Case No. EWFC-82

JUDGE HARRIS:1I am giving judgment this afternoon in the course of a final hearing of care proceedings relating to a very young child, P , born in May 2020, who is 23 months of age. 2His parents are the mother who was born in 1984, so that she is thirty-eight; and the father who was born in 1976, so he is forty-six. 3The parties before me are the local authority, represented by Mr Coutts; the mother represented by Ms Wilson of counsel; the father represented by Ms Hasan of counsel; and P and his guardian represented by Ms Brown of counsel. I will refer to the parents for convenience as “the mother” and “the father” respectively. 4Also present are the maternal grandparents who are here from Spain. At my invitation, they have attended the hearing and have in fact been here each day throughout the hearing and I am very pleased that they have and have been able to hear the evidence. 5I am giving judgment at this stage on the threshold criteria where there are still a number of contested matters because I consider that that will assist the parties in having a factual basis on contested matters when considering welfare issues. 6I have read very large parts of the substantial bundle in particular sections C, E and all the police disclosure. I have heard oral evidence by agreement from the parents with the mother giving evidence first and then the father and then this morning I heard from his niece, who was able to give evidence about one of the incidents with which I am concerned. 7The threshold document and the father’s response to it is in the bundle (E83-E95). The mother’s response is contained within a witness statement. Both parents, in fact, accept that the threshold is crossed. The mother accepts that the precipitating incident in this case - the incident which occurred on 22 April which I will refer to in a little more detail in this judgment - plainly meant the threshold was crossed. On that occasion in a state of florid psychosis, she used an implement - suggested either to be a knife or some scissors - to strike P in his chest area causing a number of superficial perforations. It is accepted, as it must be, that that incident caused him significant emotional harm at the least. Obviously, there was some physical harm but fortunately limited. The mother also accepts, as I understand it, that because she became ill in the period immediately preceding this event she would not have been in a position to provide P with safe care. 8The father in the course of his oral evidence accepted that the repeated arguing between the parties with loud voices and verbal abuse in the presence of P would have caused him significant emotional harm. 9What is disputed are the allegations the mother makes of domestic abuse, including coercive and controlling behaviour, against the father in the context of their relationship. The local authority submits that, if those allegations are made out, at least some of those incidents, if not all of them, occurred in P’s presence and that would have placed him at risk of physical harm in terms of being caught in the crossfire and would have caused him or at the very least placed him at risk of significant emotional harm, so the evidence I have heard has focused upon those allegations. 10Also in the threshold is an allegation relating to the father’s admitted cannabis use. It is said that, when he was intoxicated by cannabis use, it would have impacted upon his ability to provide safe care for the child and I will deal with that briefly in the course of this judgment as well. 11The legal position is clear. The allegations are made by the mother. It is for her to prove them. The burden remains on her and the standard of proof is a simple balance of probabilities. I canvased with the parties during submissions whether it was necessary for me to give myself a fully-fledged Lucas self-direction in accordance with the case of A, B and C [2021] EWCA Civ. 451. They all agreed that it was not necessary for me to do so. This case turns on the credibility of the two parents, save for me to say and remind myself which I do that the fact that a person lies about one or more matters does not mean that they are lying about everything.