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: TA14C00021
IN THE FAMILY COURT SITTING IN BRISTOL

Date: 20th March 2015.

Before:

HIS HONOUR JUDGE WILDBLOOD QC
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Between:

	Somerset County Council	Applicant	
	- and -		
	M1 (mother of A)	First Respondent	
	-and-		
	M2 (mother of B)	Second Respondent	
	-and-		
	F (father of A and B)	Third Respondent	
	-and-		
	B (the child, by his guardian)	Fourth and Fifth Respondents	

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Somerset County Council: Referred to as Advocate A
M2 : Referred to as Advocate B
F: Referred to as Advocate C
Child: Referred to as Advocate D

Hearing commenced – 16th March 2015
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
JUDGMENT
HHJ Wildblood QC: 

1.	Introduction - This is a fact finding hearing in public law proceedings that originally related to two boys; on 8th December 2014 a care order was made in relation to the eldest boy and so the proceedings continue only in relation to the youngest. The eldest boy, to whom I shall refer as ‘A’, is aged ten. The youngest boy, who is A’s half-brother and to whom I shall refer as ‘B’, is seven months old. The two boys share the same father. The issues before me relate to the treatment of A, the eldest child, by the father and by the mother of the youngest child (‘M2’).
2.	I caused notice to be given to the police of my intention to place this judgment on Bailii and gave them a fixed period in which to object. On 6th May 2015 I received a letter from a senior Prosecutor with the Crown Prosecution Service informing me that no criminal charges will be brought; the CPS has acted very efficiently and I am grateful to them. As a consequence, I have released the judgment for publication in accordance with the transparency provisions introduced by the President. 
3.	In this judgment I am critical of the Local Authority. I list the main reasons why at the end of the judgment. I consider that it has approached this hearing without any adequate consideration of the quality of the evidence that it could place before the court. Its approach has been unrealistic and lacking in analysis. As a consequence, scarce resources have been wasted.
4.	This has been a five day hearing which came into my list two working days before it started, bearing eight lever arch files. On the working day before the case started I held a telephone directions hearing in which Advocate B, Counsel for M2, rightly questioned the proportionality of it proceeding but was told by the Local Authority that it thought the hearing to be necessary; I had not been able to read enough of the papers overnight to intervene. I regret that.
5.	Given the outcome of this hearing I think that very little has been achieved from it. He oldest child, A, is in care and, by mutual agreement, does not have contact with his father, his mother or M2. There is very clear evidence that B’s mother cares for B well. She and B have lived together in a residential placement since 19th December 2014. Within the parenting assessment undertaken by the Local Authority at E106 the following is stated at E125 : ‘I do consider that B’s mother can care for him adequately in the community at this stage…[E126]…She  has been unfailingly polite, patient, co operative and compliant throughout this assessment. She has responded to advice and guidance with polite interest but [we] have not been entirely convinced that she welcomed it…[E131] …there have been no concerns about her care and he is a healthy, happy baby who is thriving’. B’s mother has been assessed over a long period of time. The father, from whom she is now separated, has contact with B twice a week under supervision. The Local Authority’s position is that B’s mother has been assessed whilst in her current placement and that ‘no concerns have been raised with regards to her basic care of B’.
6.	As will be plain I have rejected most of the allegations that the Local Authority has made. Much of the Local Authority’s case rested on things that A has said against the father. In the telephone directions hearing that I held before the case started I enquired whether the Local Authority regarded A as a reliable source of evidence. I was told that it did; as the evidence (both expert and factual) shows, that was totally unrealistic. When I asked the child’s solicitor what the guardian’s assessment was of the reliability of A I was told that the guardian was away (and has remained away during this hearing) and so it was not possible to answer my question, a response that does not require further comment.
7.	The parties - The First Respondent in these proceedings is the mother of A; I refer to her as M1 in this judgment (i.e. ‘the first mother’); she plays no direct part in the proceedings, lives in Portugal and abandoned A in 2012. The second Respondent is the mother of B and I refer to her in this judgment as M2 (i.e. the second mother) or simply as the ‘mother’. The third Respondent is the father of both boys and so I refer to him as ‘F’ or simply as the father. 
8.	The proceedings relating to A were issued on 23rd May 2014; the guardian in these proceedings was his guardian too. The proceedings relating to B were issued in September 2014, about a month after his birth. The two sets of proceedings were consolidated prior to the making of the care order relating to A. The care order relating to A was based on the accepted fact that he was beyond parental control.
9.	Following bruising that was found on his face, neck, back and trunk A was accommodated by the Local Authority on 19th May 2014; prior to that A had been living with his father, F and M2 since 25th February 2013 following a period of just over a month in the interim care of foster carers (prior to which he had lived with the father since late August 2012). A supervision order had been made in relation to A on 12th August 2013 in previous public law proceedings. 
10.	Those previous proceedings had been commenced by the Local Authority in January 2013 after A came to the local hospital with bruising. No findings were made in those proceedings in relation to that bruising but the issues relating to it have been resurrected before me and findings are sought concerning it. I say immediately and without any difficulty at all that the Local Authority’s case in relation to the bruising in January 2013 gets nowhere near satisfying even the civil standard of proof; of course I give the detail later. In January 2013, A was accommodated with foster carers for just over a month and was beyond the control of the foster carers. He returned to the father’s care on 25th February 2013. 
11.	A had come into the care of his father in August 2012. Prior to that he had been living with his mother and her family in Portugal. The limited information that I have suggests that he was exposed to very serious neglect and mistreatment by his mother. Thus he came to this country and to the care of F in about September 2012 as a very damaged and abandoned child.
12.	After the bruising was found on 19th May 2014, A was placed with foster carers arranged by an organisation called Regional Foster Placements. That placement broke down due to A’s disruptive behaviour on 9th June 2014 when his carers said that they were unable to cope with him [F18]. He then moved to a residential care home but that placement broke down also on 16th June, when he moved to another residential placement. His behaviour is often out of control and reflects the extent and misery of his emotional damage; he is aggressive, untruthful and sexualised. There has been no direct contact between A and his father and M2 since he was accommodated. The father does not seek the return of A to his care. He has been abandoned by both his parents.
13.	Allegations - There are nine allegations raised by the Local Authority.
14.	First allegation – On 11th January 2013 the father punched / hit A causing him bruising to the right side of his chest, right arm, right and left legs. The responses are:
i)	F says: ‘Denied. A used to injure himself all the time. One Friday he came home from school with various bruises. He said these had been reported to his teachers but when I went to his school they were not aware of any bruising. A always used to tell me his bruises happened whilst he was at school, it is only now that he has changed his story’.
ii)	M2 says : ‘I have never seen the father punch or hit A’.
15.	Second allegation – The father held A by the neck above the stairs. The responses are:
i)	F says: ‘Denied. I remember a small scratch on the side of his neck which A says that he did with a pen at school. He told M2 that he had reported this to the school but again they were unaware when I attended the school to ask them’.
ii)	M2 says : ‘I have never seen the father hold A by the neck’.
16.	Third allegation – On about 19th May 2014 the father pushed his fingers into A’s face causing injury. The responses are:
i)	F says: ‘Denied. I do not know how a finger against his face could cause bruising. I cannot remember that exact bruise but A is a very active boy when playing and would often accidentally bruise himself. The first time he went into foster care he returned covered in bruises’.
ii)	M2 says: ‘I have never seen the father push his fingers into A’s face’.
17.	Fourth allegation – On about 19th May 2014 the father punched / thumped A in the back causing bruising to his back. The responses are: 
i)	F says: ‘Denied. I discovered a square bruise on A’s back which A stated occurred because he hit it against a door handle down a corridor at school. A stated to me exactly where and how this happened. A said that he had spoken to his teacher about this’.
ii)	M2 says: ‘I have never seen F punch or thump A in the back’.
18.	Fifth Allegation - M2  failed to protect A from the actions of F when she was aware / should have been aware of the injuries to A. The responses are: 
i)	F says: ‘Denied that there would be anything that M2 needed to protect A from. If anything, M2 needed protection from A. She is small and vulnerable to A’s verbal and physical aggression. A had bursts of aggression, usually followed by extreme remorse. In general A and M2 got on very well. A would sometimes complain to M2 about his teachers’.
ii)	M2 says: ‘Denied. I was not aware of any injuries to A’.
19.	Sixth allegation – F put A into a cold bath on numerous occasions causing A to suffer injuries to his hands and feet. The responses are:
i)	F says: ‘Denied. I noticed a mark on A’s hand, which I was concerned was caused by a spider bite or something similar. I took A to hospital and he could not explain how the injuries occurred. The injuries became progressively worse over three days. A was given a number of explanations by the doctor as to how the injuries could have occurred and he just picked which one suited him.
ii)	M2 says: ‘I am not aware of the father putting A into a cold bath. I was not aware of any injuries to A’s hands or feet'
20.	Seventh allegation – M2 failed to protect A and/or was complicit in A being placed in cold baths. The responses are:
i)	F says: ‘Denied, as response to allegation 5’.
ii)	M2 says: ‘Denied’.
21.	Eighth allegation - F and /or M2 failed to provide A with sufficient food to meet his growth and health needs. The responses are:
i)	F says: ‘Denied. A once stole a chocolate bar from his school and his explanation for why he had done it had been because he wasn’t being fed at home. CSC then visited the home a number of times where I proved that there was always food and receipts from weekly food shops. A lost a lot of weight when he stopped taking his ADHD medication. He still ate a lot during this time. I prepared a packed lunch every day for A at school and always ensured he had breakfast and dinner at home. I used to be a chef and so A and I would often cook together and this would be a bonding experience for us both. A was always well fed’.
ii)	M2 says: ‘Denied’.
22.	Ninth allegation – A was exposed to / encouraged to participate in inappropriate sexual behaviour by M2. The responses are:
i)	F says: ‘This is completely untrue. I do not believe that A would have the vocabulary to even make such a claim. I believe the words must have been put into his mouth by someone else. A lived with his mother, M1, until he was seven and I am concerned that he was exposed to sexualised behaviour whilst in her care. I was not there at this time so I cannot know this for certain. All I know is that A’s allegations against M2 are categorically untrue’.
ii)	M2 says: ‘Denied. This is a most distressing and unpleasant allegation and completely without foundation’
23.	The Parties – The father – The father is aged 34. His statement is at C34. . He begins his statement by saying: ‘I confirm that none of the allegations that A has made against me in his police interview are true. I am totally bemused as to why he would be making these allegations now, when surely if they were true they would have been raised in the past set of care proceedings and A would not have so desperately sought to be returned to my care’.
24.	He came to this country in 2010. Before that, he said, he had seen A regularly in Portugal. After leaving Portugal in 2010 the next time he saw A was when he went to collect him in August 2012. 
25.	The mother of B (M2) – She is aged 32. She came to this country from Portugal in 2009 to look for work [C42]. She has two older children who live with their father in Switzerland. She says that she has contact with them by Skype and telephone but hopes to be able to have face to face contact once these proceedings are over [C42].
26.	Her first statement is at C41; her second statement, in which she replies to the allegations in the schedule, is at C52. She says that she and the father were in a relationship together since about 2011 but agreed to separate in about May 2014 [C42 and C52]; they remained living together after that as friends until B’s birth. She says that the relationship between them is definitely over and she wants to live on her own with B. At C52 she said: ‘A is F’s son. Although we lived together I really left the parenting to F. I was out at work most days working from 6 a.m. to 6 p.m. I would arrive home at around 8 p.m. and go to bed. Particularly in the time running up to when A left our home my relationship with F was not good…I did not form a strong emotional attachment to A…I really left the parenting to F. However, I never saw anything about his parenting which concerned me…I am not aware of A not having enough to eat at home’. She says at C43 that she regarded the father as being too soft with A and letting him get away with things.
27.	M2’s involvement in the care of A was greater than the above passage suggests; I have seen the home/school books by which M2 and the school corresponded regularly about A and it is plain that M2 was involved in A’s care.
28.	A – When A first came to the United Kingdom in 2012 he is recorded as having limited English. He had lived in Portugal to that date. By the time of the recorded interviews that I have seen he had good command of English.
29.	Whilst in this country A attended the local school and I heard from the teaching assistant who had seen him there on a daily basis. She has filed a police statement, which is J292, two emails at L20 and L27 and, at the start of the hearing, I was handed a file containing some contemporaneous notes that she had made (to which I refer with the prefix SF). She said that she never saw A hurting himself and had not heard reports from any other teacher of occasions when he had done so. She also suggested in her oral evidence that she did not have any significant experience of A being untruthful that she could recollect; the evidence that I have heard means that I cannot accept that reply as being accurate. Although she has played an important and beneficial role in relation to A I found her evidence to be very protective and shielding of him.
30.	Professional evidence in relation to A’s emotional condition. - When in Portugal A was apparently ‘diagnosed’ also as having oppositional defiance disorder’ [E43] and having ADHD. I set out in the chronology below what I have read about the assessments of A in Portugal. He was regarded as being ‘hyper-active to a maximum degree’ and living in abusive circumstances.
31.	On 26th June 2013, SR, psychologist, filed a report in the first set of proceedings. It is at D66 of the papers relating to those earlier proceedings. At D72 she wrote: ‘the picture is complicated by the unpredictable sometimes abusive and neglectful care that it seems A was receiving within his maternal family. Although it appears that A may have had a pre-existing neurophysical vulnerability that may have resulted in attentional difficulties even in an optimum care-giving environment, it is recognised that any ADHD and attachment disturbance can present similarly. It appears that A was exposed to adult conflict, both between his mother and her partner and by his grandfather towards his grandmother. It is also believed that A suffered physical abuse through being hit by his grandmother. It is also believed that A suffered physical abuse through being hit by his mother and her partner and F has suggested that A is likely to have been exposed to adult sexuality and possibly been directly sexually abused because of his mother’s lifestyle. Some elements of A’s behaviour suggest that he may have experienced hunger. Emotional abuse, through criticism and denigration and through rejection by his mother and abandonment by his maternal family will also have had a significant impact on A…the level of distress described in A in the summer of 2012, appears to have been triggered by his maternal grandmother’s illness…when the grandmother’s hospitalisation demanded that M1 take on the role of primary carer, A’s anxious, dependent, defiant and chaotic behaviour provoked in his mother a hostile response. The threats made at the time that he would be placed in an institution…would have heightened further the anxiety’.
32.	At D74 of those papers SR said: ‘In a child with an attachment insecurity resulting from his early experiences and the major move that he made from his native country, as well as the psychological vulnerability caused by his attentional difficulties, the level of distress provoked in A whilst extreme can be understood. After he was reunited with his father and M2, after a little after 6 weeks, A’s behaviour quickly settled’.
33.	SR filed another report in the current proceedings, dated 25th July 2014. At E12 she said: ‘There is a lack of detailed information about his early experiences but his presentation is consistent with behaviours seen in children who have experienced complex developmental trauma in which they have been exposed to physical and emotional neglect and abuse, possibly including sexual abuse, from early childhood’.
34.	At E14 SR was asked to describe A’s then current behaviour and she said that ‘A can become agitated and will repeatedly challenge boundaries, swearing, shouting and throwing things. Staffs attempt to manage this (with some success) through withdrawing attention and then offering a distraction activity. However A places significant demands on carers due to his high levels of arousal and anxiety, his controlling behaviour and his need to be occupied, as he cannot at present focus his attention without support. A’s recent move resulted from his twice being attacked by an older female resident. My understanding is that she found the level of noise and demand difficult to tolerate because of her own difficulties. A is mistrustful of adults and children, is liable to goad adults to hurt him as this is what he expects and thinks he deserves. There is a risk of false allegations’. 
35.	At C56 there is a statement by a social worker, to whom I shall refer as “SW” who says at C59: ‘A has broken down five foster placements due to his challenging behaviour, placing excessive demands on his carers…A continues to experience emotional outbursts and aggressive behaviour towards adults’.
36.	At D78 of the previous proceedings file there is an extract from a report by an educational psychologist, who said: ‘A’s social skills are very poor…much of A’s communication is about violence and hurting people. If someone has upset him he will threaten to kill them. He has also been sexually inappropriate to staff. Children who hold a negative sense of themselves, when they feel at risk of punishment or rejection may try to take control through attack (e.g. fire setting that A carried out at his mother’s home last year, lashing out at foster carers) or they may project these attacking feelings on to others and be inclined to make allegations, as has been seen both with regard to foster carers and in relation to other children at school. [Andre’s Teaching assistant] notices that A quickly interprets the behaviour of others as hostile, alleging that he has been hit when another child has knocked him accidentally when passing. A will be most likely to behave in this way when he fears being left out or is uncertain about what others expect of him’ [PP-D78].
37.	The guardian wrote a report for these proceedings on 19th January 2015 to deal with the question of whether A should give evidence (it is plain that there is no way that he could or should have been required to give evidence and, of course, did not). It is at E173. In it she says at E174: ‘Prior to meeting with A, his solicitor and I met with A’s therapist. The therapist stated that A has been having flashbacks of the abuse that he suffered. [She] said that the flashbacks are very confusing and frustrating for A because they cause conflict within him as he is left with the feeling of not knowing what is real and what is not real at the time. A is confusing flashbacks with what is happening to him in the present. He is blurring the past and the present and mixing them together in his mind…[The therapist] stated that she was playing with A when he had a flashback and that the abuse he was suffering in his mind, he thought, was happening to him there and then. We agreed that this might explain why A made the unsubstantiated allegations against the staff in [the care home].’ 
38.	There is a psychiatric report that has been prepared by Dr AM [E24]. It states at E30 that A suffers from Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) although there have been other consultants who have doubted that diagnosis (e.g. Dr F, paediatrician, and Dr T, psychiatrist – P209 and P212). Dr AM also considers that A suffers from the ‘effects of psychological trauma and that there ‘are signs that he has post traumatic stress disorder. He is often aggressive for no reason and feels threatened and is fearful for his safety. He tries to re-enact situations and asks the staff members to hit/attack him/ kill him. He is hyper alert and over vigilant’. Dr AM says that A also has behavioural problems and attachment difficulties. At E29 the doctor said in his report that he had been told that ‘A makes constant threats that he will hurt the staff [at the care home]. He will often do the opposite of what he is requested to do. If he is told no or challenged he will go into huge incoherent rage. He often exaggerates things and accuses staff of hurting him when they haven’t. He will say that people have said bad things to him when this has not happened. He does the same at school. A will go into a rage with no triggers for it. He will flap his arms around and scream out a very high pitch scream’. 
39.	Food and weight - The father says that A would ‘eat until he bursts’ if allowed to do so and that A’s behaviour has ‘escalated out of control’ [C40]. There are frequent accounts from every placement in which A has found himself of A gorging himself with food, even when he has been in a placement for some time. I do not accept that that evidence can, on its own, be taken as demonstrating that the father withheld food from A. 
40.	However there is evidence that A’s weight did not increase as it should have done during the period that he was living with F and M2. I have constructed the following table from the medical records which I showed to the advocates and to which Advocate C has added one entry. The table shows that, over the 16 month period, A’s weight increased very little and, at times, reduced. Of particular note is that his weight when in foster care in January 2013 was 33.15 kgs but by the following year had reduced to 27 kgs in January 2014. That is a reduction of about 12 lbs. On its own, as the Local Authority submitted in closing speeches, a reduction of that nature is not evidence of the child having been starved and would not of itself show ‘significant harm’; it is suggestive of a child having insufficient calorific input. I return to this point later but there is no real answer that can be given by F and M2 about this weight loss (as their skilful advocates both accepted); there is no medical reason for it and so it must have been caused by his food intake being at a level where his weight, which should have been increasing at his age, was not sustained. That said, I can well imagine how the diet of this very active child who had a tendency to scoff food (as I set out below) must have been very difficult indeed to control (as carers and parents alike have found).
41.	The chart is as follows:
Date	Page	Weight (kgs)	
11.01.2013	P239	31	
17.01.2013	P93	33.15	
08.03.2013	P239	33.15	
09.04.2013	P239	30.65	
31.05.2013	P240	29	
11.07.2013	P240 and P282	28	
11.01.2014	Q59	28	
13.01.2014	Q41 (an ‘outlier’ – i.e. probably wrong)	31.1	
14.01.2014	P240	27	
26.03.2014	P243	31.9	
19.05.2014	P199	32.45	
19.05.2014	P243	32.45	
42.	In oral evidence Dr GR, the paediatrician, said in relation to weight loss that he could not find anything in the records that would suggest a medical reason for the weight loss during that period – there is no evidence of a disease process that could have caused this. There is no reason for A to have used up calories over that period at a rate that was greater than over other periods. Without there being something wrong with the metabolic processes of the body or other reason for the weight loss, it would suggest a lack of calories going into the body. Decreased appetite due to medication would be expected to be consistent and not just stop/start. Dr GR therefore said that he could not imagine that a child would respond to medication for ADHD by suddenly losing weight.
43.	At E79 he had said ‘A’s weight on 11.1.13 was 31 kg and on 08.03.13 was 33.15 kg. The latter may be considered to be an ‘outlier’ and therefore useful. However, the change from 11.01.13 or 09.05.13 (30.65 kg) and the decreasing weight through May and July to 09.01.14 (27 kg) demonstrate not only failure to gain weight at an appropriate rate but very considerable loss of weight. Over the parts of the same period, A was reported to appear hungry in school and when he presented to hospital in January 2014. These features point to him not being provided with adequate food/nutrition over some or all of this period. His voracious appetite described in hospital in January 2014 and the marked increase in weight over a short period of time strongly suggest he was hungry and that he wasn’t receiving enough food to satisfy his hunger, but more particularly his growth and health needs. I have not been able to find any medical cause for his loss of weight or for his voracious appetite…Given that he has seemingly continued to gain weight and eat normally subsequent to that time, it is my opinion that his carers were failing to provide him with adequate food/nutrition over some or the whole of the period January 2013 – January 2014’. Dr GR also said in evidence that the fact that A’s weight did increase from January to May 2014 (when he was in the care of F and M2) suggests that he was having enough food to meet his needs then. However, if A’s weight remained static between July 2013 and January 2014 that would be surprising since you would expect a child to increase in weight.
44.	M2 said that she was aware that A was losing weight and, at the time, she thought that it was associated with the time when he stopped taking medication. She said that there was never an occasion when A was denied food. I do not accept that food was withheld from A out of malice. It is plain, however, that his calorific input was not sufficient and that the parents should have realised that this was so. If they thought that this might be associated with his medication they should have investigated it.
45.	Law – The law can be stated very briefly. The burden of proof is on the Local Authority. In relation to each disputed event on the schedule of allegations I must ask myself: ‘Has the Local Authority demonstrated that it is more probable than not the disputed event occurred?’ If it has, the allegation is proved; if it has not the disputed event is treated as not having occurred. The court must not speculate but may draw logical inferences from reliable evidence. 
46.	The evidence in relation to each of the allegations must be considered separately but evidence relating to one allegation may be imported into the analysis of another allegation where that evidence is relevant (or logically informative) on that other allegation. The court must, however, conduct an overview of the evidence and must apply the burden and standard of proof to the totality of the evidence rather than compartmentalising it. Hearsay evidence is admissible but must be analysed carefully; I remind myself that what A has said is hearsay evidence in the context of this case. The court is not bound to follow the views of an expert but must consider those views carefully and must give its reasons for departing from them, if it does so. 
47.	My overall opinion – For reasons that I will make plain, my overall opinion is that the Local Authority has got nowhere near demonstrating even to the civil standard of proof that the allegations of physical abuse against the father have been made out. The associated allegation of failure to protect from physical harm that the Local Authority makes against M2 is equally unsubstantiated. I do not consider that the Local Authority has got anywhere near proving that the injuries to A’s hands and feet in January 2014 were caused by cold bath immersion. I think that it is highly probable that the allegations of sexual impropriety against M2 are false. 
48.	I find that A was beyond the control of F and M2 (and, indeed was beyond the control of each of the foster carers who cared for him for the same reasons). So beyond their control was he that his care fell into neglect and, in that context:
i)	He suffered from exposure to cold that led to the injuries to his feet and hands in January 2014. I do not accept that very cold baths were used repeatedly as a punishment or with malice. He may have had cold baths. His exposure to cold is more likely to have been a combination of inadequate shoes, socks and gloves, a cold house environment and some cold baths.
ii)	He was not given enough food for his weight to have increased as it should. He was not starved and, of its own, the drop in his weight would not have led to a finding of significant harm. Taken in association with the fact that he was beyond his carers’ control and was exposed to cold, the lack of food is part of the picture of neglect into which these parents fell with this child who placed such exceptional demands on them.
49.	In this judgment I also draw attention to the fact that in the earlier proceedings a care plan was prepared with expert advice that suggested that A needed therapy. That therapy was never provided. In my opinion the demands that A placed on these parents were considerable. They should have had more help than they were given and the advice that had been sought in the earlier proceedings (see the report of Ms SR, the psychologist) should have been followed.
50.	Chronology - As I state at the end of this judgment when I deal with matters of practice, there was no adequate chronology in this case to summarise the evidence and put matters in context. As Lady Hale observed in a case relating to another area of family law (home ownership), context is everything. For instance (and this is an abbreviated list) i) What preceded the ABE interviews? ii) When did the child make the first allegations against the father? iii) When was the firebell incident (when A says in interview the father began to abuse him physically)? iv) What sexualised behaviour did the child exhibit and when? v) What other false allegations had the child made and when? vi) What state was the child in when he came from Portugal? vii) What happened in the first set of proceedings which ended in August 2013? viii) What was A’s weight loss (see above)? ix) When did A make the first allegation against M2? x) What role did M2 play in A’s care? xi) What does the information from the school demonstrate when it is put into a schedule (I had to require production of the school / home books and the ‘SF’ file was handed in at the start of the hearing)?  
51.	It has been left to me to put the evidence in order (and I say more about this at the end of the judgment). That being so I think that it is essential to put the case into its chronological perspective if any sense is to be made of it and I have done that by putting the evidence into chronological order. The result is a judgment of much greater length than I would have liked which has taken me a very long time to produce. I have typed it within the five day listing that I have had to allow for this case. I wish to begin with the circumstances of which I know in Portugal.
52.	14th May 2010 – A was apparently assessed in Portugal by a Dr EC and was diagnosed as having ADHD and also ‘oppositional defiance disorder’. He was prescribed Methylphenidate and Risperidone [E43]. He appears to have remained subject to that diagnosis thereafter whilst he remained in Portugal.
53.	4th June 2012 – There is a report at M119 from the ‘Committee for the Protection of Children and Youth of Viseu’ (in Portugal) which states that on this day the committee proceedings were ‘opened…brought about by an anonymous complaint claiming that the child was suffering from physical and psychological aggressions, did not receive adequate kindness that his age and personal situation deserve and he is being subjected to conducts which are gravely affecting his security or his emotional balance. The meaning of this complaint reported an unsustainable situation, as the child, hyper-active to a maximum degree lives in an unfavourable environment which could lead to the development of dangerous behaviour and without any education. Specifies that the mother does not want to know about him, that his grandfather drinks and the grandmother, the only person that really worried about the child, is faced with health issues. It also informed that the child’s safety is already compromised as he runs away from his grandfather, he tried to set fire to the house and destroys everything. The mother, according to the complaint, puts her work before everything, was neglecting and showed little kindness to the child and has already threatened that one day she would put him in a hospital or would kill him’.
54.	26th June 2012 – there is a school report from Portugal that describes A as having erratic behaviour and difficulty in accepting rules [M96]. The report says that he found difficulty working in groups, gets easily distracted and interferes with his colleagues work and often disrupts the class work.
55.	1st August 2012 – The mother (M1) attended before the committee [M120]. She ‘confirmed that the child is hyperactive to a maximum degree and takes Ritalin 30, Ribufen and Risperidone and has consultations at the hospital in Viseu’. On the same day a visit was made to the mother’s house. The person making the visit met the grandmother who was recovering from a heart operation after being in hospital for three months [M120]. The grandfather ‘was extremely nervous and with debilitated health’. The grandmother ‘said that the mother of the child did not spend any time in her relationship with him, frequently going out at night without saying where she was going and for this reason when she fell ill with heart disease the mother was not at home’.
56.	Notwithstanding that description of the grandparents the record at M120 goes on to say: ‘during the visit the mother confirmed that she was going to leave the house on this same day and that she was going to leave the child to be cared for by her parents’.
57.	6th August 2012 – The grandfather went to ‘CPCY’ (the committee) to inform it that ‘the conduct of the child had worsened a lot during the weekend and that M1 has not visited’. On the same day there is a record of the mother saying that she wanted A to go into institutional care – M121. The grandmother told the committee that ‘the child does not obey, turning against the grandparents, takes pleasure in upsetting them, hits them, laughs and stamps his feet on the ground’; as a result the grandmother thought that he should go into institutional care also.
58.	8th August 2012 – It appears that the ‘cultural and sports centre’ informed CPCY that ‘the initial integration of the child was complicated, considering he came without any rules, used words that were improper for his age, was not used to eating alone and had difficulties to swallow certain foods, only eating soup but offering resistance’.
59.	27th August 2012 – The father came to the CPCY [M123]. He had come to Portugal to collect A having been informed by M1’s sister of A’s abandonment. He says that A had little concentration at the time and used to draw attention to himself. If they went out he had a tendency to shout but could also be a very caring child. F said that A used to complain that M1’s boyfriend used to hit him and lock him in the bathroom. A said that he had been living with them in a one bedroom flat for one to two years; F said that A told him when M1 and her boyfriend wanted to be intimate they would lock A in the bathroom. A would kick at the door and the boyfriend would hit him to quieten him down. Further, F said, A has told him that he would hear intimate activity between M1 and her boyfriend and would hear intimate discussions between them.
60.	At J151 F said in his police interview that for the first two months with F A was ‘very nervous and then he started to settle’. Initially he was better in the UK than he had been in Portugal. However, F said in his evidence that he then became more nervous about not coping at school and starting shouting and throwing things. 
61.	Late August / September 2012 – A came to this country. M2 said that she was supportive of the father in his wish to have A with him. She said in evidence that for the first few months everything was alright; things went wrong when she was pregnant with B. 
62.	The father says that he had to speak to A on a number of occasions about A harming himself. F said that A used to make small bruises on himself but could not say whether A did them to himself deliberately or whether they arose from his actions. Often A would not be able to say why he had hurt himself and would make up a story about them; F said that much of the time he did not accept the story that A gave and he would tell A not to make things up. Sometimes, F said, he would have 3 or 4 different explanations from A as to how a mark had occurred.
63.	10th October 2012 – There is an entry in the school file at SF-3 which reads: ‘Black eye. Spoke with M2 who said caused through throwing himself on the floor – logged’. This is the first of many entries relating to bruising that was found on A.
64.	17th December 2012 – The school noted that A had a ‘bruise under left eye’. The note goes on to state: ‘agreed that he can be physically aggressive at school. Discussed need to check each bruise in case unlikely to be self harmed’.
65.	8th January 2013 – The school records at SF-6 state that A was ‘not ‘interacting with peers. Behaviour inconsistent. Says tired. Hard to work in group. Lacking concentration. Gives up easily, anxious, disturbs others’. The note for that day goes on over the page but it is not clear what is a record of events in Portugal and what is a record of events in this country. But at SF-7 it is said by M2: ‘self-harming – throw to floor – hurt on swing – threatens to hurt himself so parents get blamed’.
66.	10th January 2013 – A did not attend school [P52]. M2 said that she thinks that is because A was complaining of pain in his legs.
67.	11th January 2013 – This is the date when events are said to have occurred as expressed in the first allegation – that is that F punched / hit A causing his bruising to the right side of the chest, right arm, right and left legs. There is a useful body map at P27 which shows the bruises. It is important to note that:
i)	Each of the advocates confirmed to me that at no stage has A made any specific allegations against his father in relation to this January 2013 bruising;
ii)	The first allegation that A did make that any bruising or injury had been caused to him by his father came on 25th May 2014 (N243) and I set that in context later. Advocate A advanced that date as being the date of the voicing of the first allegation (or, as the Local Authority insisted on calling this, despite everything that was said in the Cleveland Report, the ‘first disclosure’). May 2014 is, of course, 16 months after the event and by that time, a great deal had happened as the chronology shows.
68.	The parents made an appointment for A to attend the GP either that morning or the day before because A was limping. They then collected A early from school to take him to the doctor. The school made a referral to Children’s services because A had been noticed to be limping at school. The social worker arrived at the GP surgery and advised F and M2 to take A to the hospital (which they did). 
69.	At the hospital on that day A was examined by a Dr GF who is a paediatric registrar having been bought to the hospital in the company of his father, M2 and a social worker. The registrar says that he was unable to speak to A because ‘he does not speak English’ [P1] and that M2 provided most of the information as F’s English was limited. There are notes taken by the registrar at P51. Dr GR considers the bruising at E44 and also shows a drawing of where the injuries were.
70.	M2 is recorded as telling Dr GF that she had taken A to the park where he had played with other children [P1 and P51]. After he had finished playing with the other children he complained of pain at the back of his lower leg and M2 said that she noticed redness on his right calf. Later, F and M2 noticed bruising on both calves. A said that he did not know what caused the bruises but said that it might have been caused when he kicked some chairs at school. The father and M2 also thought that A might have suffered this bruising when doing gymnastics at home on the 9th January 2013. 
71.	At P3 Dr GF says: ‘On examining his skin, he had three small bruises on the right side of his chest just below and medial to the nipple 0.5 x 0.5 cm each. They were round in shape and brown-bluish in colour. They were not painful to touch. There was also one bruise 3 cms long and 0.5 cms wide, just under the left popliteal fossa. This was brown-bluish in colour. There were also two brown-bluish bruises just below the right popliteal fossa on the upper end of the right calf. A had two bruises on the back of his right arm, just below the elbow. A also had 1 round bruise of about 2 cms x 2 cms on the inner thigh on the left leg. There was also a 2 cm x 2 cm bruise at the back of his upper thigh just below the buttock. There was also a 5 cm long horizontal linear bruise just above the left popliteal fossa and a 4 cm linear bruise just above the right popliteal fossa….A had a full blood count, liver function tests, urea and electrolytes and clotting done which have all come back normal. He also had a muscle enzyme level (creatine phosphokinase) which shows abnormal results [P4]’.
72.	Dr GF concluded that ‘I felt that the linear bruise on the back of A’s legs could have been due to a beating with a sharp object such as a stick. I have discussed this with [a consultant paediatrician] who examined the child and felt that A is at severe risk of abuse and neglect from his current family and that he should stay in hospital until a professionals meeting’.
73.	Within the medical reports there is an unsigned and undated document in handwriting at P5. It reads: ‘Discharge meeting prior to discharge…too much inconclusive information regarding bruising and parents’ explanations. Child not spoken to alone’.
74.	Blood tests were taken on 11th January and on 16th January 2013 and the results were all normal except that on each occasion he had raised creatine phosphokinase levels (on 16th January the results of this are described as ‘significantly raised’ at E47). At E85 Dr GR says: ‘the raised creatine phosphokinase concentration as measured on two occasions is significant but not relevant to the causation of bruising, cold injury or poor appetite and weight loss. It is likely to be due to the Risperidone as this medication is known to cause significant elevation of this enzyme’.
75.	12th January 2013 – A Paediatric consultant, wrote at P60 that A ‘seems happy and co-operative, not hyperactive. Plays happily on ward. Noted to be v.v. hungry’. She also wrote in relation to the bruises at P60: ‘says they are from Portugal – due to teacher holding him. Football and door hitting legs – showed me’. There is then a partially legible entry that reads: ‘however this explanation does not fit [and then a word appears which is not legible]…arm bruises on arm [sic] are more recent than 2/ [then a letter/ letters appear which are also illegible]’. It is at P60 that the paediatrician wrote: ‘I think that A is at severe risk of abuse and neglect by his current family and he should stay over the weekend. Discharge should not be until a planning meeting and full assessment by police and social services’.
76.	The medical notes go on to state at P61: ‘A has been settled today, watching telly, playing with Wii. He has had 3 x breakfast, 2 x lunch and 2 x sandwich and also biscuits and cakes, several glasses of milk throughout the day’. This is an example of his voracious appetite.
77.	In oral evidence Dr GR said that A was capable by his age and state of development of causing most of the bruises to himself, perhaps all of the bruises. He also said ‘perhaps not all of the bruises’ meaning that the combination of the bruises was unusual, which is plainly the case but that does not, of course, mean that the father inflicted them. He said that it would be hard for a child to cause bruising on his own back but he would have been able to cause bruising about most parts of his body. Plainly a child can cause bruising to any part of his own body not through hitting himself with his own body parts but through contact with other objects. Any suggestion that bruising to the back or legs of a child can only arise through assault would be ridiculous.
78.	In his report at E73 Dr GR said that A ‘would have been capable of directive pressure enough to result in ‘bruising for some of his bruising’ [sic] most probably not all because of the position’. He then excluded three areas of bruising at E73; one such area related to the bruising found in January 2013 and two related to the bruising noted in May 2014. In relation to the 2013 bruising he excluded the ‘posterior lower thigh linear bruises on both legs’. This, in fact, related to bruising on the legs and not the thigh; it can be seen at P27 very clearly. However, he only excluded that bruising because a) A did not himself itemise it as having been caused by himself and b) the treating consultants had so excluded it. In oral evidence he said that, as far as the linear bruises are concerned, they were just below the crease on the leg and would be difficult to cause unless an object of similar size and shape were to be used. One could have a long narrow object which was just in contact with the skin at the point of contact. 
79.	Overall he said that, most of the bruising found in January 2013 could have been caused by A himself, either deliberately or by accident. As to the linear bruising to the back of the legs it is possible that they were caused by A either deliberately or by accident. They could be caused by a back heel kick to a chair although the backward kick of a leg bears less force than a forward kick.
80.	He said that it is also possible that the bruising could have been caused by A being assaulted, although the smaller bruising was somewhat unusual in size for an injury caused by assault. The bruising would reflect the size of the source of assault and so for the smaller bruising it would be necessary for any assault to be caused by something like a toe end or knuckle if an adult body part caused it. For instance a 5mm wide bruise would not be consistent with a kick, generally speaking. A kick is generally typified as a blunt object assault and so the bruise would be expected to reflect this. Being thrown on stairs would also not be consistent with narrow bruising either unless the contact was with a very acute or narrow edge of the step. 
81.	The evidence of Dr GR on this area of the case was typically measured and careful. I am grateful to him for the clarity of his work. His evidence was a rare oasis of analysis in an otherwise dry place. I also think that his evidence was necessary in this case to bring some focus into it. But I do question whether, in a properly and realistically prepared case, it would have been necessary to have a consultant paediatrician of his high quality giving evidence about whether a child can cause (i.e. not simply inflict) bruising to his own body.
82.	14th January 2013 – An incident occurred in the hospital, which is referred to at P68. A became frustrated with a puzzle, slammed it down on the table and knocked a large toy onto another boy. The boy cried and A became upset because the boy did not understand his apology. A then shouted at staff in the hospital, put a towel around his neck and ‘tried to strangle himself in several different ways. He pulled it tighter each time’. When the towel was removed and he was asked why he had put it round his neck he said that it was because he wanted to end his life and disappear [P68]. At P71 there is a handwritten document that states a ‘phone conversation using Big Word translator’ took place. 
83.	That note suggests that A said that he felt safe with his dad and that his dad protects him. He is noted as saying that he was concerned about the bruises, which came from fighting with cousins, and that the upper body bruises were from fighting with kids on the street in Portugal – plainly they did not.
84.	15th January 2013 – A became increasingly disruptive on the ward. Later that day he was interviewed by the police but ‘did not disclose anything at the police interview’ [P70]. At M10 there is a note that states: ‘interview was not videoed as the police officer said she would only video it if it looked like A was going to make a disclosure’. That is manifestly unsatisfactory for a whole raft of elementary reasons (e.g. the use of the word ‘disclosure’ despite what was said in the Cleveland report, the fact that an interview in which a child does not make an allegation may of itself be forensically valuable, the fact that one does not know if a child is to make an allegation at the outset of the interview, the need for particular care and preparation when considering the interviewing of a child with this child’s behavioural difficulties etc). 
85.	The fact that there had been this interview was not apparent from the Local Authority’s case documentation and it was only by chance that I came across the reference to it when reading through enclosure M (which runs to 242 pages). I asked about it and Advocate C then found M10 which suggests that A said:
•	He did not know anything about the bruise on his back.
•	He had no memory of having a poorly ear.
•	He is happy living with his dad and likes M2.
•	He used to get into lots of fights in Portugal and did things that he was not supposed to do.
•	‘He said that there is a naughty boy aged 10 who does not go to [A’s school] who plays football in the park. He has a Portuguese mother and he thinks that the boy’s name is Z [he gives the child’s first name at M10]. He is the tallest of all the boys that play in the park. Z allegedly kicks everyone but especially kicks A. Z also hurt A’s head against the goal posts – A told his father this and his father told Z’s mother’.
•	The mother of another ten year boy hit him in the face [M10].
•	He really likes being in the UK. It was a pain being in hospital as he could not see his father.
86.	Having discovered this interview myself I asked what I should do about it. Had there been an exploration about whether the allegations against Z were true? Did Z’s mother hit A in the face (and if so, would it not have been very surprising indeed if police action had not followed)? None of that had been investigated or explored. Nobody asked me to make any further enquiry about this interview.
87.	I note also that, on that day, A is noted to have become more hyperactive and aggressive whilst in hospital ‘throwing and hitting things, very loud and vocal’. That is A in context and what followed in the next foster home gives even more graphic context.
88.	16th January 2013 – A was made subject to an emergency protection order. At D107 the guardian said in those proceedings [D107]: ‘no explanation for the bruising or admissions were made by the adults who care for A. Both parents stated that they have never beaten or hit A and that the bruising must have come from A playing football or when out with his friends. The court made no findings regarding how A acquired these injuries. There was, however, reason to believe that the parents had failed to protect A from harm’.
89.	At hospital A was noted to become extremely restless, throwing a television to the floor and throwing a train set across the room. He then ran out of the ward after a visitor came in. He was stopped from running down the stairs (I think by a nurse – P73) but continued to try to kick and bite. When he returned to the ward he was very loud and disruptive and ran into the patients’ rooms and picked up the phone. The hospital recorded that it was unable to control his behaviour and therefore requested the assistance of social care [P73]. However, A continued to behave in an extremely aggressive way and then threw the receptionist’s computer across the room and knocked bottles out of a nurse’s hand as she walked past [P73]. He threw monitors across the floor and toys were ‘chucked’ at walls [P73]. The door out of the ward had to be locked and other patients and families had to be advised to stay in their rooms [P74].
90.	17th January 2013 – A was discharged from hospital into foster care.
91.	18th January 2013 – A was brought back to the hospital by his foster carers on a re-admission sought by the GP who feared that A would harm himself. He was beyond their control. A consultant paediatrician saw him and agreed his diagnosis of ADHD. A was prescribed regular methylphenidate and remained in hospital under observation for three days [E47].
92.	18th January 2013 – The Local Authority issued care proceedings in relation to A. Thereafter a succession of interim care orders was made until a supervision order was finally made on 12th August 2013. However, under the interim care orders A was returned to F in a context that I will describe.
93.	21st January 2013 – A was discharged from hospital into the care of different foster carers [E47]. The school noted at SF-4: ‘Extreme behaviour in foster placement. Returning to court. Placed in children’s home in Newquay’. I required expansion of that and was referred to documentation relating to it. That additional information is very informative and I set it out below. It shows that A was beyond the control of the foster carers to whom he went.
94.	His extreme behaviour on 21st January 2103 is described at M16. A said that he was very hungry and became annoyed when he could not find some chocolate. He demanded 12 slices of toast. He then became very ‘loud and aggressive, threw some bread on the floor, threw some ceramic placemats of the floor and smashed a large ceramic vase’. When his carers ran him a bath he said that he wanted the female foster carer (whom he had met that day – her name is given at the top of the page at M16) to go into the bath with him and then tried to pull down her top. When he was in the bath he was singing ‘I’m sexy and I know it’, played with his penis and tried to put a toy car in his bottom [M17].
95.	22nd January 2013 – A is noted to have squeezed the female foster carer’s bottom, sung ‘I’m sexy’ and touched himself inappropriately [M22].
96.	25th January 2013 – A had by this time moved to different foster carers; their names are given at the top of the page at M23. A behaved in a similarly sexualised way singing ‘I’m sexy’ and playing with ‘his willy and finding it funny’ – M23. He also put his middle finger up at the foster carer (whom he had also met that day or very recently). The carer gives more detail at M37 where she says: ‘I found A quite difficult as he was very hyperactive and everywhere, touching things, where he could come to harm and seems to see no danger for his age’. That fact, that A ‘seems to see no danger for his age’ is something that I accept and which I note does not feature anywhere in the Local Authority’s analysis.
97.	Also without analysis from the Local Authority is the extent to which A’s behaviour may have its origins in events in Portugal. The Local Authority’s chronology begins on 11/01/2013. I asked where the Portuguese material was and put it into this chronology. The approach seems to have been that every aspect of A’s behaviour was reflective of the poor care given to A by F and M2. That approach defies the expert evidence, the evidence in the 2013 proceedings (including the parenting assessment and the guardian’s report which I detail later) and also common sense. A was aged 8 years and 4 months when he left his mother’s primary care. I have already set out the expert evidence but refer specifically to E12 (as set out above – ‘his presentation is consistent with behaviours seen in children who have experienced complex developmental trauma in which they have been exposed to physical and emotional neglect and abuse, possibly including sexual abuse, from early childhood’). 
98.	26th January 2013 – A stuck his middle finger up at the foster carer, ran down the road and then kicked and hit her [M24]. Later that evening he grabbed her breast ‘quite hard’ and thought it was funny [M25]. Later he threatened to put one of the foster carer’s dogs in the Rayburn oven and also put bits of paper and coins into the oven despite being told that it was hot [M25].
99.	27th January 2013 – A dropped his bowl of soup on the floor (the inference being, deliberately) and then threw his drink of squash over another boy (aged 15) [M26].
100.	31st January 2013 – A became very angry and tried to run off from the carer when in town. He then started to hit and kick her and tried to push her into shop windows. When he returned home A is described by the carer as ‘going 100 miles per hour’ and taking everything out of the fridge and freezer. The carer describes the evening as being mayhem – he smashed a glass on the floor, kicked and punched the carer in the face on several occasions and then packed his bags. He told the interpreter that the carer did not give him any food and locked him in the bedroom – M30; that was plainly not true.
101.	I also think that it is necessary and informative now to try to picture this child in, for instance, the play park with other children. Could a child who behaves like this cause himself injury or, indeed, might other children, like Z, cause him injury?
102.	2nd February 2013 – A was taken on a visit by the carer in her car. He tried to open the car door, grabbed the carer by the neck, kicked her seat and took his seat belt off. He also pulled on the handbrake and, when they had parked, tried to undo the duct caps on another car and then kicked another car. He rammed the trolley in the direction of cars and then started hitting and kicking the carer. He also pulled her hair. He punched her in the face and bruised both of her shins. He was shouting and tried to run away. Later in the evening when the female carer was bending down he came behind her and grabbed her crotch.
103.	Therefore, there is already an account of A exhibiting sexualised behaviour (and there is much more of this to come in this chronology). This is relevant because, in A’s third ABE interview in December 2014, and shortly before that in a discussion with the school teaching assistant, A makes sexual allegations against M2.
104.	4th February 2013 – A is recorded by the carer as standing on the table pretending that it was boxing ring and then hitting the carer, grabbing her by the neck and kicking her [M45].
105.	15th February 2013 – There were several incidents of chaotic behaviour by A. He is described at one point as having thrown ‘the house phone, tipped over the kitchen chairs, doors being slammed and kicked, plugs being pulled out of sockets, the plug from my grilling machine put into a sink of water’. He stood on worktops and the table. He banged his head deliberately on the table and accused the carer of having done this [M52 and M131]. He pulled the curtain and curtain rails down in his room as he wanted the curtains to catch fire. He then tried to break the glass on the front door and threatened to cut the carer in the neck, arms and legs and also to stab her [M52]. He was spitting at her calling her a bitch and poo. He then punched her lots of times [M52].
106.	19th February 2013 –There was more chaotic and aggressive behaviour by A that is described at M57. He hit and kicked the carer and threw a chair in his room.
107.	21st February 2013 – A pulled the hair of another child in the foster home having tried to kick her and then accused the other children of assaulting him [M136]. He threw his drink across the room. When the foster care later refused to buy him some deodorant and mouthwash in a shop he grabbed her, trying to pinch her by the throat and dug his nails into her hand, drawing blood. He then threatened to kick a lorry. When, later, a knife was taken from him by the carer he spat at her and another child and then started banging and kicking doors before tipping over the sugar pot [M137].
108.	22nd February 2013 – A hit another child and then hit the carer. Later at tea time he was waving a knife around; when told to stop he threw his food so that it went ‘everywhere’ and then dug his fork into the table [M137]. He was swearing and saying that he was going to set the house on fire.
109.	23rd February 2013 – A moved to the children’s home in Newquay, it appears [see C58 of the previous proceedings bundle to which I will refer with the prefix PP]. It is not clear to me why A was placed with foster carers and in a residential home in Cornwall (seeing that his father lived in Somerset). However it is very plain that none of his foster carers were able to cope with his behaviour. The placement in the children’s home was a temporary arrangement until it was possible for the father to collect A and take him to live with him and M2 in an ‘assessment placement using agency staff to supervise’ [PP-C58].
110.	25th February 2013 – As the guardian said in the then current proceedings at D105: ‘Despite concerns remaining in relation to the unexplained injuries to A, the Local Authority placed A back into his father’s and M2’s care’. It is extremely unsatisfactory that I have had to pick the chronology that I have set out above from the papers. The events that I describe above give a very clear picture of the child who came back to live with the father. 
111.	The father and A and M2 were together in the assessment placement for four weeks [PP-C58].  Later the level of supervision by the Local Authority was reduced and A moved to live with F and M2 in Somerset [PP-D106 and PP-C58 ibid]. 
112.	It is apparent from the report at PP-D13 (e.g. at D19 ibid) that, at about this time, the Portuguese authorities were seeking information about what was happening in the English proceedings. I do not have enough information to comment on whether the Local Authority communicated effectively with the Portuguese authority. Since that authority in Portugal (the committee for the Protection of Children and Youth of Viseu) has been so helpful in providing information, and has done so in English, I direct that the guardian must send a copy of this judgment to them. I can well imagine how that committee will regard the standards in this country having viewed this judgment and I very much regret that and ask them to accept from me that this is a far from typical case.
113.	Also unmentioned in this case until now was the Local Authority’s own assessment of the relationship between the father and the child at the time. In an undated report at PP-D39 the following was said in a viability assessment: ‘The relationship between his father and A is untested at present due to the limited amount of time A has been in the care of his father. However, observation of A and his father has demonstrated much affection between them and many cuddles and what appears to be reciprocal respect. A said that he is happy living with his father and his father keeps him safe. F may have underestimated the level of challenge A’s behaviours (which are as a result of his ADHD) may present and this will be further discussed in order that F understands the level of care in the future that A will require…’
114.	26th February 2013 – The school records at SF-4 that A ‘returned to [his former primary school’ having returned to F under supervision after leaving a placement in Cornwall [P96]. He had one to one support for three hours a day at school. A was taken for reviews at the hospital. His father reported to a Dr [named at P96] that ‘last week has been good’ – P96. The hospital contacted the school and at P101 there are notes of a conversation between the Dr and the headmistress at the school. She said that A was sometimes quiet and calm but at other times was agitated, unable to sit still / stop jumping and running and was verbally abusive to some members of staff [P101]. When he is off medication, she said, he is uncontrollable [P102].
115.	Unscheduled and unconsidered at this hearing by the Local Authority have been the notes of those who supervised A during this period with his father. This was a period of assessment and so, surely, this should have been regarded as an important period (particularly since it post dates the bruising in January 2013). On this day (26th February 2013) the following is recorded as having occurred when A had returned to ‘Willow Cottage’ where they were staying: ‘A mentioned in general conversation that he had some bruising (which he had shown me previously – back of legs – small on calf muscle).  He said that previous foster parent had caused this’. So, there was a significant allegation of bruising to the back of his legs caused by a foster carer (and has to be compared with the January 2013 bruising on the back of the legs as shown at P27). It appears that this allegation was treated by the Local Authority as untruthful. Why was it for me and Advocate C to unearth this evidence from M144 in a multi lever arch file case? There can be no sensible suggestion that the bruising was caused by F or M2. Why was the assumption made by the Local Authority (without allegation by A) that the bruising to the back of his legs in January 2013 was caused by the father?
116.	28th February 2013 – The Local Authority records at M150 suggest that there were ‘really nice interactions between A and F, smiling, laughing, singing whilst both watched Portuguese TV…good respect of boundaries and low level control required by F’. There are many other references to a warm relationship being observed between A and his father and M2 – e.g. ‘from my observation A has a very affectionate relationship with both dad and M2 showing affection, holding hands and wanting to have hugs all very normal and relaxed’ – M155. 
117.	It is about this time that the educational psychologist wrote the passage at PP-D78 to which I have already referred. That report gave the clearest possible warning of the risk of false allegations (‘Children who hold a negative sense of themselves, when they feel at risk of punishment or rejection may try to take control through attack (e.g. fire setting that A carried out at his mother’s home last eyar, lashing out at foster carers) or they may project these attacking feelings on to others and be inclined to make allegations, as has been seen both with regard to foster carers and in relation to other children at school’).  That risk was also obvious to, and reported by, Ms SR [the psychologist referred to above]. The fact that this had been reported so clearly in the earlier proceedings was drawn out of the documentation by Advocate B.
118.	6th March 2013 – A school/ home book was kept in which the teachers wrote things as did F. For this day the school teaching assistant wrote that A was defiant and waved his fist in her face. 
119.	19th March 2013 - there was a meeting between the school and M2. It is recorded that A ‘finds activities frustrating…unable to do tasks, anxious, upset and frustrated...gets upset about mum’. 
120.	It was on that day (19th March) that A, F and M2 moved away from the assessment placement [M188]. The last report from that placement is at that page and includes: ‘disappointed at low housing benefit they have been awarded but otherwise happy and loving towards each other’.  Plainly, the Local Authority regarded this assessment period as having ended positively. Shortly after this there was an agreed plan to reduce the level of Local Authority supervision of A at home [SF-11].
121.	30th April 2013 – There is a body map at SF-17 which bears this date and which has an entry relating bruising on the back of A’s right leg and one bruise on the front of the same leg. The bruising on the back has ‘4 finger bruises’ written against it.  There is no allegation that this caused by the father or M2. 
122.	1st May 2013 - A attended for a paediatric assessment [P113]. Bruising was noted to his legs [P114]; I presume it is the same bruising that had been seen the day before. The bruising was seen by a locum speciality doctor [named on P305] [P305] and reviewed by a consultant paediatrician on 9th May.  The consultant concluded that the bruising was consistent with the explanation that A had given [P111]. Dr GR says at E48 that the bruising was to A’s legs ‘both back and front’ and that ‘they were described as small bruises of different ages and in typical places of accidental injury without characteristics of being struck by hand or implement’. Plainly if there had been any thought that the father or M2 might have caused bruising or injury to A during the currency of the previous proceedings and after the events that had occurred since January 2013 the Local Authority would have intervened and would not have recommended that a supervision order be made in August 2013.
123.	2nd May 2013 - F and M2 came into the school and spoke angrily to the headmistress, suggesting that the bruising to A must have occurred during PE [SF-29]. As a result the headmistress wrote to the parents saying that they should make appointments if they wished to see her [SF-26]. Plainly there was some tension between the school and the ‘parents’ but there was also effective dialogue between them for most of the time through the use of the home/school books. The books, which I have read, show M2 doing most of the writing from the home front and suggest that she was genuinely concerned for A and was involved in his care.
124.	9th May 2013 – A was taken to the local hospital as a result of bruises to his legs. The social worker came to the hospital and asked A how they had occurred and he said ‘by playing with friends at school, rough play’. He then said that he was on a wall and fell off and that he played under a tree and got muddy when at school. He also said that, during PE, he and another boy got bored and hit each other with rackets [M196]. The social worker noted all this at that page, M196, and also says that A was frustrated that no one believes him. There is no suggestion that F or M2 were responsible for these marks and there would be no evidential basis for any suspicion that either of them had caused the bruises; plainly the Local Authority regarded matters in that way at the time because no intervention followed.
125.	15th May 2013 – A member of school staff wrote an entry at SF-35 which reads: ‘[Andre’s Teaching assistant] was talking to Mrs F making hand gestures while I was talking and brushed past A’s face. A said that I punched him,…no mark, open hand, explained difference between punch and accidental touch’.
126.	21st May 2013 – The school records at SF-38 state: ‘While getting changed for PE noticed some bruising on back and sides of legs, quite dark in colour’. I heard no evidence in relation to those bruises; it seems unlikely that they were the remnants of bruising that was first seen on 1st May in the light of the evidence of D GR about how long bruises might be expected to last.
127.	24th May 2013  - A Local Authority Parenting Assessor [named at D51] wrote the parenting assessment for the then court proceedings. It is at D51 of the previous bundle. She describes how A appears to have been subjected in Portugal to a level of corporal punishment that would not be tolerated in this country [D56]. She states on the same page that F and M2 describe him as being a little angel; she says ‘it is certainly the case that, whenever he was observed with his family there have been no issues raised. [An] independent social worker [named], spent time with the family at their holiday flat and was impressed with the interaction between F and A…no oppositional behaviour was observed at these times’. She said that A could not be clearer about what he wants – to be with his father [D56].
128.	The Parenting Assessor said that both M2 and F appeared to be inexperienced parents [D58]. She found them both ‘extremely co-operative and willing to talk openly about their situation’. At D58 she said that she was persuaded that F and M2 have A’s best interests at heart and are able to meet his basic physical needs day to day’. At D63 she said that she was also persuaded that A is in the right place within his family and that F and M2 are able to meet his needs but will require support.
129.	12th June 2013 – The school records state at SF-42 that ‘A came into school with a mark under his right eye and cheek on the same side. Dad told a teacher that his cousin had scratched him…when I said I would like him to tell me he said ‘my cousin’’. Again, that matter appears not to have been taken any further and, for instance, I have no idea whether the cousin was approached about this.
130.	8th July 2013 – the school records state that A set off the fire alarm at school after playtime and said that it was an accident (against which is written ‘not possible’) – SF-46. A said to his teachers that ‘the police will come and take him away, die for best. [The named Teaching assistant] and [another teacher] will get a knife and hurt him’. The records go on to say ‘explained we are cross but won’t hurt him. Said Mum will be sad and dad will be very cross, maybe little hit. Said very worried about what dad will say. Upset and crying’. In comparison with what A said that he wrongly feared from his teachers (they would get a knife and hurt him), the expressions of fear about his father are much more modest. Again no action is taken by the Local Authority in relation to this because, at the time, they cannot have regarded his expressions of fear as being based on reality; his teachers were not going to take a knife to him and hurt him.
131.	This is also the date upon which A said, in his first ABE interview, that his father started to assault him after that. The father also says in his statement that there was an occasion when A set off the firebell [C35] but that he did not hit A or do any of the things that are alleged afterwards. This school record shows there was an incident when A set off the firebell at school. This event occurred six months after the bruising in January 2013 and fifteen days after the guardian had filed the very positive report about the father’s care of A. The Local Authority relies on A’s first interview and argues that it is credible. When I asked then how I should approach the fact that the firebell incident happened six months after the first allegation relied on by the Local Authority it was plain it had not considered the point. However, when it had considered the point I was told that the Local Authority maintains the allegation that the interview is accurate and that the first allegation is true; confusion of dates should not be fatal to the allegation I was told.
132.	11th July 2013 – A [named] paediatrician wrote a letter dated 11th July 2103 at P297. The letter records that both a [named] paediatrician and a [named] (psychiatrist) recommended weaning A off Risperidone to see how he managed in the school environment without it. A year later (on 8th August 2014 – P209) the same paediatrician still doubted the diagnosis of ADHD for A [P209]. In July 2013 he recommended that A should no longer be prescribed Risperidone [P298]. I note that Dr AM thinks that A does have ADHD.
133.	16th July 2013 – The school recorded that A came into school with a ‘bruise on the right hand side of his head (bump). Asked what he did after school, yesterday and A said watched TV too hot. [The Teaching assistant] said head looked sore what did he do? A said OK…wrote in home school book ‘noticed A had bruise on his head but has been OK’. – SF-47. Nothing else happened about that ‘bump’.
134.	31st July 2013 – The guardian filed her final report in the proceedings then before the court. At D109 of the bundle from those proceedings she said: 
•	‘The parenting assessment undertaken by [named assessor] concluded that A is in the right place with his father and that F and M2 are able to meet his cultural and day to day care needs but will need support of they are able to deal with the complexities of such a damaged little boy….the Local Authority has worked hard to ensure that there are no outstanding issues that would need to be addressed further within these proceedings….
•	I agree with the Local Authority care plan for A…F and M2 both have A’s best interests at heart and are very committed to A…the parents have demonstrated that they can meet A’s needs and that they love him dearly. Whether A was harmed by his parents back in January 2013 remains unknown. However, now that both parents have been through the court process and have nearly lost the chance to care for A themselves, they have both been very co-operative with professionals since and both seem to have taken on broad advice and are willing to continues to work with professionals in the future in order to earn how to address A’s complex emotional needs. 
•	The school has recently reported an improvement in A’s behaviours at school and that communication with the parents has also improved. The parents are understanding of the schools duty to report any concerns but at the same time, they want to be trusted in their care of A;
•	I would support the making of a 12 month supervision order…I would recommend that a residence order is made to F in respect of A.
135.	12th August 2013 – A supervision order was made. This, of course, post-dated the bruising of January 2013. Advocate B drew to my attention that the advice given in those proceedings was that therapy should be provided to A. At E41 of those proceedings it was stated in the care plan that the social worker would speak ‘to [a named Dr] about Dr SR’s recommendation that A receives therapy’. At E13 Dr SR said in her report for these proceedings that she had recommended therapy in 2013 (and this was at a time when the father was also being advised that the child may not have ADHD, should be withdrawn from Risperidone and that A’s difficulties may be behavioural and therefore suitable for therapeutic intervention). At E13, paragraph 28 Dr SR says ‘it seems…that there has been no therapeutic work for A’. That important aspect of the case, which was dealt with in expert and medical evidence, has not been followed through.
136.	The threshold criteria in those proceedings were as follows:
(a)	On 11th January 2013 A was admitted to Yeovil District Hospital with bruising and scratches to various parts of his body.

(b)	The treating physicians on A’s admission to hospital were of the view that at least some of the injuries suffered by A had been caused non accidentally and in particular linear bruising on the back of A’s legs could have been due to beating with an object such as a stick.

(c)	These injuries were discovered whilst A was in the primary care of F and M2. 

(d)	The explanations put forward by F, M2 and A for these injuries as reported were not accepted by the treating physicians.

(e)	Staff at A’s school noticed bruising and/or swelling to his face on 2 separate occasions in December 2012.

(f)	A was resident in Portugal until approximately September 2012, at which time he was brought to the UK by his putative father. The Local Authority understands that in Portugal:

(i)	A had primarily been in the care of his mother who then abandoned A to the care of his maternal grandparents

(ii)	The level of care and supervision whilst in Portugal may have been inadequate.

(g)	A has particular health needs and has been diagnosed with ADHD.  F failed to take A to a doctor from his arrival in the UK until Friday 11th January 2013.  Until that date F had been administering medication obtained in Portugal to A and for a period in November/December 2012, having mislaid such medication, allowed A to go unmedicated (to the extent that A was unable to attend school for a period of a week and a half).

137.	There was no finding that F or M2 had caused the bruising in January 2013. Even if the bruising had been caused ‘non accidentally’ that did not mean that F or M2 caused it.
138.	23rd September 2013 – A was noted by the Teaching assistant to have bruising to his face. There is an entry about this at SF-50. A was questioned about this and told the teaching assistant that ‘it was the bathroom door and bedroom door’. Nothing else was done about that bruising. 
139.	30th September 2013 – The named Teaching assistant completed a running record which is at SF-51. She wrote: ‘Getting changed for PE noticed A seemed to have lost weight. Could see spine when bent down. When eating A seems very hungry eating very fast’. In her oral evidence she said that she remembered this occasion. In her statement at J292 she wrote that A told her that he had not been eating very much; sometimes he would say that this was because they did not have much money and other times he would not give any reasons for it. The school rang the secretary of A’s paediatrician to check when A’s next appointment was. At the time the Teaching assistant was seeing A on a daily basis. On 11th October 2013 the Teaching assistant spoke to M2 who is recorded as saying that she also noticed that A was hungry all the time [SF-52].
140.	As I have already said, I do not think that A’s hunger, of its own proves anything adverse to F or M2 on its own. I have already explained the position concerning weight and have shown the chart. To the points that I have already made I add this. Although ‘concerns’ were noted about A’s weight, those concerns did not reach the level of intervention on the basis of weight or lack of food provision. A was subject to a supervision order. He was also provided with constant one to one teaching assistance throughout his day at school (he would be allowed to go to the toilet alone as long as a teacher was by the door). He attended for regular medical reviews and was weighed regularly at hospital. If his weight was at a level of ‘significant harm’ action would have been taken.
141.	10th October 2013 – The school nurse is recorded as contacting the office of A’s paediatrician stating: ‘The school have noticed recent weight loss and A is always hungry. They realise that this could be a side effect of medication but thought you should know’. It is plain that medication was not the reason for the weight loss.
142.	14th October 2013 – A teacher noted bruising on A’s eyebrow. When questioned about this A said ‘no smack’. The note records that A did not give an explanation but just shrugged – SF-53. Nothing further appears to have occurred about this.
143.	15th October 2013 – the school records state that A came into school with a black/purple bruise on the left ear and a black/green bruise on his left temple. A said that he did not know how the bruising had occurred and then later said it was caused in PE; the teachers did not accept this as the bruising was noted first thing in the morning and it had not occurred the day before [SF-54].
144.	18th October 2013 – The school records state that bruising was noted to A ‘just above glasses level by eye…right bruise glasses level by eye’. A said that he knew how it had occurred but made no comment when asked – SF55. It is not clear whether this was fresh bruising or the same as that which had been previously noted.
145.	October 2013 –The teaching assistant at A’s school gave an account that is recorded at E49 that ‘A’s father had stopped his ADHD medication about October end / November beginning. His attendance had dropped off from the time that his father stopped his medication. His behaviour had deteriorated from the time that his father had stopped his medication. He comes to school with numerous bruises. He hadn’t been in school since the Xmas holidays. He always seemed to be hungry – he steals food from other boys, picks up food from the floor….He had lost weight from the summer holidays’. 
146.	The bruising that was noted during this period was not investigated at this hearing. It occurred at a time when, it appears, A was not taking his medication for ADHD and his behaviour had deteriorated. The cessation of medication appears to have followed medical advice (although this was not investigated at the hearing before me). The very clear impression that I have is that this was a hyperactive and challenging boy who, from time to time, got bruises which were not investigated at the time and in relation to which there could be no evidential basis for suggesting that they were caused by the father or by M2.
147.	12th November 2013 – A was noted to have a bruise, about the size of a 10p on the outside of his left knee and ‘did not know how he has got it’.
148.	19th November 2013 – There was a meeting between the ‘social services’ the father and, it appears unnamed medics [P300]. F ‘announced that he was stopping A’s medication [what medication? – The paediatrician had recommended no Risperidone – P298]. The notes at P300 suggest that A’s behaviour had deteriorated since his medication had stopped and that A was ‘constantly talking, unable to focus in class, struggling socially and anxious’.
149.	26th November 2013 -  A was noted to be tearful at school and to have said that he was very hungry and that he had no drink or breakfast because they had none’ – SF-68.
27th November 2013 – A is recorded as having taken some chocolates from the sink area and hidden them before eating them. He said that he was very hungry and said ‘I need to eat them’ – SF-70. Returning to the chart that I have prepared of A’s weight it can be seen that, at the time of the supervision order A’s weight was 28 kgs and appears to have remained at that level for the next five months. A was aged nine when the supervision order was made and so it is understandable that, if his weight remained constant for that amount of time (when he should have been growing and getting heavier), he was hungry and ‘concerns’ were and are expressed.
150.	5th December 2013 - A was noted to have a large yellowing bruise and a scab peeling off on his left shoulder and a yellowing bruise on his hip. He said that he had fallen out of tree – SF-76. As far as I know he may well have done so.
151.	9th December 2013 – A was noted to be picking up crumbs from the floor – SF-77. When asked not to do so he said that he had to, because he was hungry – SF-77.
152.	Matters now move on to a more important area. That is the injuries that have been called ‘the cold injuries’ and which feature in allegation six (cold baths).
153.	7th and 8th January 2014 – A did not attend school. At SF-80 it is said that F phoned the school to say that ‘it was wet /raining so would not walk up to school and A has a little cold and when asked A had said ‘no’. A still had a bit of a cold and had fever last night’.
154.	9th January 2014  - This is the date upon which A was brought to medical attention in relation to his feet and hands. In his evidence F gave an account of seeing A’s hand being red and it was that which caused F concern. He said that the blisters appeared later and that A did not complain about any pain in his feet. M2 said that F came to him and showed him A’s hand; she said that F said that it looks like a spider’s bite and that he would take A to the doctor. Later, at about 11 a.m. F went to cut A’s toenails, he says, and then noticed that A’s feet were swollen.
155.	F rang to school to say that A was not coming in that day and that he had a lump on his hand which F thought was a bite. F told the school that he would make a doctor’s appointment – SF-81. It was not possible to get a GP appointment [Q8] and so F took A to the Minor Injuries Unit. From there he was taken by ambulance (not blue light) to the hospital.
156.	The photographs at E66 show the very extensive areas of blistering on the feet. There was discussion between myself and the bar as to the degree of pain that the child would have shown in relation to the injuries to his feet. I expected to find that there were references to A being noted to be in pain. In fact, when A and F attended the local health centre there was no record of him being in pain in relation to his feet there [Q8]. He walked into the hospital [Q8]. The paramedics record that on examination he had ‘normal walking and no pain’ [Q10]. Later, at Q19 there is the reference that ‘A did say the swelling in hand and both feet had begun today. Swelling getting worse and more painful. Blisters have appeared on feet today’ [Q19] and at Q25 he had ‘normal movement but slightly limited due to pain’. He was given pain relief [Q21]. Therefore my expectations that I would be able to say ‘of course the parents must have known that there was something wrong with his feet given the pain that he must have suffered’ are not borne out by the evidence as the advocates each accepted.
157.	The note from the hospital at Q12 reads: ‘R swollen hand noticed by dad at 10.00 a.m. Increase in size and red. Dad thought it was a bite. Then dad went to cut A’s toe nail at 11 a.m. – noticed feet were swollen. Denies heat/cold exposure. Denies trauma. Playing football 2/7 ago’. M2 said in oral evidence that she remembers A going out to play football and that it was raining when he did so. She said that he used to put his feet near to a heater to warm up. M2 said that cold baths were never used to punish A.
158.	A was seen at hospital and was found to have a swollen right hand and left foot and was noted to have two marks to his face [Q8-9].  He was examined by a Dr LW and was found [Q12] to have infected skin next to a nail, a blister and some bleeding under skin. He was found to have numerous blisters around the toes, some deep blisters on his feet and multiple petechiae over his feet. Further, he was noted to have two faint bruises on his right cheek. There are photographs and drawings of his condition at E51 to E54. A described that his father puts his feet under a heater after a bath to warm them up; he also said that he was happy at home with his father and M2 [Q19]. A Doctor [named] saw photographs of the foot and hand the hospital and apparently wrote ‘could this be a severe cold injury’.
159.	A was treated for infection (cellulitis) with antibiotics [E54] and was admitted as inpatient at the hospital. A skin biopsy was performed and there is a biopsy report at E54 which states: ‘Superficial cell-poor blisters with superficial epidermal necrosis. The biopsy appearances could represent superficial thermal injury or possibly non-accidental injury’.
160.	10th January 2014 – There is an unsigned medical entry at Q19 which states that A said that he was happy at home and that the swelling in his hands and feet had begun that day. He apparently said that the swelling was getting worse and more painful and that the blisters appeared on his feet that day. He said that after he has a bath his father puts his feet under the heater to warm him up. At Q25 the medical records state that he had a ‘bruise left cheek – stated he did it himself so he didn’t have to go to school as he doesn’t like PE. He stated that he had very cold feet before he put them on the radiator. They were cold according to A because he had been playing football in the park’. The medical records at Q25 state that his right had was ‘swollen to wrist’.
161.	M2 told me that there was never an occasion that she could remember when A was complaining about having cold feet when he was playing football in the park. He would wear Wellington boots or trainers with socks underneath. Sometimes he would complain of cold feet on his way to school (but, of course, these injuries happened during the holidays); further M2 said that he would not complain for long and then would run ahead and warm up. She said that he never wore gloves.
162.	15th January 2014 – A was discharged from hospital. During his admission he was apparently asking for food repeatedly [E54] and he is said to have had a voracious appetite and to have increased in weight by 3.5 kgs during admission. There is a medical Report of Dr LW date[Q73]: ‘A is a nine year old boy who presented with symptoms and signs suggestive of a severe cold injury such as chilblains......Whilst an inpatient, we have raised concerns about A’s eating habits. The school have similar concerns. A’s weight did not seem to have increased and in fact it has reduced slightly since he was seen in March of last year at Yeovil Outpatients. This raises the question of what level of nutrition he is receiving at home.’ 
163.	As to the suggested ‘cold injury’ she said at Q76 ‘A is a nine year old boy who presented with symptoms and signs suggestive of a severe cold injury such as severe chilblains. The history given is slightly unusual but I cannot say for certain that it is not consistent’. The history given is at Q74 as: ‘A and his father were asked about any possible cold injury and they both said independently that they had played football in the park for an hour on Monday. A’s feet got very wet and cold. He was wearing football boots. When they got home, A had a shower and put his feet under the heater to warm them up. No other explanation for his symptoms were offered’. 
164.	Dr GR said that this would not be an explanation that was consistent with the injuries that were seen. Further, there is no truth in the suggestion that putting cold feet under a heater might cause chilblains. However Dr GR said that the ‘cold injuries’ are equally consistent with two possibilities that were put to him by Advocate C:
i)	Repeated immersion in very cold water (he said that many people have cold baths without injury) and
ii)	Repeated exposure to cold temperatures generally (for instance consistently less than 8 degrees but there is no literature on the precise temperature that would be needed). He gave examples of a cold environment in the home, walking to school with cold feet etc.
165.	In his report, Dr GR said: 
•	At E78: ‘The extremities of the body…are most easily compromised in terms of blood flow in cold conditions…the stasis and the temperature adversely affect the linings of the small blood vessel walls so that they become damaged, leak and cells die. There is then fluid leakage into surrounding tissues causing generalised swelling, as in the hands and feet of A. The skin is stretched and the superficial layers are damaged and separate with fluid-filled spaces (blisters). Very small veins are blocked and there is a hold up in blood flow in other vessels giving the appearance of redness…Skin covering blisters and more intact skin can breakdown and ulcerate and easily become infected. The swelling and apparent skin breakdown caused A’s carers to treat for cellulites (skin infection), which was appropriate’. In oral evidence he said that it is not possible to say how long the exposure to cold would have to be for this to occur. If a person were to immersed in a cold bath for an hour on one occasion it is unlikely to cause this time of injury but repeated immersion in cold (i.e. sub-zero) water could have a cumulative effect and cause that type of injury. Playing football in cold temperatures repeatedly, followed by drying of feet near a heater, would be inconsistent with the injuries that were seen on A. Dr GR said that the treating clinicians left this aspect of the case on the basis that there was uncertainty about the cause. 
•	At E80: ‘It is unusual in my experience for there to be blood in blisters associated with the damaged superficial skin in cold injury and I have never seen petechiae in association personally or described, but all other features are consistent and I cannot account for the findings in any other way. The swelling and blisters are common findings in cold injury and the skin changes as seen on photographs support the diagnosis. Cold injury is due to cold temperatures but there is a relativity effect in that some children are prone to the development of chilblains for example than others exposed to similar temperatures. The time of year during which presentation occurred was midwinter and temperatures are likely to have been relatively low at this time. The development of the very likely cold injury in A strongly indicates that his carers were not providing him with appropriate clothing in an outside the house, and/or temperatures inside the house were very much less than optimum for both comfort and wellbeing’. Dr GR said that he could not really explain the presence of blood in the blisters if they were caused by cold; blood blisters are usually caused by friction.
•	E92 (in his supplemental report) ‘In order to get cold injury as swollen feet, blisters and chilblains, it would be necessary to be exposed to cold conditions for appreciable time although the injury is a function of the temperature over a time period. That time period and temperature cannot be specifically stated for any one child. Wet conditions make it more likely that cold injury will occur if conditions are also cold.
•	E93: ‘In iced water and frequent immersion, cold injury may occur and the description by A of more than a thousand times would certainly be enough time to cause injury. I take his description of the frequency to reflect ‘many times’ and exposure of A to many times wet and iced water immersion would be consistent with conditions likely to lead to cold injury’
166.	Dr GR said that different children respond differently to the cold and it is possible for A to have responded in a very extreme way due to a predisposition to do so; however, there is no other evidence to support such a predisposition.
167.	It is obvious that A’s feet and hands did not get into this condition by playing football in the park and then warming his feet up under a heater. For reasons that by now are probably obvious I do not think that any reliance at all can be placed on A’s accounts. It will be seen how A’s allegations relating to baths became known. It may well be that A had baths that were colder than he liked. I think it much more likely that A was exposed to a cold environment at home and to inadequate clothing and shoes during the winter months.  I also consider that both F and M2 must have been aware of this; if they were not aware of it they should have been. But I do not accept that the evidence gets anywhere near proving that he was immersed in iced or sub-zero baths repeatedly or at all. Further I do not accept that he was given very cold baths as a punishment. There could not be any sensible reliance on A’s accounts that this had occurred (I analyse the ABE interview and the other things that A has said about this as the chronology develops later but wish to make my ultimate conclusions plain now).
168.	Both Advocate B and Advocate C recognised that children do not get injuries of this type if they are kept appropriately warm during the winter months, wear gloves and adequate shoes and socks. My overall conclusions are that these injuries were caused by exposure to cold in the circumstances that I have described.
169.	30th January 2014 – The father came to school and spoken very angrily to the [named] Teaching assistant about the fact that she had inspected A’s feet. The Teaching assistant said that F brought his face close to her, raised his voice and raised his hand. She felt that he may hit her [SF-93]. He did not hit her (this is important because A has alleged that his father has hit the Teaching assistant on a number of occasions, which is not the case).
170.	7th February 2014 - The report from Dr LW was followed by a letter from her which is at Q68. It reads: ‘I now have the results of A’s skin biopsy taken at the time he was admitted to the ward with his blistered feet. The biopsies show no suggestion of an underlying medical problem and are consistent with the features of a severe cold injury. In the absence of any underlying medical problem, this would suggest that his clinical presentation is not consistent with the history given of getting cold feet playing football, and does raise the possibility of non accidental injury.’
171.	10th March 2014 – The school recorded at SF-105 that A had a small bruise on his right top lip and back of ear together with scratches / scabs in the back of his head. The note states: ‘no idea where they have come from’. On the next day he was noted to have ‘bruises legs above knees, outside 3 left. 2 right. Dark’.
172.	21st March 2014 – The school noted that A ‘has a small bump above his left ear and several light red marks on his cheek and neck (right side). A has no idea how this happened’ SF-112. On the same day the school made a recording that ‘A’s step-mum came in to see [two teachers]. Spoke about A lying to [the Teaching assistant] and about [the Teaching assistant] at home. [the teachers] have concerns that during the 45 minutes A was very uncomfortable and obviously lying to cover what he had said (very bad at lying)…’.  This is important because the parents both said that, when he was at home, A was making accusations that the Teaching assistant hit him. This note [SF-111] would appear to bear that out.
173.	22nd March 2014 – The school noted that F came to school and was noted to have shaky hands and the entry at SF-5 states: ‘smelled of drink or cannabis’. That is the only entry suggesting that F smelt of drink or cannabis when at school. M2 says that he had had a small drink that day and that F did not drink heavily or take cannabis during their relationship.
174.	26th March 2014 – A was brought to hospital with bruising to his face. The note at P151 that was prepared by a staff nurse who saw him reads: ‘Missed school Monday, Tuesday. Today school noticed bruise on A’s face and rang social services. History from A’s father: F plays football every weekend. Came home from work at 16.00 on Sunday (23.3.14). His friends were already waiting for him in the back yard. F took his football gear and went to the back yard. A was standing near the door.  F’s friend passed the football to him, he kicked the ball. The ball hit the door frame, rebounded onto A’s face on right side. A fell down on his left side. F noticed bruises on his face on Monday morning’.  P 155 is the note of the strategy meeting in which it is said that the bruise is consistent with the father’s account [P168]. 
175.	1st May 2014 – A was seen by a [named] locum speciality doctor, at the request of the Children’s Services because of bruising being found on his legs and because he had a cut lip previous week. At E58 Dr Rylance records that it was stated that ‘on examination the lips were fine and he had normal bruising on his shins’ and A was discharged home [E58].
176.	16th May 2014 – The father says that M2 noticed that A had a scratch on his neck and a plaster on his arm. The father says that the teacher knew about ‘this’ and that she was the one who put the plaster on his arm. The Teaching assistant was asked whether she remembered putting a plaster on his arm and she said that she did not; there is no record of any other teacher doing this, I was told and so the undercurrent being that the father had not told the truth about this. At my insistence the home /school books were produced after evidence had closed and they showed that on that day ‘A bumped his wrist on the tap in the toilets and I put a plaster on it. It is a little scratch. A became cross in numeracy and literacy today. We placed A in the quiet room to keep him and others safe. He threw some items and drew with a pen on the window. He soon calmed down and apologised’.
177.	17th May 2014 (Saturday) – The father says that he went to work and, when he returned, M2 went out and he spent the rest of the day with A. The father says that he left A in his bedroom doing his homework. On the third time that the father checked A he says that he noticed bruising to A’s face. The father says that he asked A what had happened and A told him that he had hurt himself on the bedside table. When he examined A’s face the father says that he saw three small bruises and a tiny scratch around the eye [C37]. The father says that he then told A that the marks were not consistent with him having hit his face on the bedside table and A admitted that he has been pinching and twisting the skins around his eye [C37]. The father then says that he went with A into the bathroom and got him undressed. He says that he then noticed a square bruise on his back which A said had been caused when he hit a door handle at school. The father also says that he noticed other more minor bruising [C37].
178.	19th May 2014 (Monday) – A was brought to school by the father. His father says that he called the social worker having done so ‘because I wanted to get this all sorted once and for all’. A had bruising to his face, neck and body. A said that the bruise to the right hand side of his face had been caused when he had pinched himself when he was fed up with himself [C2]. He said that a bruise to the left hand side of his neck had been caused when he threw a marker pen at a window at school and it rebounded hitting him. He said that a bruise to his right shoulder blade had been caused when doing PE at school by walking into a door. The school contacted the Local Authority Children’s Services and a social worker [named at C2] came to speak to A [C2]. 
179.	A repeated the same account of how his injuries had been caused. The Social Worker thought that A should be seen by a doctor and quite correctly went to speak to F and M2 first. F and M2 told the Social Worker how they were finding things hard with A as they did not understand his behaviour and were afraid that he might harm the baby when it arrived. They questioned whether A might be autistic and said that they did not want to accompany A to the hospital as they saw his behaviour as attention seeking and were ‘full up’ with taking him to hospital.
180.	The school record at E124 states: ‘At 9.15 a.m. on Monday 19th May F brought A to speak with me. He doesn’t ‘want to hide anything’ and he ‘needs to speak with social services’. A has bruising on the right side of his face, which Dad and A say A did to himself by pinching. Dad said that A has said he did this to punish himself. There is a bruise on the left side of his neck. No explanation given for this. A’s dad showed me several smaller circular bruises on A’s back also. One bruise below A’s right shoulder bade, A’s father says was caused on Saturday. A says this was caused by walking into the handle of the hall door at school. Last week A’s dad says because he was worried about him, he kept A in Dad’s bedroom for all of Saturday and Sunday’.
181.	At SF-125 the Teaching assistant wrote: ‘A said in the conversation this morning that he had square bruises on his back caused by banging back on hall door handles in PE on Friday. We did not go into the hall and last week outside PE on Tuesday and Thursday. Not possible on handles in school last week’.
182.	At hospital A was admitted to the children’s ward and seen by a registrar, Dr ES. He was then seen by an Associate Specialist in paediatrics, Dr TN, who has written a report at E1. There is a body map at E59. Dr TN says that the bruising fell into three categories:
i)	Bruising to his back and trunk. A said that these had occurred when he walked into a ‘climbing metal thing’ sometime the previous week. The doctor says ‘the child gave the history of running into a climbing metal thing on several occasions reliably. However he was not able to tell both of us how he was able to get injuries essentially on both front and back and both sides simultaneously in the method described’. The doctor concludes that ‘these injuries are all on bony surfaces and therefore are likely to be possibly the result of wear and tear’. Dr Rylance said that it would be unusual to run into things and get bruises on the back (children can run backwards into things but their momentum is usually not enough to cause bruising). Bruising on the iliac crests are also unusual (this is just lower than the natural waist) and bruising is usually lower down the hip bone. With those two qualifications Dr GR agreed that bruising to bony surfaces is not unusual.
ii)	An oblique linear bruise within the crease of the neck and crossing it accompanied above it by two fingertip bruises. A explained this as having been caused when he threw a marker pen against a piece of glass saying that it rebounded and hit him in the neck. Dr TN says that he demonstrated this on several occasions and that his explanation was consistent. A said that this had happened on the previous Friday (16th May). The doctor says that she finds it extremely difficult to understand how the events described by A could explain the bruising to the neck. Dr GR said that it was extremely unlikely for a marker pen to have caused this injury in the way described.
iii)	Bruising to the right side of the face together with petechial marks below the right eye. A’s explanation, which he advanced repeatedly, was that he had pinched his face on the previous Friday. The doctor said that ‘although his explanation and demonstrations were consistent they did not fit the pattern of injury’.
183.	The hospital held a strategy meeting. There was not space for him to be admitted to hospital overnight. The doctor considered that ‘his history, although it is clear and consistent in itself, …does not fit the pattern of injury recorded on any of them. I think it is extremely important that any third party corroboration is sought…I also heard from my colleague [named] that there has been a previous occasion when bruises have been seen where A has provided a clear explanation but the explanation again does not fit the pattern of injury. This was pertaining to bruises to the backs of the legs. I therefore feel that there is a very strong possibility that this child has been coached in his explanations of the injury and that there is another explanation that needs to be sought’ [E2].
184.	A went home that night at about 11 p.m. [C5]. The Local Authority intended to seek a foster placement for A but there were delays in doing so [C6]. The father was not informed of those plans [C6].
185.	In his subsequent report at E94 Dr GR was asked about the content of A’s ABE interview where A had said ‘and he [i.e. F] put his finger, that one, like that in my face’. Dr GR replied: ‘This comment would seem to relate to his presentation on 19th May 2014. The bruise as described on the right side of his face, particularly the petechiae which are commonly caused by sustained pressure are consistent with this description’.
186.	Dr GR said that it is unusual the have a square bruise on the back as described since the body is contoured; therefore, a square bruise strongly suggests that a square object came into contact with the skin. So a punch with a hand or fist or a kick would not be consistent with a square bruise.
187.	Dr GR said that he excluded the neck injury from possible accidental injury because to have a linear mark like that it would need something to be pressed against the skin with considerable force. It would be hard for a child to self pressurise the skin there; if a child were to throw himself on to a bar it would be possible but for A to cause this injury seems difficult to imagine. However, Dr GR went on to say that the linear mark on the neck is narrow and is not generally consistent with a child being held round the neck (the mark can be seen at E60). ‘Fingertip bruising’ (as the two bruises on the neck are described) is a description of the size of the bruises but does not necessarily mean that they were caused by fingertips. 
188.	Dr GR hesitated in his evidence as to the cause of these bruises because there were only two fingertip bruises. He said: ‘If there were two bruises about the linear bruise then I don’t know the cause of the linear bruise. If I saw four then it would be consistent with being held around the neck but the fact that there are two such ‘fingertip bruises’ means that I would not say that this was consistent with being held by the neck’.
189.	22nd May 2014 – A foster placement was found for A. The father was asked to agree to A being accommodated but did not do so. The social worker who visited the father and M2 to tell them of the plans, says at C7: ‘F and M2 left the property and went for a walk telling me that I could do what I wanted but did not have their permission’. A was collected by the social worker from school the police having exercised their powers under section 46 of The Children Act 1989 and was taken to foster carers. Subsequently A said that he did not want to see his father saying [C11]: ‘I don’t want to see Dad as it will make him crazy mad, upset to see me. It is best not to see him’.
190.	23rd May 2014 – The care proceedings relating to A were issued [B1]. The case came before HH Judge Bromilow who recorded that the father agreed to A being accommodated [B27]. There is a record at C11 in which the social worker says that ‘we did not facilitate contact with F as my manager and I felt that F had been drinking and that his emotional state would have an adverse effect on A’. There are no other entries relating to any social worker noting drink on the father’s breath (and there is no record within the contact sheets relating to B that suggest that he has been attending his twice weekly contact smelling of drink or drugs). The father says that he had been working that day and, on the way to coming to court, drank ‘a little beer’ from counter at Wetherspoons; the court hearing started at 2.30 p.m. (it is agreed). F agrees that he was stressed, crying a lot and really down but says that he was not drunk. The evidence does not persuade me that this raises the father’s alcohol intake to a point of relevance within these proceedings.
191.	24th May 2014 – A police officer came to speak to A at school. There are notes at J1 which are apparently of this meeting although they are not signed and in very note form. When asked how the bruises had occurred he said: ‘I made it. Pinch – I don’t know’.  The police officer wrote: ‘other bruises at school –‘myself’ why? ‘Don’t know. Been by accident’.
192.	On 2nd June 2014 a case note was written by the social worker. It is at M220 and describes how A behaved during this period. It reads: ‘The placement that A went to on 22nd May has broken down. They say that they are unable to cope with his behaviour and need him to move out as soon as possible…A has broken a number of things at the placement and they report that he does not have any respect for them, the other children or any of their possessions. They report that they feel A needs and demands one to one attention for all of the time he is with the foster carers’. Again, at my insistence the notes of this period of foster carer were studied. Initially I was told that there were none but Advocate C then unearthed them from N242 to N244.
193.	There were very similar problems during this period of foster care to those which were encountered in January 2013. 
194.	24th May 2014 – A is described as saying that he would break the windows at the foster home if he could not play on the Playstation. He then started shouting and swearing and asked the foster carers ‘what are you going to do about it? Hit me? He became aggressive and refused to go to bed – N243
195.	25th May 2014 – He was ‘extremely loud, aggressive and attention seeking within the foster home. He kicked things around the garden, ripped his slippers and tried to pull his new hat apart. He came into the kitchen and started to take his trousers off and then engaged in sexualised talk. He ate voraciously. It is that day that he made his first allegation against his father (beyond the ‘maybe little hit’ from 8th July 2013). The Local Authority relies on what he said (and this was the first point that was raised by Advocate A even though this note only came into focus towards the end of the hearing and the first mention of the Local Authority’s reliance upon it was in closing speeches - I checked when it was raised in speeches that my recollection was correct that this had not been raised before). It states that ‘whilst out in the car this morning A told [someone] that he did not want to go back to live with his Dad. When asked why A replied that his Dad smacks him with his hand and his fist and that his Dad has also kicked him. He also said that his Dad used to grab him by the ear until it was bruised. He told [someone] that he (A) had lied to the lady and told her that everything was alright but it wasn’t. He said that the reason he doesn’t want to go home is in case he did it again. Later this afternoon, when A was being really aggressive and loud, [someone] told him to stop. A’s reply was that was how he has been taught to behave’. 
196.	In context is that account reliable? The answer to that is simple. No. There were bruises to the ear that were noted on 15th October 2013 and on 10th March 2014 [SF-105]. But if one recollects the abundance of expert evidence of the likely effect of this boy’s background and also that the foster care says that he was very loud, aggressive and attention seeking that day, I do not see how it could be sensible to think that this short extract could be relied upon. 
197.	26th and 27th May 2014 – The foster carer notes at N243 that ‘A will not do anything he is told without arguing or shouting. [Someone] took them to a fish and chip shop for their tea and A was shouting and behaving in a really inappropriate way. He threatened to throw someone through the window and then tried to stab another person in the arm with the wooden chip forks…A needs to be supervised all of the time as he does not seem to have any self control’.
198.	28th to 31st May 2014 – There are further accounts at N244 of uncontrollable, aggressive, destructive and disobedient behaviour. They include that, on 31st May, he ‘threatened to run away and get himself knocked down by a car’.
199.	2nd June 2014 – A spoke to the teaching assistant at school. The conversation is reported in her statement at J293. She states: ‘On returning to school and on the 2nd June 2014 A disclosed to me that his father ‘would punch him in the face like he always did’. This came about when he (A) told me that he had broken his light at the foster care placement and was afraid to tell his foster carer as he would ‘shout and hit him’. I told A that the foster carer may be cross but wouldn’t hit him. A said: ‘Yes because dad would punch him in the face like he always did’. I said ‘He should have told the police this’. A said: ‘Can I tell you everything that Dad has done and feet’ [sic]. I said: ‘Yes’. He said: ‘And Mum’. I said ‘Mum in Portugal’. He said: ‘No mum in England’. I said: ‘tell them everything’. A said that he didn’t want to see his dad again because he said ‘bad things will happen if I talk and bad things to [the teaching assistant]. Dad says he hates [the teaching assistant] and he will stab her and kill her’.
200.	In his oral evidence the father said that he did not know why A should have made these allegations against him. F said that A would come home and make allegations that the teacher had hit him and scratched him (it appears as though F was probably correct in saying this). In addition to the matter to which I have already referred there is an entry in the school/ home books for 24th January 2014 in which it is written ‘A told Mr H that Mrs Duke had been scratching him (not possible he was in the class with everyone)’. The father’s evidence was that A said that he had been hit or scratched by a teacher two or three times. 
201.	3rd June 2014 – The Teaching assistant sent an email to the social worker saying that A wanted to speak to his mother (M1), his granny and his granddad in Portugal but that F had told him not to so do because they were bad. She wrote that A had said that he did not want to go back to F as when he went back last time ‘Dad said he will kill him for talking (hold him over the stairs by the throat and throw him down and back will be broken, dad has held him over the stairs and told him this). Also dad will come into the school and take A and hit [the teaching assistant] over the back of the head and then stab her to kill her because that is what Dad has said over and over. He also said that Mum (M2) gave him cold baths too and Dad hits Mum and pushes her lots, one time into a window and it broke’.
202.	6th June 2014 –A police detective constable spoke to A at school. The notes are at J4.  The police officer says that he asked A what he wanted to talk about and A told him said that he wanted to talk about how his father treated him. A told the officer that he had sore feet because his father made him take cold baths which he ‘left him in for hours’; A told the officer that this happened ‘thousands of times’. A alleged that his father made him sleep on the floor. He said that M2 agreed with his dad’s treatment of him. He also alleged that his father punched him in the head, face and back and kicked him in the tummy and legs. A alleged that this happened ‘all of the time’, whenever he did anything bad’. He alleged that his father swears at him and told him that he would break A’s back if he told anyone about the assaults. He also told the officer that his dad had caused the bruising for which he had been taken to hospital (presumably this relates to 19th May).
203.	9th June 2014 – The teaching assistant said that she had another conversation with A [J294] in which A said that his father ‘would come into school and take him and hit [the teaching assistant] on the back and the back of the head and stab and kill her. A told me that his dad had said this over and over before. A also told me that his dad had held him over the stairs by the throat and said he would throw him down if he talks and that would break his back. He went on to say that M2 gave him cold baths as well and dad hits mum lots and pushes her one time into a window and it broke’ [J294].
204.	That day A moved placement and went to stay at Writh Lodge for a short period. The first record sheet is at N9. The foster placement had broken down as the carers were not able to cope with his behaviour – M222. The social worker notes ‘it sounds as though a riot was going on in the background’ [M222].
205.	15th June 2014 – A became very aggressive at the new placement. He slapped and punched staff and pushed another resident. There were repeated incidents throughout day – e.g. he spat at another resident and tried to burn things. He did not go to bed until 3 a.m. – M225.
206.	16th June 2014 – A moved to another placement [M226]. This is the care home at which he remained for the next six months.
207.	The teaching assistant says that A was at school and upset that he had moved placement. She says at J294: ‘A was shouting and swearing at me, say that I had lied to him by saying the social worker would keep him safe and trust him that he would help him. he said ‘everyone hurts and hits him and M2 always swear and shout at him, hit and punch him all the time for being alive’. He said ‘he’d be better off dead’. A held a pair of scissors to himself as he said this to me said to me ‘he wanted to die and his life isn’t worth living’. A was crying as he was saying this and then said: ‘help me [teaching assistant] never let me go back, they will kill me if I go back’. She also recorded in notes that she made on 17th July 2014 that A has said that ‘dad says that I am a man and I can have sex with anyone’[J295].
208.	18th June 2014 - A attended for an ABE interview. The transcript is at J6. I saw the recording of this interview in court. A is very fidgety and speaks very fast; he is ‘busy’ and inattentive.  I was told that the Local Authority’s opinion is that ‘A’s manner is calm and he retains eye contact with the police officer...his language flows and is natural’. I disagree. 
209.	During the interview the following is said:
•	At J11 he is asked why he is there and he says that he is there to talk about his dad and why he has been in hospital. He said that he ‘punched me, he called me names like ‘what the fuck do you want and stuff…he put his finger middle finger like that one like that in my face and he puts me in the bath and it was cold water until my feet were sore and he punched me in the back, he said that he broke my backs up. He thumped me in the back with that...and he thumped me in the back with his elbow. He held me by the neck on the stairs.

•	I remember in year 4 when I pressed the firebell and I put them stuff and...from there he have to punch me, punch me on the face…he punch me on the balls [J12]

•	The first thing that he did after the fire alarm was that he punched me in the face…punched me in the face this side and then he punched me on this side and in the head [J15].

•	He [father] is going to run away to another country and, if he sees A, he will kill A’.

•	His mum, M2 was there and was watching and clapping [J16] M2 [J17]. At J17 he said that M2 was ‘like watching him do it (demonstrates) ‘Hey, Hey, Hey’ (clapping hands). Qu: She was cheering, was she? A: Yes.

•	After that his dad put him in cold water for about half an hour [J17]. This happened the day I rang the firebell [J18]. Both his mum and his dad were cheering. A did not say anything because they said that, if ‘I did he would stab me’ [J19]

•	What parts in the cold water? Up to here [J19] and then he makes me stick my head in [J20]. This happened more than a thousand times, it happened every day since the firebell. Before the firebell things were OK [J20].

•	The last thing that happened at home was when ‘he threw me onto the stairs and pulled my hair’ [J21]. And then he punched me on the head [J22] and he kicked me on the legs and arms [J22]. As a result he got bruises [J22].

•	‘When he put me in the cold bath, um, after Christmas, that my feet went swollen, really big and painful’. [J22]

•	‘He made me lie to the Dr... he said to me that we went to play football and then my feet was bad and we have a bath and that happens and I put them, them on the radiator [J22]

•	He went to the hospital more than a thousand times [J24]. The school makes his dad take him to hospital.

•	His dad tells him that, if he tells someone, he will break A’s face up and pull his head off [J25].

•	At J27 he is asked how he is getting on his current placement and said that ‘the girl kept hitting me and then pull me up out of the bed, she pull me up and down the stairs. But, and threw me out of the house. And she said if she sees me again she’ll kill me. And she went in my bedroom and she pull me out of the bed and swing me around the floor like an old jumper…and she, she’s still saying she’s going to do stuff to me’.

•	His father gets drunk and vomits on the carpet and he punched me in the face and that stuff and tells A to clean it up. That happens every day.
210.	How, in its context, can that be regarded as reliable? There are general points: a) the context; b) the expert evidence, c) the previous untruthfulness and false allegations and d) his demeanour during the interview. There are many specific points but, in particular:
i)	The allegations against the girl at J27 are manifestly untrue;
ii)	The allegations against the father are manifestly exaggerated;
iii)	The allegation of M2 being present and clapping is manifestly unreliable given the manner in which it is delivered by A.
211.	30th June 2014 – There is a report at N56 which states that A had told staff at his placement that ‘Adult, possibly dad, attempted to set fire to AM bedroom. Dad threatened to shoot him with a gun. Dad shot knives with a sling shot which landed in fence threatening to get AM with it. Put AM in ice cold bath. Twisting AM’s arms until he cried. Dad’s friend hit him with a horse whip on his legs made him bleed. Pinned him against the wall, grabbed by throat, punched in face. Thrown about by collar. Constant threats – to kill AM, hit him etc. They also hit his head against the wall a few times’. The Local Authority sought to rely on this in closing speeches as evidence of reliable evidence by A in relation to A being put into a cold bath. Advocate C says that it is plain that A was making ‘outlandish’ allegations at the time. In context, I agree entirely with Advocate C; for instance there is no evidence that would support the allegation that a friend of the father whipped A and caused him to bleed and it is quite obviously untrue. If the Local Authority really thought that this was true why did they not investigate it or raise it before closing speeches? What develops is A’s accounts becoming increasingly out of control and exaggerated.
212.	13th July 2014 – There is another record by the staff at the placement where A lived [N124].  It states that A told them that :
•	‘his Dad was horrible to him. He said that he was in bed and his dad used a gas can and a lighter to make a big candle flame and held it to my duvet to set me and the room on fire’. He said that social workers had called around once, his dad wouldn’t answer the door and when they had left his dad threw him into a bath of cold water which made his feet bad and his dad made him lie to the school. He said that his dad had told him that if he’d told anyone everybody would tell him (Dad) straightaway so he was too frightened. A wanted to know how people had found out about the abuse and staff said that they didn’t know…
•	A went on to say that his dad punched him in the head and then locked him in his room for a long time so he wouldn’t tell the school, during that period his dad threw rocks through the open window to try to hit A, they didn’t but they did break some things…A said that dad would then come in and urinate on the floor beside A which would make A’s feet wet. A said that his dad would chase him with tools, intending to hit A on the head. A said that he once used a hammer and smashed up the kitchen another time with a pick axe which resulted in a fence being smashed up’.
•	A recalled a time when he was at his uncle and aunty’s house and dad broke in, breaking the garden gate and kicked in the front door breaking the glass. He said that dad then threw his uncle to the floor and kicked him in the face, then he ripped aunty’s top open before smashing a sink off the wall. He said that dad ripped the kitchen cupboard doors off and tried to hit A with one. Auntie and Uncle had to sell one of four cars that they’d inherited to pay for the damage.
•	…A said that his dad used to hold a knife to his neck and threaten to kill him…He said that his dad put the knife to his forehead once and made it bleed.
•	A strongly expressed how frightened he was that dad would find him and was very cold and factual when saying ‘he’ll kill me when he does’.
213.	I heard no evidence of any attempt by the Local Authority to investigate this. If F had behaved towards the aunt and uncle in this way, the aunt and uncle would surely have something to say about it. Was there evidence of the kitchen being ‘smashed up’?
214.	24th July 2014 – A was reviewed at hospital as an outpatient and was described as ‘having good concentration but hypernetic [sic]. He had bruises to the anterior aspects of his lower limbs considered to be normal childhood bruises’ [E62].
215.	26th July 2014 – A absconded from the care home where he was living with another child. This is referred to in the record at N134 but also forms the basis of the interview that A later held with the police in which he made patently untruthful allegations against a worker in the care home (I set this out later).
216.	5th August 2014 – A was encouraged by workers at the care home to let out his anger at his father [N246]. He then swore about his father and said, amongst other things, how he would smash his father’s face in. He said that his father was ‘a monster, big, big man no one is as bad as he is. He will kill you, kill you’. He said that is father has gas canisters at home and going to ‘f…ing kill me’ but let one off and blew out the kitchen window. He then went on to give further accounts of similar things.
217.	19th August 2014– At N248 there is an account of A behaving in a very chaotic way ‘screaming at staff and starting to upturn furniture. He then falsely accused one of the staff of shutting the door on his arm and then threatens a member of staff with an ornament. A was shouting and spitting and saying ‘just f…ing kill me’. When he tried to run off one of the staff stopped him and knocked A’s shoulder; A said ‘look at what you did’. The staff then had ‘more chats about us not being his dad and that we wouldn’t hurt him but that he won’t be allowed to get away with hurting other people without consequences like his dad’. A then trashed his room. They then went to a swimming pool. A three year old child bumped into A and ‘A went mad saying the child had done it on purpose causing a scene at the pool’. The member of staff therefore took him to the larger pool; when that staff member was helping A there the staff member knocked A and A said ‘why did you punch me’ [N249].
218.	13th August 2014 – The police interviewed M2 [J32]. She said that:
•	A tried to fell [i.e. fall] a couple of times when he didn’t want to go to school. That was it, not to hurt himself, no [J55]

•	There never was any physical chastisement [J59] (‘she said ‘no I don’t have that’)

•	A was always hungry [J63]. She not remember one dinner when he did not have more food (‘repeat’)

•	“He tried F loads of times that he will do bruises for put F in jail or if F didn’t do what he wanted, he did a couple of times like pinch himself in the face and F panic like once or twice and didn’t took him to school.” [J67]. 

•	(in the months before he was removed) A was having lots of problems in school. Parents complaining about his behaviour, the kids complained, everybody was complaining about his behaviour [J72]

•	He came home from school and had a band aid in his hand and he had a big scratch on his neck from the school and he said it was with fighting [J73]

•	I raised concerns with the midwife [J80]

•	A told us that he will kill us and the baby [J85]

•	A got wet feet playing football in the park [J99]

•	Q) What’s your best explanation for his injuries? A) I think that he’s somehow (inaudible) injure to himself. [J120]

219.	19th August 2014 – The police interviewed with the father [J122]. He denied any wrongdoing and said (as I have taken from the Local Authority’s chronology having read the interview myself) :
•	I noticed he (A) had a swollen hand so I rung the school because I thought it was an insect bite. I took him to the Doctors surgery and there they told me it was better to go to Chard Hospital and then they noticed he have some swollen feet [J129].

•	Didn’t put A in cold bath [J145]

•	A told me he got bruises hitting the furniture on the side of the bed [J147]

•	He (A) used to have bruises all the time [J167]

•	Never used physical punishment [J170]

•	Never lost my temper with A [J171]

•	If you let him (A) he’ll eat a lot [J174] 
220.	23rd August 2014 – There was a disagreement between A and a member of staff at the care home about whether A should have taken a bagel from the bread bin. The note is at N255. A started to shout at the member of staff and swear at her. He then started to knock furniture over. The member of staff then says that she guided A towards the stairs and told him to go to his room to calm down. He tripped on the stairs and then accused the staff member of having pushed him. A then hit out at the staff member and slapped her wrist [N255]. He then threatened to break her nose and accused her of hurting his arm [N256]
221.	30th August 2014 – There is a record at N197 which states that A threw things in his room and ‘ended up with glass in his hand’. He had to go to hospital and, due to his behaviour, had to be restrained [N197].
222.	On a date around this time a placement plan was prepared. It was started in June and was updated on a number of occasions until 13th October 2014 [N387]. At N393 it states: ‘A has been diagnosed with ADHD, post traumatic stress disorder, attachment disorder and behaviour disorder. These are due to the neglect and abuse he has suffered in his early years. His resulting behaviours are hitting and biting staff, spitting at staff, being very irrational and angry for no reason, shows sexualised behaviour towards staff, argue with peers and staff and be very easily manipulated by his peers. He has mentioned in the past that he hurts inside from being separated from his father and therefore wants to hurt his carers. But if you talk about his relationship with his father to him, he just explains how much he wants to hurt him and never see him again’.
223.	19th September 2014 - A was interviewed by the police again. The transcript is at J200 and I saw the recording in court. The interview related to an incident at his placement at the children’s home. Again he is distracted and fidgety. The Local Authority’s case in relation to the interview is that no action has been taken in relation to what is alleged in the interview.  I insisted that the Local Authority answered my question; ‘Does the Local Authority say that this is a credible account’. That question had not been considered before the case was placed before me and it was necessary for me to allow time for this to be done. The point was raised before at a hearing in January 2015 [A14]. 
224.	The credibility of A in this interview should have been considered before by both the Local Authority and the guardian and was not. After a lengthy discussion outside court I was told that the Local Authority’s position is that the account given in this interview is not credible. I was told that the worker in the care home against whom the serious allegations are made in this interview (‘Man 2’ as I call him) still works there and that the Local Authority still accommodates children there. It was accepted that it would be inconceivable that that would be the position if the Local Authority thought there might be any truth in the allegations raised in the interview by A. 
225.	The interview contains the following:
•	A says that ‘it all started when we ran away and then there was a member of staff picked us up…and when we got home he started he said to me um X [another child in the care home] come in to the house and he said ‘if it was me I didn’t pick none of you up’.
•	A went on to say [J205]: ‘And then he pushed me on my bed and then started kicking me and beating me and holding my neck, kicking me into the wall and making me wet and throwing things at me…and throwing things at me and shouting and swearing at me and said like ‘shut up, fuck’ and then he banged my head into the wall and he had me by the neck and things and he pushed me in the toilet and then he pushed me in the shower and turned the shower on …and then he said ‘when I gonna kill you’...like ‘I want to gonna kill you like that…and he shouts ‘shut up friggin shit’ and things and he pulled my trousers down and my pants and he kicked my bum and he kept slamming the door then coming and knocking on the door and coming in and punching me and then he threw me on the bed and punched me on the head...in bed he grabbed me by the neck and punched me in the head and he said that he will kill me and then he slammed the door and then he went into the office’ [J027].
•	At J208 he says that X is 17 but looks like she is 21. He says that it was her decision that they should run away. At J211 he says that they ran away at about midnight. They were going to go to a local town but ‘could not find it’. They were picked up in a ‘house car’. They were found because X was silly and rang the police and they came after that [J212]. They were picked up by one man from the care home (and he gives his first name at J213). At J213 A said that that man (‘Man 1’) said: ‘right to your bedroom straightaway and you’re not allowed to get up until I say’.  In the interview A said that Man 1 shouted this in anger (and A gave a demonstration of what he meant, suggesting extreme anger).
•	He then says that it was Man 2 (who he names at J214) who then mistreated him at the home. He gives a very graphic demonstration of his allegation of being dragged up the stairs by Man 2 (A was making gorilla-like noises to describe what Man 2 did). He then gave a similarly graphic description of being lifted and dragged by Man 2 [J216]. He said that Man 2 had one had on the back of his leg and the other on his chest [J216].
•	Ay J217 A says that he was inside his bedroom when Man 2 said that, if it had been him, he would not have picked A up. He said that his bedroom was quite dangerous ‘when he finds us…and you can see the lightening’.  At J218 he gave a very graphic demonstration of Man 2 punching him in the face, banging his head and kicking him. At J219 he said that he pushed him into the bedroom and then started saying ‘shut, friggin shit, fuck…and pushing and kicking me and banged my head into the wall trying to hurt me and trying to break my head’. 
•	At J220 A said that Man 2 punched him about a hundred times. At J221 he said that the hurt place… he kicked me in the balls. He then gave another graphic demonstration of what he was saying that Man 2 did. He says that Man 2 hit him against the wall and the whole of the back of his body hit the wall and he lifted A off the ground [J221]. He was hit against the wall by Man 2 about 3 or 4 times [J227]
•	At J222 he said that Man 2 threw 11 cups, two plates at him and a glass. He said Man 2 put those items in the bedroom before A went to the toilet. He says that, whilst he was in the toilet Man 2 put the things in his room, then came back to drag him upstairs, punched and kicked him and used the cups and plates to throw at him. A said that he had cuts across his arms and his face and his clothes were ripped [J224]. He was bleeding. He had a nose bleed and a squashed nose. He had a big injury on his willy and on his tummy [J225].
•	At J226 he says that Man 1 was with X but there was no one else in the home that he knew of.
•	J227: A says that he thought that he was having a heart attack when this happened but he was not sure about how he felt about being punched and kicked [J227].
•	At J228 A showed how he was pushed into the toilet by Man 2. A made a roaring noise and showed how he says he was pushed. He said that Man 2 then kicked him ‘in the balls’ (and he gave another graphic demonstration of that). At J229 he showed himself being repeatedly punched in the genitalia. He said that Man 2 put him the shower and put his head under the water for around four minutes [J230].
•	At J230 A said that Man 2 pulled his trousers down, gyrated and wiggled his penis. He then punched A and spat on A’s willy. Man 2 then said ‘Ha-ha. Bye bye’ [J231]. A then said that the more that he said the more man 2 punched him [J231].
•	At J232 A said that it was four or six weeks before he told anybody.
•	At J233 he is asked what Man 2 was like when he first came to the home and responded by giving a roaring noise (which he repeated a number of times at J233) and moving his arms and body around wildly.

226.	Advocate C submitted that there is very little to distinguish between A’s presentation in any of the interviews. And she asked the question: ‘How can one say that one of these interviews is more credible than any of the others?  Having seen them, put them into context and studied the transcripts I agree with her. 
227.	1st October 2014 – Dr GR wrote his report as the main expert the case. It is at E38. The terms of his instruction were very wide and included: ‘please identify and comment upon any injury or injuries suffered by A….In relation to any injury identified, please give your opinion on the likely cause. In relation to any injury identified, where possible, please give your opinion on whether it is more likely than not that the injury was caused non-accidentally…please highlight any unusual features of the case that may indicate contrary interpretations’. I have already referred to much of his evidence. His report also contains the following passages:
i)	At E70: ‘As ..,.basic coagulation tests have been done and are normal, it would be unlikely for A’s bruising to relate to relatively minimal trauma on [he means or] a predisposition to easy bruising from an inherited coagulation defect. One would expect a previous history of frequent bruising while in Portugal and previous prolonged bleeding at sites of immunisation and hell prick screening tests and there may well have been a family history. There is no history to support this but the extent of the history is rather limited’. The tests that were later reviewed by another doctor who firmed up this opinion.
ii)	At E73: ‘A has stated that he caused some of his bruises himself and demonstrated pinching causation. He would have been capable of directive pressure enough to result in bruising for some of his bruising but most probably not all because of the position. I exclude the following bruises in this respect and because the self causation was not used for others for which an accidental explanation was suggested by A:
•	11.1.2013. Posterior lower thigh linear bruises on both legs (with regard to self infliction).
•	19.05.14. Left side of neck (reflected trajectory of thrown pen) – wouldn’t cause the bruising.
•	19.05.14. Right cheek and under eye petechiae (pinching the skin) – [A Paediatrician] observed A’s explanation and saw consistency in his description but the position was not plausible. I have no doubt that the pinching could cause larger bruising on the cheek and the petechial bruises under the eye but accept [the paediatrician’s] observations to exclude self causation.
•	At E74: ‘It is more likely than not that the unexplained-by-boisterous activity bruising would have been caused by an adult impacting the child directly with a part of their person or indirectly through another object’. 
•	At E75 (and after making some general remarks about the colours of bruises): ‘Professional observers cannot accurately estimate the age of bruises and there is significant variation in results which this has been assessed. However, a likely window of time can sometimes be helpful to the courts. A’s bruising, where described and generally only at the 11.1.13 presentation, was stated to be bluish/brown. This doesn’t afford any meaningful information to suggest a likely window of time for the trauma that caused A’s unexplained bruising’. In oral evidence he said that a bruise in a child might last 10 to 15 days; bruises in children are usually to the surface of the skin. Deeper bruising might last for three weeks. It is not possible for a bruise to last for months – there would have to be fresh bleeding.
•	At E76: ‘A’s explanations for is bruising is plausible in some cases but not all cases and it seems to me that he may have moved his position on the causation more recently. The particular sites of some of the bruising are characteristic of accidental injury, but A could have caused some of the bruising himself’.
•	At E77: ‘I have accepted that he may have been quite boisterous and physical in many activities and he is more likely to get bruises than most other children but he has had bruising at sites which wouldn’t be expected to occur in such circumstances (backs of legs, left side of neck in soft tissue area). I am aware of what A said in police interview and leave it to others with grater expertise of such circumstances to comment upon the veracity and meaning of what he said regarding his father’s actions towards him’.
228.	Dr GR concludes at E81 that:
•	A had unexplained bruises on at least two occasions a year apart and it is more likely than not that some of these as identified earlier were inflicted by another persons. There is a caveat of requirement to do comprehensive coagulation testing.
•	A has very likely been deprived of adequate food over a significant period of time which may be as much as a year or more
•	He lost considerable weight over a period of up to a year and perhaps more. This was almost certainly as a result of inadequate food being presented to him by carers.
•	He most probably had cold injury affecting his hands and feet and this strongly indicates that he was kept in an environment that was inappropriately cold and/or he was not provided with appropriate clothing to withstand ambient cold temperatures.
•	His father stopped his ADHD medication without advising his medical carers. The medication, which can cause a decrease in appetite and therefore weight, would not account for his weight loss and then the subsequent rapid gain as the time course of this is not consistent with its use and there would not be a delay in effect’.
•	[And at E84]: ‘An important feature of A’s bruise presentation is his underlying ADHD diagnosis. It is likely that he would be more boisterous than many other children his age. Many are more clumsy and both of these features exposes affected children to more bruising at what may be considered to be ‘accidental bruise’ sites than other unaffected children. I have considered this in A’s case but opine that all his bruises cannot be explained in this way. A has stated that he has caused his bruises and self infliction for a number of these is possible but not all the bruises’.
229.	I think that the following points must be made:
i)	The report has to be read in the light of his oral evidence.
ii)	I agree that a thrown pen would not cause the injury to the neck. However, the injury is also not consistent with A being held by the neck (as Dr GR said in oral evidence). The fact that the injury is not consistent with the account given by A does not mean that the father caused it.
iii)	I do not accept that the ‘unexplained by boisterous activity bruising’ would have to have been caused by an adult. It could equally have been caused by another child. Given the description of A’s uncontrolled behaviour I do not think that one can be confident about the type of bruising that he would be able to cause himself (not necessarily by deliberate self infliction but by uncontrolled behaviour and knocking into objects).
iv)	The cessation of ADHD medication appears to have been supported by medical advice. Indeed I note that the guardian says in her report that A is no longer taking medication for ADHD and, when seen by the guardian and A’s solicitor, appeared more calm [E175].
230.	7th November 2014 – a hair analysis of M2’s hair was carried out. It is at E134. It shows that she tested positive for heroin for the period from the middle of April 2014 to the middle of September 2014 [E137]. Her evidence was that a work colleague gave her three cigarettes in about May / July 2014 and that she thinks that the cigarettes must have contained heroin. The test results are ‘consistent with the use of heroin by M2 within each of the approximate time periods covered by the earliest five hair sections tested (i.e. in each of the five periods shown at E136). There is also evidence that a package of heroin was delivered to the address where she was staying with B but M2 says that it was not sent to her and there is no evidence to demonstrate otherwise. 
231.	I accept that M2’s account of her heroin use during this period was understated and, therefore untrue. I am left with the clear impression that her use was more than she said. I asked Advocate A whether he was suggesting that this was a ‘Lucas direction point’. He said that it isn’t. It is just a point of general credibility. I know the Lucas direction very well (it requires me to consider a) whether the party with the burden of proof has proved that something is a lie and b) then to consider why any proven lie might have been told). Here, untruthfulness about the amount of illegal drugs that were taken during this period by M2 does not have any evidential bearing on whether she acted in the manner alleged by the Local Authority. It is quite clear that M2 was not a heavy drug user and her current care of B is as I have already stated.
232.	14th November 2014 – The teaching assistant wrote a note that is at L27. She recorded that A started to rub his genitals over his trousers (whilst at school that day she had seen him do this before but not to this extent, she said in evidence). He said that he did it because it makes him feel better. He then said that M2 told him to suck her ‘boobies’ and makes him stand on a chair and tells A to ‘get it out as she wants to see it’. The teaching assistant wrote that there was then a conversation about willies getting bigger. He went on to say that ‘X (the other child at the children’s home, who is aged 17 and has learning difficulties), at the home has shown her boobies to A and asks him to get naked and come into her room. He has been under her bed when staff couldn’t find him. A said that he has seen ‘all of her’ (pointing at genitals) ‘she has shown him’ [L28]. The Local Authority investigated this and kept the two children apart within the home thereafter. The Local Authority could not tell me what the child X had said or if she was asked about this. I therefore cannot say for certain whether there is any substance in this allegation against X; it sounds highly improbable
233.	14 November 2014 - There is an expert’s report (which is not in the bundle) of a test of the father’s beard hair for drugs. It reveals that he tested positive for heroin, codeine and cannabis but it was not possible to state when, over the past 14 ½ months, the drug might have been consumed. M2 said that she had no knowledge of F using drugs before the separation between them in May 2014. F’s oral evidence was that he tried heroin in Portugal but was never addicted to it there; he used to have cannabis when at parties in Portugal. When he came to the UK in 2010, he said, he did not have any heroin for two years. He then may have tried heroin ‘once or twice’ but never took drugs home and never used drugs in the presence of A, he said. When A went into foster care he started using heroin a lot, he said. He denied using heroin when A was in his care and said that he is not taking heroin now and is ‘in treatment’.
234.	15th November 2014 - A Paediatric Haematologist, wrote a report, which is at E142. He states that A’s drug therapy (Methylphenidate and Risperidone) was not aetiologically related to his bruising [E143]. He thought that the results of the testing completed did not point to a major coagulation abnormality but said that the tests that had been carried out were inadequate to exclude many coagulation disorders that might cause excessive bruising in a hyperactive, fully mobile boy. He advised that A needed to undergo a full assessment of his coagulation system.
235.	9th December 2014  - That morning A’s behaviour is described in a record at N493. ‘Messed around and didn’t get to school until late, was collected early in order to meet police with social worker at 16.00’.
236.	A was interviewed again. The transcript is at [J244]. It is in this interview that his allegations against M2 are recorded. I saw the recording of this interview in court. A says that he does not know why he is being interviewed. He is very fidgety and distracted. He is then asked if he can say what he had told his teacher [J251]. He says that he does not want to talk about it. He is very reluctant to say and says that he thinks the interviewers are going to laugh at him. He says that the teacher laughed at him about it. He says that he thinks that he has been brought to the interview so that they can wind him up. 
237.	He eventually stands up, gyrates his hips, puts his hand on the outside of the front of his trousers and says that M2 “went like ‘oh stick your willy out” [J255]. He then starts shouting [J256] and puts the pillow over his head saying ‘you know what, night, night’. He calls the interviewer a silly billy and starts shouting very loudly and repeating his words [J257] saying that it happened all over the house and doesn’t know when it happened. He is asked again what M2 did and said she’s like ‘ooh take your willy out, oh climb up in your chair so I can chew your willy ooh, ooh” [J259]. He says that she makes him take it out saying that she will cut his head off [J261]. He is asked ‘so has she actually chewed your willy?’ and he replies that she has done so with her mouth. He says that she done this about over 200 times [J262].
238.	M2 denies that she has ever behaved in the way alleged.
239.	I do not think that anything of forensic value can be taken from this interview. The boy is distracted, fidgety, angry and is plainly not concentrating. The interview ends with him throwing things at the camera and shouting into it. The account that he gives is plainly exaggerated (e.g. as to the number of times that ‘this’ happened). There is no supportive evidence in relation to this allegation.
240.	Advocate A submitted that ‘A’s reluctance to talk about this and then is able to give a detailed account of what has happened reflects its credibility’. Advocate B submitted: ‘this is a heartbreaking interview. It is plain that A is very disturbed. He is shouting. He is vague. He is obstreperous with the interviewer and petulant. He is plainly attention seeking. The interview lacks specificity and A refuses to give detail when asked. He is then physically destructive within the interview room. It beggars belief that the Local Authority thinks that this is reliable’.
241.	I have no difficulty at all in saying that I could not possibly make any findings on the basis of this interview. It is obviously not reliable.
242.	On his return to the care home A is described as getting escalated ‘to the point of both residents locking themselves in the bathroom and [A] throwing shampoo, toothpaste etc all over and blocking the toilet. Staff forced open door and A remained heightened and messed around pushing boundaries until he settled late’ [N493].
243.	11th December 2014 – A moved to a new placement in a residential home in Devon [E174].
244.	15th December 2014 – M2 was interviewed by the police. The transcript is at J268. She was asked about the allegation that she has behaved sexually with A (chewed his willy etc) and denied it [J276]
245.	5th January 2015 - 	Another Paediatric Haematologist, wrote a report which is at E148. At E149 he concluded: ‘The Bloods taken here at Great Ormond Street on 18/12/2014 have not found any condition that predisposes to an increased tendency to bleed or bruise after either apparent no trauma or minimal trauma’. In an email sent on 5th January 2015 the first reporting haematologist stated at E154: ‘all of the tests I ask for have been carried out and I agree with [the named haematologist] that there is nothing to support the diagnosis of an underlying bleeding disorder’.
246.	6th January 2015 - 	Dr GR sent an email which is at E166: ‘The significance of these normal test results vis-a-vis my report is clear and I don’t think I need to provide an addendum or make further comment’.
247.	12th March 2015 – The school noted that A had said that his father had hit his teacher [named] a few times on different days, A went to get a cup to hit his dad and [the teaching assistant] stopped A from doing this [SF-126]. A said that the teaching assistant was bruised but can’t remember which part of the body this was on. A also disclosed that his dad only fed him half a slice of bread and blamed A for not being able to pay the electric or rent…A also stated that his dad was drunk a lot and smashed bottles against the walls.’ In evidence the teaching assistant said that this account was not true although there was one occasion when the father shouted at her in a corner at school and she thought that he was going to hit her [I anticipate that this was a reference to the event that is recorded at SF-93].
248.	Later A told the school staff that his dad left him in a ‘freezing bath for five days and only let him out for the toilet and that if he fell asleep he would drown A under the water; as a result, A said, he did not sleep for five days. If A spoke his dad would swear at him and smash cups on walls. A’s dad said he would throw cups at him and his dad got a knife from the kitchen and said he would stab A with it and pull all A’s insides out. A had sore toes because of cold water and went to hospital and A’s dad made him say nothing had happened’. 
249.	Specific points about A’s reliability – Advocate B and Advocate C have helped prepare a list of evidence where A has been shown not to speak the truth. I have added to it as I have gone through the above chronology:
i)	The second ABE interview and the allegation against ‘Man 2’;
ii)	The things that he said against the teenage child (‘X’) which include allegations of sexual misconduct.
iii)	The allegation on 12th March 2015 suggesting that there had been actual violence between the father and the teaching assistant.
iv)	Telling the interpreter that the foster carer did not give him any food and locked him in the bedroom – M30.
v)	The allegation at SF-35 where he made a false allegation against the teacher.
vi)	M131 and M52 – where A banged his head against the table and accused the foster mother of assaulting him.
vii)	The events of 23rd August 2014 [N255] where the Local Authority’s evidence is that A ‘tripped on the stairs and then accused the staff member of having pushed him. A then hit out at the staff member and slapped her wrist [N255]. He then threatened to break her nose and accused her of hurting his arm [N256]’.
viii)	M140 – A had caused injuries to the hand of the carer with his nails [A139] and then blamed it on the dogs. The interpreter ‘spoke to A about this but A swears on God and his Dad that he didn’t do it, it was the dogs…But I [the carer] am used to this and A says that I do everything to him that he does to me. Over the past week and a half I have been hitting, kicking, punching and pulling his hair. Generally, whatever A does to anyone he will later play act it and say it was the mother way round and the other person has done it to him’.
ix)	A made the false allegation that his previous foster carer had caused bruising to his legs [M144].
x)	A pulled the hair of another child in the foster home having tried to kick her and then accused the other children of assaulting him [M136].
xi)	SF-87 – A falsely accused the teaching assistant of scratching him.
xii)	N248 – the false allegations on 19th August 2014 relating to the swimming pool trip and, separately, against a member of staff. 
xiii)	N249 where staff say: ‘this is all concerning due to the level of accusation A makes numerous times a day, staff log these issues but due to the disclosure has just made I am beginning to wonder if A would need to be on a two to one, for fear we would not have a staff team in place by the time he makes these accusations. It is very clear by A’s behaviour his thought process is exaggerated and a tiny knock or fly landing on him is significant abuse in his eyes’.
xiv)	N393 – A is recorded as having accused another staff member of punching him in the head.
xv)	SF-46 - A gave an untruthful account of how the firebell was set off and then falsely suggested to his teachers that ‘the police will come and take him away, die for best. [The teachers] will get knife and hurt him’.
xvi)	The note at SF-111 – ‘A’s step-mum came in to see [two teachers]. Spoke about A lying to [the teaching assistant] and about [the teaching assistant] at home. [The teachers] have concerns that during the 45 minutes A was very uncomfortable and obviously lying to cover what he had said (very bad at lying)…’
xvii)	To that I add the false allegation against M2.
xviii)	I also add the manifestly exaggerated terms which appear on the face of A’s allegations against his father.
250.	Conclusions – Allegation 1 - January 2013. I dismiss this allegation. I make the following particular points about it:
i)	A has never said that these injuries were caused by F.
ii)	Insofar as the Local Authority relies on A’s interview (as it states that it does in the schedule of allegations) A is not a reliable source of evidence and the interview at J6 to J22 is unreliable
iii)	A said that the first time he was hit by the father was after this (8th July 2013).
iv)	The interview that was carried out at the time did not raise any suggestion that F caused this injury.
v)	It is perfectly possible for these injuries to have been caused other than by assault by F.
vi)	This allegation was considered in the 2013 proceedings and it was not thought possible or necessary to pursue the point to factual enquiry.
vii)	The reports prepared at the time were positive about the relationship between F and A.
viii)	A’s own behaviour exposed himself to the risk of injury.
ix)	The expert evidence flags up the risk of false allegations being made against the father.
251.	Allegation 2 (F held A by the neck above the stairs) - This is based exclusively on what A has said at J294 (to the teaching assistant) and in his first ABE interview. That is not reliable evidence and I dismiss it.
252.	Allegations 3 and 4 (19th May injuries) – I have analysed the evidence above and regard it to be so unreliable that I dismiss these allegations also. 
253.	Allegation 5 (failure to protect by M2) – This falls with the above allegations.
254.	Allegation 6 (cold baths) – I dismiss the allegation as stated but make findings in the terms that I have already set out about the exposure of A to cold. I have already given my analysis of this.
255.	Allegation 7 – (M2 failed to protect A from the matters referred to in allegation 6) – I dismiss the allegation as pleaded but make findings as already stated. Both F and M2 must have been aware of the A’s exposure to cold and should have protected him from it.
256.	Allegation 8 – I accept that this has been proved in the context that I have set out in this judgment.
257.	Allegation 9 - I reject this for reasons that I have stated. The evidence upon which it is based is patently unreliable and I consider that it is highly probable that this allegation is untrue (i.e. I make a positive finding in favour of M2 on this allegation).
258.	Of course, it is possible, but certainly no more than that, that some of the allegations that F caused bruising are true. It is possible, that in frustration at the demands that A placed upon F, he used physical violence against him. However, the evidence gets nowhere near satisfying the standard of proof that is required and to make findings against the father would be the height of speculation. The root source of the allegations is A and A is not a reliable source. There is a very clear possibility that all of the allegations of physical abuse are false. Evidence of medical opinion can only state whether certain explanations are consistent with or inconsistent with accounts that have been given in relation to this type of injury.
259.	Unless successfully appealed or varied by subsequent findings all parties must now proceed on the basis of the conclusions that I have reached. Where allegations have been dismissed they must be treated as having been invalid. It would be quite wrong to find, in any subsequent professional documentation, any suggestion that the dismissed allegations are or might be true.
260.	Points of practice: I wish to end with the following points of practice. 
i)	The bundles. To deliver eight lever arch files to a judge on a Thursday evening for him to start a case on Monday morning is unrealistic where the summarising documentation is inadequate. To those who did so I pose this question: ‘How long would it take you to read that amount of material?’ During the hearing I asked what the advocates’ expectations were of me in relation to enclosures M, N, P and Q which extend to over 1,250 pages which had not been adequately summarised (medical records, Local Authority records etc) and the discussion ended with me understanding that I was asked to read them and summarise them myself during the hearing. That would have been manifestly unfair because the advocates and parties would not then know what I was taking into account when reaching a decision before I did so and would not have an opportunity to comment on things that I discovered. In the end I required a list of pages to be given to me from enclosures M and N and read those. I read the whole of enclosures P and Q over two nights (a total of 542 pages). If I had attempted to read 1,250 pages and each page had taken an average of one minute to read and summarise it would have involved over twenty hours of reading mid-case on part only of the documentation that was filed.
ii)	The case was given a three day time estimate which was never realistic, particularly if I was going to be expected to read that amount of material during it. As it is I have dealt with the case in five days and have typed this judgment during the fifth day.
iii)	The bundles that were produced were in disarray. Many pages were blank. Many reports were repeated. Some pages were upside down. The medical records were not in chronological order and switched between years randomly. Important documents were not included.
iv)	The chronology that was produced was produced in a genuine wish to assist. But it was manifestly inadequate. Material adverse to the father was included but important material that was supportive of his case was omitted.
v)	The advocates themselves had not seen relevant material. The papers from the previous proceedings were produced late and omitted important material, such as the threshold document from the 2013 proceedings. Nobody knew, when the case started, what had happened about the January 2013 allegations within those proceedings. There was no mention of the parenting assessment, the psychological report or the guardian’s report in the chronology. I had to call for the threshold document from those proceedings. The chronology jumps from 21/01/13 to 01/05/2013 then to 10/10/2013 and therefore somersaults over the 2013 proceedings. That is just not sensible.
vi)	It was perfectly plain to me that there had been no realistic assessment of the evidence that was being placed before me by the Local Authority, upon whom the burden of proof rests. The Local Authority is the prosecuting authority and has the burden and responsibility of proving the case that it brings. There are many examples of this. A particularly obvious one is that A says that his father started to hit him after the firebell incident in July 2013 – what impact did that have on the January 2013 allegations against the father? The sexual allegations against M2 should have been put in the context of the other material, not least the similar and false allegations that A had made against  others. The chronology that I have put together (which can be compared with the Local Authority chronology) speaks for itself. Huge parts of relevant and important evidence had been omitted in the Local Authority’s analysis.
vii)	There has been no overview by the Local Authority or by the guardian (and I deliberately include the guardian and the child’s solicitor in this) about the reliability of the child’s evidence. That is not the fault of this child. But it does mean that before presenting a case that is so heavily dependent upon what the child has said it is of obvious importance to consider the reliability of the child as a source of evidence. I held a telephone conference hearing on the Friday before the case started and I asked for the Local Authority’s assessment of the child’s reliability. The guardian’s solicitor told me that the guardian was not available and she could not take instructions on that issue. The Local Authority counsel told me that the Local Authority viewed A as a reliable source of evidence.  It was plain that there had been no proper assessment of this issue and that there had been no proper thought given to the many untrue allegations that this child had also made. That is not just unfair to the parties but it is unfair on the child whose future should not be subject to such a process.
viii)	The important evidence relating to A’s weight and the condition of his feet and hands was not summarised or analysed before the case started. I created the weight chart which I extracted from the papers. Other than that the important job of seeing what the child’s weight had been had been covered by Dr GR in his report. If the point was to be made and proved it needed to be supported by evidence from the medical records. The child’s solicitor tried to cross examine on this point without any information from or reference to those records and, in doing so, sought to make a point that was wholly invalid. As to the state of A’s feet in January 2014 it was necessary for me to require an analysis of the level of pain that the child would have felt at the time that the blisters etc were developing (would it have been obvious to his carers that he was so injured?); I very nearly made a totally false assumption that the child would have been in obvious pain (as to which see Q10).
ix)	Despite the abundance of evidence about the psychological difficulties that A has, there is no evidence that any consideration was given to how A should be interviewed in the light of his very specific difficulties. The questioning that I saw gave no demonstration at all of questioning being crafted by reference to those difficulties or in a way that reflected the very large amount of medical information that was available in relation to him. 
x)	There was a wrongful absence of enquiry into the interview that took place on 15th January 2013 [the M10 interview]. There was no recording of it or any evidence of an investigation arising from what A said in it. There is no point in me expressing my opinion about the standard of practice that those absences demonstrate because the points are too obvious.
261.	I have asked the advocates to submit one version of this judgment with all proposed corrections being shown by track change. I have typed this judgement myself and so there are bound to be corrections that need to be made. I have also asked them to liaise with the court office in order that a date may be fixed for a directions hearing. At that hearing all parties must come with their realistic proposals in relation to the orders that they will be seeking in substantive proceedings. 

HHJ Stephen Wildblood QC 
20th March 2015.