Case No. ZC20C00674

19.Whilst I set out my impressions of the witnesses in this section of the judgment, the impressions are formed after consideration of all the written and oral evidence in the case.20.I found all the professional witnesses to be honest and reliable. They were anxious to assist the court and to answer the questions put to them fully and accurately.21.The evidence of JK was important. She was the only non-family witness who could speak to the arrangements and dynamics within the family. It was clear that that she had an affectionate bond with KB but she had little grasp for the details of arrangements. She appeared as a humble and naïve woman whose respect of AB had led her to unquestioningly follow her directions. As such I was struck by her honesty if not by her reliability when it came to detailed evidence.22.Section 98 warnings were given appropriately to witnesses against whom allegations are made by the Local Authority which, if true, could amount to criminal offences.23.In assessing his credibility I make allowance for the fact that, although legally represented, GH had to give evidence remotely, via an interpreter, and from prison. He did not have a legal representative at hand and it cannot have been easy for him to prepare for the hearing given his incarceration and the volume of documents in the case. Nevertheless, his evidence was unfocused, inconsistent with much of the documentation and some of his out of court statements, and often incredible. His goal when giving evidence appeared to be to spread blame for events in this case to everyone except himself. I refer to some particular parts of his evidence which I reject in the remainder of this judgment. GH’s main case was that he was never employed as a carer or in receipt of any payments for caring for KB, that AB was a fraudster and that she had set him up in relation to sexual intercourse with KB - which he told the court happened during the day when AB left him alone with KB at the family home - and that the whole family had abused the benefits system for their own financial advantage.24.AB was represented and able to attend court throughout the hearing, but I take into account the difficulty for her of answering detailed questions about a large volume of material and the stress involved in having to talk about her vulnerable daughter’s rape. Naturally, this was distressing for her and breaks were taken to allow her to recover her composure when that was required. Generally, however, she was composed and able to answer the questions from and on behalf of the other parties. She was angry about GH’s actions and his allegations against the family. She maintained that she had properly employed JK and GH as carers for KB but that GH was never involved in any personal care and that she had never allowed GH to spend any time alone with KB. She remained mystified as to how the rape could have occurred. Her sole interest had only ever been in KB’s best interests and she tried to remain positive at all times so as not to distress KB. She had founded the Church in which she remained heavily involved. She felt that Direct Payments should have been made to provide for 24 hour care for KB. She managed the Direct Payments properly with the help of an accountant. She wanted to be able to look after LB within the family. In many ways AB is an impressive woman who has provided care for KB within the family for over thirty years, as well as bringing up CD and EF largely alone, and who has founded and run the Church. However, whilst unfailingly courteous, she was frequently evasive in her evidence. She resisted scrutiny of her financial affairs and her dealings with GH and sought to justify conduct which could not be justified. Just as she had tried to hide her relationship with GH from authorities in the past, so she tried to conceal her dealings with him by failing to answer questions put to her at the hearing.25.Although the Local Authority did pay for some modest legal fees for CD and EF to receive advice, they were not legally represented at the hearing and had the difficult task of preparing their cases in a sensitive and document-heavy case largely without legal assistance. I pay tribute to the way they conducted themselves during the hearing, remaining dignified and courteous throughout. They understandably shared their mother’s hostility towards GH. I take into account that they too had the difficult task of answering questions related to their sister’s rape. Nevertheless, EF was often evasive when answering questions in cross-examination. He was reluctant to give direct answers and sometimes his evidence had to be extracted from him by repeated questioning. CD was more forthcoming and, I found, more open and honest during her evidence. Both CD and EF tended to be very defensive of their mother, trying too much to excuse her conduct. For example, AB had clearly not been open with the police and social services about her relationship with GH – she had not told the police that they were married and she had referred to him as KB’s uncle in discussions with a social worker – but CD and EF sought to excuse this by questioning the police officers’ attitude and saying that the term used by AB was an affectionate name for a senior male in a social group. That may be so, but it did not explain their mother’s failure to declare that he was her husband. Perhaps because CD was the last witness to give evidence and there was a long break before she gave her evidence on the last date of the hearing, she was more open than her mother and brother had been having had more time to reflect on the evidence previously given. She admitted that the proceedings had demonstrated that the family members had not known each other as well as they had assumed, that there had been compromises and that they needed now to ensure that things were done properly in relation to KB’s care. It appeared to me that CD accepted that AB had kept information from her and EF, for example about her relationship with GH. This was something to which EF had also alluded during his evidence, at least in relation to GH’s treatment of his mother. Whilst CD remained overly defensive of her mother, she answered questions directly, she became more open, and I found her generally to be a credible witness whose evidence was mostly consistent with the documentary and other evidence in the case.26.Throughout the hearing I was struck by the genuine love and affection that CD and EF had for their sister, KB. EF has been less involved than CD in KB’s care, but his affection and willingness to support her was still strong. CD has built a career as a healthcare professional and whilst forging that career she has not had as much time as she would otherwise have enjoyed to be with and care for KB. However, she demonstrated a deep understanding of KB and a deep bond with her. AB too is obviously a loving mother but she has allowed her own sense of entitlement to lead her to dishonest and self-serving practices as I set out in my evaluation of the evidence below.