a matter of fact. This is an allegation which runs the risk of offending the principle of social engineering expressed by Hedley J. in Re L.
Loose sexual boundaries?
iii) The evidence as to loose sexual boundaries was initially found within a category under the heading of sexual harm. The LA appropriately removed this allegation. I have heard no evidence to suggest either parent has in any conscious way sought to cause sexual harm to their children. On occasion their physical interactions have appeared unusual in the context of the age of the children. However, in my assessment there is nothing to suggest any sexual connotation to this contact and I must bear in mind not only the permissible range of parenting approaches but also the developmental delay experienced by the children. What is left is an allegation that the parents have permitted the children (and R in particular) to be aware of their sexually intimate moments.
I have considered each of the relevant references. C156 does evidence sexualised behaviour on the part of S but it must be borne in mind that this incident occurred close in time to a sexual assault perpetrated upon S and as such this has an obvious alternative cause. C120, 139 and 150 are in fact references to the same report. The difficulty with this report is the manner in which it was taken by PB. For the purpose of this judgment I refer to C139. I do not intend to analyse the general manner of questioning at this stage in my judgment but will return to the same below. In any event I rely upon the observations below. R was being questioned about an incident at school[12] when he acted in a sexualised manner. His initial account as to why he had acted in this manner was to refer to interactions with N and C. S then came into the room and was herself asked where R would have got this from. She then said it had come from him seeing his parents engaged in sexual activity and in the presence of R indicated parts of the body which he was said to have reported seeing MT touch ST. R was then asked what he had seen and in essence confirmed what his sister had said saying he had seen "kissing, humping and touching [and he pointed to the parts of the body S had just pointed to".
I do not consider this evidence provides a fair basis upon which to make the finding sought. In my assessment it falls short of meeting the appropriate threshold. The evidence is in my judgment undermined by the manner in which it arose. R had not provided a previous report but was in essence being asked to confirm what his sister had just said in his presence. As a suggestible child[13] there is a real risk that he simply repeated what S said. His mimicking of her physical description (of parts of the body touched) adds to this concern. There is a danger he has simply agreed with his sister. Her evidence is secondary evidence in any event and thus of weaker value. I further have concerns as to the level of understanding of R given his developmental needs. What does he mean by "humping" was the touching he referred to over clothes or naked? Was the "kissing" appropriate adult behaviour? What do I make of the suggestion that the dog was in the bed at this time? I don't have a satisfactory answer to any of these questions[14]. In this regard I heard clear evidence from the parents disputing such behaviour occurred. On the balance of evidence, I prefer their denials. I do not find the allegation proven. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not find that S made the allegation up, but this does not mean the matter evidences behaviour causing significant harm.
Physical Harm?
DATE | REF | REPORT |
8.12.17 | C82 | R makes allegation to PB that his father has hit his mother and him |
13.12.17 | I130 | R undergoes ABE interview. No substantive allegations[15] |
13.12.17 | [16] | VC and PB speak to R on exiting ABE. Allegation made against father |
26.12.17 | Boxing Day contact between all children at father's foster parents (parents not present) | |
1.1.18 | C97 | N makes allegation to CP of physical abuse by MT and C |
3.1.18 | C95 | S makes allegation to PB of physical abuse by MT |
18.1.18 | E186-191 | WT has separate meeting with all three children. All make allegations of physical abuse against MT. Allegations also made of MT assaulting ST. |
22.1.18 | I160 | R's second ABE: R wants to say 3 things (1) R and the other children were hit by Dad with a hammer in R's bedroom; (2) he doesn't want to go home; (3) he wants his mum and dad to stop fighting all the time. |
22.1.18 | I176 | S's ABE interview: S alleges physical abuse and DV against MT. |
22.1.18 | I118 | N's ABE interview: Alleges physical abuse and DV against MT. |
- Expert evidence as to the children: It is agreed the children all suffer to some extent with developmental delay. The impact of this in terms of their evidence was considered by the expert, RH. She agreed the children (a) might struggle to provide reliable evidence as to timings and as to quantum of events, e.g. how often they were hit; (b) this might be exacerbated in the event of matters being repeatedly recounted by the children with the suggestion that unreliable information crystallises, and; (c) were suggestible (particularly R) and easily led. The danger being that they might be vulnerable to being coerced or encouraged into repeating an untruthful account. I believe she agreed that suggestions of reward for giving information (or for having given information) might further complicate the assessment of truth. I take all of this into account.
- It is suggested that a significant part of the questioning of the children in this case has been inappropriate and unhelpful as to timing. Criticism is particularly made of; (a) the manner PB questioned R when he spoke to her on 8 December 2017; (b) the follow-up questioning of R by PB/VC post-1st ABE; (c) WT's meeting with the children on 18 January 2018 just prior to their ABE interviews. It seemed to me each of PB; VC and WT accepted this criticism to an extent. I consider they were right to do so. PB's questioning was not open and caused R to venture into new territory. The decision to speak to R after his ABE is likely to have arisen out of his failure to repeat in ABE those matters which had reported to PB in early December (see the rationale for PB prompting R). As such it was bound to be dangerous territory. However, in reality it ended up producing no more by way of information than that already existing out of the earlier report and as such was only confirmatory in nature. I agree WT should have recorded some account of the questions asked of the children as without that one is left wholly unclear as to the quality of the questioning (open or otherwise). There was also potential danger in the timing just prior to the meeting with the police as it might raise the prospect of the children being viewed as primed for the interview. I will return to this point below in my conclusions but consider it cannot and should not be overlooked as a consideration.
- There is the potential for rewards to have skewed the reporting. I have noted myself how R when interviewed for the second time is plainly ready to tell "three things" and that "PB said me have tell the truth us go to McDonalds lunch". Elsewhere there are aspects of subtle rewarding and supporting words which have the potential to encourage a line of reporting. To an extent (although not excessively) there are elements of leading questions within the questioning. I bear this in mind.
- The parents rely upon the coincidence of timing as to the inherent reliability of the reporting. R makes his allegation on the 8 December 2017; the children spend Boxing Day together and then both S and N follow up with allegations within 2 days of each other in early January 2018. The parents suggest that this is not coincidental but rather suggestive of the children likely communicating, putting their heads together and producing a common but untrue account.
- The parents point out that the children have had the opportunity to talk at contact; on Boxing Day; whilst holidaying at Easter 2018 and at a trampolining day out arranged by the foster carers. On such occasions they were likely to discuss the case and their allegations and this gave N (potentially) the chance to reinforce a common untrue account. This (the fact of meeting) is of course correct. I will return to its relevance below.
- The parents point out that there is general evidence of the children lying or exaggerating. Counsel for the parents extracted plain contradictory evidence between what PB said as to the conduct of N towards the other children when in her care and what N was willing to accept. I was also taken to evidence of N exaggerating an occasion when PB caused a door to bang into S and then threatening to make up stories about the foster carer "starving the children". This was plainly untrue yet N was willing to make the threat. More specifically when giving evidence N alleged her mother had "kicked and punched her". This was a new allegation and when challenged about it she appeared to accept it was not true. As counsel for ST argued if she lied about this could she not be lying about other matters. Another example of exaggeration/lying is when R spoke of MT hitting all the children and his mother with the hammer in his room[17]. No-one else supports this allegation.
- There is evidence of contradictions within the evidence of the children.
- There is evidence of behaviour which runs counter to the children being victims of abuse. Whilst contact continued with MT their interactions with him were warm and indicative of a relationship of quality. On one occasion a child volunteered to ST to tell MT she loved him. It is said this natural action is a better indication of the quality of the relationship and suggests the allegations made have no reliable basis.
- The parents have given a consistent account of there being no violence as alleged. Despite robust examination they have stuck by their accounts. ST was able to give a personal account explaining why this did not happen. She told me if it had she would have filed for divorce or MT would have been "6 feet under". MT and ST gave consistent common evidence in this regard and at no point appeared to be tripped up by the examination.
- Neither parent has a criminal conviction or caution and are entitled to be regarded as individuals of good character. This would suggest they are less likely to have acted in this manner.
- The children have separately and independently raised their complaints.
- When S[18] initially made her allegation, she did so not wanting the same to be shared with the social worker. This does not readily fit with a concerted attempt to cause trouble.
- Despite the stress of the process N and S have resolutely wished to give their evidence. They came to Court to give evidence against their parents knowing they would be present at Court.
- Notwithstanding the criticisms the children have not in fact withdrawn any of the key allegations.
- The allegations have been made at the same time as expressing a wish to return to their mother's care. This capacity to discriminate and maintain this position is indicative of an underlying cause motivating their wishes.
- The possible explanations given by the parents for the allegations to be made do not hold water. It does not make sense for N to make the allegation as she is angry her mother has not left her father as without a basis for the allegations why would she want her mother to leave her father? Why would the children focus their criticism on the father when in the counter-factual world in which the allegations are not true it would be the mother who with her drinking issues the children would need protection from? How can the scratch card win supply an explanation for false allegations when it appears R made the first complaint before the children were likely to have known about the winnings?[19]
- There is as much detail in the picture painted by the children of the allegations as there is in the denial by the parents. Examples would be of R in interview suggesting that his father needs a punch bag and of one of the children saying they want their father to 'get help' or in R in an aside talking of having a 'STOP' sign on his door if he goes home to prevent his father hitting him.
- The absence of a retraction is also said to be relevant given the substantial obvious impact it is having on their wish for a return to their mother.
- The inherent implausibility of making such allegations were the home circumstances to be as described by the parents.
- Whilst the children have had a chance to talk the evidence of actual opportunity to talk secretly and plan the allegations is rather limited.
- The evidence of both RH and WT that the children despite their developmental issues have the inherent capacity to maintain an essential truth and as a result of their developmental needs would be unlikely to be able to maintain a wholly incorrect account throughout the proceedings as they have done.
- That there is within the evidence supporting evidence of MT's strong emotional response to the children when being awoken by them in the morning.
- I bear in mind that N gave consistent evidence in this regard both to the police and to the Court in oral evidence. She did not withdraw the allegation. It is an allegation which is supported by the detail supplied by N. N suggests her father gave her a black eye at Christmas and her mother went to the bathroom and was crying.
- I consider the allegation is supported by the manner in which the parents responded. This was a clear instance of the suggested domestic violence being alleged by a child of the family. Yet neither parent dealt with the allegation in their written evidence. It appeared this allegation was being fundamentally disputed as with the other matters. However, in her oral evidence ST (whilst making no mention of the black eye) responded to the allegation of her crying by saying this was simply happy tears in the light of the generosity of the children in the gifts to her. MT made no mention of the incident in his written evidence. In his oral evidence he repeated what the mother said as to her tears but then commented that she had had a black eye but this was due to a third-party assault upon the mother when she out of the home.
- I found the timing of the response and the detail unpersuasive when compared to the evidence of N. In my assessment it is difficult to reconcile the child's account of the mother crying with that of it simply being happy tears. Despite their developmental needs I find it difficult to see how the two could be so markedly confused.
- Further, I found the evidence of MT as to the assault raised more questions than it answered. On his case he was approached by his children asking how mum had got a black eye. He then spoke to her and she told him she had been attacked (I think when returning from work). That appears to have been the end of the matter and no report was made to the police. This is all rather odd. I struggle to understand how it came to pass that MT only found out from the children. Surely his wife would have at least informed him by phone if she had been attacked. I consider it highly unlikely it would fall to the children to raise this with him. Secondly, it is an odd response to have taken no steps in relation to an attack of this nature. The absence of any detail to the surrounding circumstances and the failure of ST to mention this incident adds to my scepticism.
- Having considered the evidence I prefer the account of N which links the two points rather than that of the parents.
- I also bear in mind the surrounding home circumstances as found above. I have found a somewhat chaotic home life in which ST was drinking to excess and MT was tired and prone to losing his temper. I have found an inability to restrain his anger on occasions. In my assessment these are circumstances which are likely to be associated with a heightened risk of domestic violence.
- I bear in mind all three children have made such allegations. In my view there is a marked distinction for children of these ages and developmental needs to falsely allege violence between two other people (both of who might deny the event) and to allege violence towards themselves. These children would not have the sophistication to appreciate that the Court may extrapolate in the manner I have above. Rather they would likely have a natural concern that their lie would be readily found out by both individuals denying anything took place. In my judgment this is a relevant consideration.
- I also bear in mind the evidence dotted through the reporting of the concerns of the children as to the mother being safe from the father and their concerns for her. Their mixed approach to their parents and N's anger to her mother for not leaving her father also fits comfortably with this conclusion.
- The children have suffered physical harm in that
- The father has used excessive physical force against all three children on a more than occasional basis
- This has involved hitting the children with his hands and threatening them with implements
- The children have as a result suffered bruising on occasions
- He has covered their mouths as part of the assault
- The mother has been aware of the physical abuse but has not taken steps to protect the children
- The children have suffered emotional harm in that:
- They have experienced both parents shouting at them and have been called inappropriate names and threatened with being placed into care
- They have witnessed their parents fighting and shouting and have seen their father assaulting their mother on a number of occasions
- They have experienced physical abuse and witnessed their siblings suffer physical abuse
- To this must be added the matters conceded.
Welfare Analysis:
Conclusions:
His Honour Judge Willans
Note 1 Both children gave evidence following a Re W hearing. Both wished to give evidence. S gave evidence via video link from a local Court venue with the assistance of an intermediary. N wished to give evidence at Court and did so with the use of a screen and an intermediary. The questioning was consistent with the ground rules determined at the Re W hearing [Back] Note 3 C5; C76; C113 and C225 [Back] Note 4 E141 (ST) and E151 (MT) [Back] Note 7 Modified to a very limited extent by a document dated 13 June 2018 [Back] Note 8 These are now found in a modified threshold document provided by the LA with the amended date 13 June 2018 [Back] Note 11 R: F177; S: 180; N: 181 [Back] Note 12 Incident on 6 February and conversation with PB on 23 February 2018 [Back] Note 13 See evidence of RH [Back] Note 14 R did not give evidence and did not address these matters in ABE interview [Back] Note 15 He does indicate his mother pinches and punches him but then qualifies this report saying it was once and was soft [Back] Note 16 Loose case record handed in during hearing [Back] Note 19 Post judgment the parties note the children were aware of the winnings at the end of November. [Back] Note 20 U v G [2017] EWHC 449 (Fam) per Cobb J. at paragraph 60 [Back] Note 21 Conceded at between 1-3 bottles on at least 4 nights per week [Back] Note 22 C8 chronology entry 23 July 2013 [Back] Note 23 Reflecting her twin status [Back]