Case No. SA21C50004

45.In January 2023 I found that once again both MX and FZ were at times belligerent when giving evidence, just as they had been in the previous hearing. Although some hostility is understandable it is of concern that they have moved on so little since the Court handed down the fact-finding judgment. MX contradicted herself both in her oral evidence and in respect of the written evidence filed on her behalf; this too is congruent with her oral evidence at previous hearings. As in the fact-finding hearings FZ again disassembled, was aggressive and repeatedly tried to prove points which he considered provided “proof” that others were in the wrong or lying but refused to see, or could not see, that his points did not withstand scrutiny. In her evidence MX did, at times, try to distance herself from FZ but the fact remains that in all the essential matters MX continued to repeatedly and continually take FZ’s part. 46.Based on her own evidence during the fact finding hearing it was found that MX had implicitly and explicitly approved of FZ’s “parenting” of the four older children, describing FZ as “strict” but imposing “routines” within the household although there was no evidence of anything amounting to routines and still less any evidence of how they might have benefited the children. MX demonstrated her inability to parent empathetically by her failure to consider the impact of her decisions or actions from the children’s standpoint, particularly in respect of her relationship with FZ. MX did not see, or deliberately chose to overlook, the fact that to the children FZ was not their parent or step-parent but a stranger who she had allowed to move in within weeks of their own father leaving home; and that this stranger was allowed by their mother to shout at them, threaten and abuse them. To the children, their mother had permitted a stranger to take over in their home and to control everyone by imposing his rules. 47.MX failed, even in the most basic way, to prepare her children for someone moving in. She had also allowed him to upset the household and take control by using abusive, harsh and intimidating behaviour. Even at the most basic level, FZ betrayed his lack of tolerance and ability to care for children. As A described to the police in an interview in August 2020, FZ did not like it when the children made a noise and would get angry; it should be obvious to anyone that four children of varying ages living together will naturally make a noise. From the outset of their relationship and since, MX has demonstrably put her need to maintain a liaison with FZ above and before the needs of her children.48.In her written evidence, MX claimed to accept parts of the judgment but as submitted on behalf of the Local Authority, the reality of her position was summarised by Dr White “[MX’s] acceptance and acknowledgement of the Findings [sic] is limited. She demonstrated a superficial level of insight into the concerns of the Court, and put forward a view that she could only base her thinking on what she had lived experience of”8. I find that in her oral evidence MX maintained this stance by refusing to accept anything else that others say or have experienced unless she can say that she has immediate experience of the matter herself; thus MX chooses not only to avoid accepting facts she finds unpalatable but also to accuse her children of lying. In this way and by emotional manipulation in attributing abusive behaviour to FX and not FZ, she has not and does not listen to her children, denying them any parental empathy or emotional support for the physical, emotional and psychological harm they have suffered. MX compounds this harm by refusing to take any real responsibility, even in part, for the fact that the children have been separated not only from her but from each other and placed in foster care as a direct consequence of her parenting.49.From their evidence and even in their presentation at court MX and FZ appear to be a couple, and in their separation it is clear that MX and FZ were and are motivated by the external factor described in this judgement. When they say that they have separated physically and emotionally it is because they know that they had to say that in order for F to stay with MX. That external motivation was the sole reason that FZ moved out of MX’s home in the first place; certainly MX saw no reason for him do so associated either with the Local Authority’s concerns at the time or that facts as found by this Court subsequently. During her oral evidence MX confirmed that she had said to Dr White9 that FZ was and is an amazing father. In all her evidence to me MX has struggled to say anything negative about FZ and it is clear that she continues to support him emotionally and financially (see below). I find that MX and FZ remain emotionally dependent on each other, and it is a fact that they continue to be financially interdependent. 50.In fact and in reality this is a couple who have never wanted to separate nor understood any real need to do so. They pursued a case for the joint care of F until they had no choice but to give that position up after the evidence of Dr White and the Court’s observations on that evidence. Both MX and FZ deny that the motivation for separation was external and claim it was because it was in F’s best interests but both were quite unable to give examples or any explanation of what those best interests may be. They are unable to demonstrate any understanding of why it is necessary and in the interest of their child’s welfare to separate. Indeed when taken as a whole the actuality of their evidence is that FZ poses no risk and that there is no risk or likelihood of harm to F in the short, medium or long-term. It was, as was submitted by the Local Authority, telling that neither MX and FZ were unable to describe to the Court the content of their discussions in September 2022 leading up when their counsel told me that they had separated. If they really had ended their relationship, I find it impossible to accept that they would not have been able to describe at least some of their conversations leading up to their separation, particularly how they had articulated the need to terminate their relationship in the context of what was best for F.51.It is the evidence from the social worker that the day after the decision to separate, MX told her and F’s guardian that the couple intended to remain friends and that they may go to the bingo together in the future. At the time MX appeared to suggest that the decision may have been FZ’s which gave rise to concern about his need to control. In September 2022, I had made it clear to both MX and FZ that the Court would need clear evidence of separation if F were to remain with her mother in the long term.52.I have already referred to the opinion evidence set out in Tracy Carboni’s report above and specifically her view that without work or a credible separation, a ‘Resolutions’ programme would simply be “containing” the risk with no clear ending and that “is then a clear risk of the parents reunifying further down the road in my view, and this could be months or even years ahead given the fact that they have not undertaken any work to date. I agree therefore that their motivation is primarily externally located and the risk still unchanged…” and later she said “If the parents are separated, this is too soon for me to have confidence that the separation will be enduring…”. As it is the evidence of both MX and FZ that they deny both that the abuse found took place and that there is any risk of further abuse, Ms Carboni cautioned that “the function of denial in coercive control and most forms of domestic violence is linked to ongoing risk. This is due to distorted thinking, impulsiveness, lack of empathy etc and this risk requires specific work”. This cautionary view is one that cannot be overlooked as there is ample evidence of distorted thinking and a lack of empathy in this case on the part of both MX and FZ.53.The Local Authority and F’s representatives submit that there is no objective and/or independent evidence of separation and point to the fact that MX is in regular contact with FZ. It appears that they are in contact most days, and although MX denied it was every day, it was the social worker’s evidence that in October 2022 (when F had been unwell) MX had said she contacted FZ every day. At the time F was kept off nursery school but the school was not informed by MX about the reason for her absence. Nor did MX tell the social worker although F was at home under an interim care order meaning MX shared parental responsibility with the Local Authority. MX has had the benefit of experienced family public law lawyers throughout; it is inconceivable that MX did not know this and was unaware, as she claimed in evidence, that she had to keep the social worker informed about what was happening to F. MX said that she only told FZ as the social worker would fail to do so; this is clear evidence of her antipathy towards the Local Authority and of her inability to work with or engage with social services. Her own evidence about the reason she told FZ was simultaneously negated by the fact that the social worker could not fail to share information with FZ if she had not been given it in the first place. This is but one example of when MX, in her determination to put the Local Authority in the wrong, undermines her own evidence and so puts her credibility in question. The same can be said of the evidence of FZ.54.The fact that MX and FZ have never separated financially, they continue to make a joint claim for universal credit, supports a finding that they remain in a relationship. I reject their evidence that all the staff they spoke to who worked in the Department of Work and Pensions (DWP), Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) or the Mental Health Team advised them as service users to continue a joint claim for benefits from the same address (a requirement for a joint claim) in the knowledge of a permanent separation. The DWP have confirmed, in writing, that the department was not informed of any separation in respect of their benefit claim in a written response to the order of the Court. Even if it were likely that one of the officials that they spoke to in the CAB or in Mental Health services suggested that they continue making a false claim (as on their evidence they are not living together) I do not accept that every official they spoke to advised them to pursue a fraudulent claim.55.In any case both MX and FZ were well aware, as I had told them so in September 2022, that they would be required to demonstrate to the Court that they had, in fact, separated. To continue to make a joint claim for benefit is factual evidence of the contrary. MX gave detailed evidence that the authorities and officials had been told and knew about her separation from FZ and I reject her evidence. I have been reminded and remind myself that people lie for a myriad10 of reasons and that both MX and FZ may be lying because they have committed an offence; while that is something I keep in mind, in the context of this case in the Family Court I find that it is more likely than not that they have both lied about their joint claim because they do remain in a relationship and that it is evidence that they are more likely than not to return to living together as soon as they consider it to be safe to do so once proceedings are over, if they have not already done so.56.In respect of the relationship between MX and FZ there is very little evidence that they have in fact emotionally separated and the objective evidence is that they remain partners; that they are a couple. While I accept that it is likely FZ has not lived with MX full time since he moved out in February 2021 (when F was about eighteen months old), I do not accept that he has never visited or stayed overnight. When questioned about their separation MX intimated that as they had not lived together since then their relationship was effectively coming to an end by September 2022. There was absolutely no evidence of that at the September hearing. Indeed at that stage it was her case that they wished to care for F together; this is another contradiction in her evidence which undermines her credibility. While MX denied the possibility of them living together again, FZ was noticeably evasive about it and became agitated, refusing to answer questions put to him about moving back in with MX in the event that F is placed elsewhere. 57.It is FZ’s case that he has mostly lived or stayed overnight at the address of AS and has done so between February 2021 and up to a few weeks prior to the final hearing in January 2021. FZ was very vague about where and with whom he had been living at other times; at times argumentative, FZ avoided or refused to answer questions about this and I found his evidence wholly unconvincing. He must know where and with whom he has stayed and slept even if he cannot remember the precise dates and time. From the information he has actually given the Court it is evident that FZ’s closest links in the area are with the maternal family, and with AS and MX’s sister in particular; he clearly remains caught up in their narrative of events and they in his. 58.There is other objective evidence that MX and FZ still consider themselves to be a couple and in a relationship, certainly on the part of FZ. From his GP records it emerged that FZ has very recently (and certainly since September 2022) told his GP that he remains in a relationship with MX referring to “my partner”. His explanation that this was West Country slang and referring to his “live in partner [AS]” is frankly ludicrous; the GP notes seen by the Court were, both in context and detail, clear to any reader. Specific reference is made to FZ living with his partner’s sister and brother-in-law (AS and his wife), a further reference is to FZ living with his partner’s sister; and the notes say that social services have taken four children away from him and his partner. It was recorded that he said he had shown his partner his injuries after he jumped off a bridge on the M4; and that a decision is to be made if his daughter stays with him or not; the note does not read if F stays with MX alone but specifies it is with FZ.59.There is also evidence from police records is that FZ has been found in the road in which MX lives and was still abusing alcohol in the summer of 2022. FZ involved himself in an incident concerning MX and her neighbour. At the time even the neighbour knew that FZ was not supposed to be at the address because of child protection concerns. FZ is adamant that he did not go to or enter MX’s home. MX says it was late in the evening and F would have been in bed and anyway she did not see FZ. While it is true to say that FZ was not prohibited from using the road as a thoroughfare he had no legitimate business there. If, as he claims, he had moved out and did not live with MX then whatever had happened between her and the neighbour was not his business. Even if he chauvinistically thought that it was, there cannot be even the slightest suggestion that his going there would have assisted MX or F; indeed being found there would have put F’s placement with MX in jeopardy which undoubtedly contributed to the fact that neither of them told social services about the incident, effectively lying by omission. Either he went there that evening to involve himself in a dispute concerning MX to control the situation or he was already there when the dispute arose. 60.In her evidence MX remained sympathetic to FZ’s view that lies have been told about him, that he has been picked on and made out to be a bad person and a monster. Despite her protestations during her oral evidence that FZ’s actions and his evidence and views have nothing to do with her, the fact is that there is little if anything to distinguish the case put by MX to that of FZ. It is noteworthy that it was counsel for FZ that most pressed assiduously for an injunction by way of mitigation of risk as this was despite FZ’s own evidence that he did not pose a risk and had no intention of returning to MX’s home. It was, if not disingenuous, misleading to urge on the Court injunctive relief as mitigation which would be capable of effectively removing the risks of harm already identified and the likelihood of harm to F in the future emanating from FZ. Injunctions do not provide protection per se; to have forced the person to be protected would actively assist the authorities in enforcement by reporting any breach or attempted breach. I find that there is little or no evidence to support MX’s assertion that she would do so and that, taken as a whole, the evidence is that it is more likely than not that she would not. There was a total absence of any evidence that FZ would self-report; FZ did not give any evidence to that effect nor did he say in his evidence that he would consider a court order to be a deterrent. 61.In respect of other aspects of his evidence, FZ has consistently denied causing harm or being the perpetrator of any abuse; instead, he attempts to portray himself as a victim of falsehoods and even a conspiracy on the part of the authorities to label him unfairly as a violent pariah. Although at the end of the fact finding hearing FZ had accepted that the harm suffered by F and the likelihood of harm suffered related to emotional harm and the impairment of her social, emotional and psychological development, he did not and does not accept that the definition of harm in relation to F should include physical harm. In his most recent evidence there was, if anything, a reversal of what he had accepted previously; nothing he said demonstrated any insight into the risk of harm that he might pose in respect of his daughter.62.FZ has repeatedly and consistently failed to be open and honest with the Court or the Local Authority. It was only after the receipt of positive drug tests that he accepted that he used amphetamine fairly regularly, but only during the 95 days (prior to 29th January 2021) covered by the chemical analysis, and that his substance abuse was likely to have impaired his ability to meet the emotional, psychological and physical needs of any child in his day to day care. Prior to being tested he had denied using drugs at all; after the test results and in his oral evidence, FZ sought to minimise and dismiss the results. His limited acceptance that he was only abusing drugs during the time for which the Court had test results was contrary to the evidence of members of his own family who described FZ’s amphetamine abuse as going back many years. Thus taken as a whole the evidence before this Court is that he is unlikely to come clean over any breach of a protective order so reducing any possible mitigation to the risk he poses that such an order might have provided. 63.In my previous judgment I found that in his oral evidence FZ was avoidant, dissembled and was at times aggressive and now find that the manner in which FZ gave evidence in January 2023 was strikingly similar as was his tendency to self-pity and attempts to manipulate and elicit sympathy for his situation, and I find that this was calculated to deflect attention from the safeguarding issues which arose from his conduct and behaviour towards others.64.While FZ no longer puts himself forward as a joint carer for F, he wants weekly contact if she lives with her mother and he said he accepts that contact would have to be supervised by someone other than MX. Be that as it may, FZ has refused to take up any contact with F at the contact centre since December 2022. Once again it was because of his own needs rather than F’s as he said that it was because he found it too distressing for himself and because he did not trust the contact centre workers not to share information he considered to be adverse to his interests. His decision is at once based on self-pity and a complete lack of consideration for F and what is in her best interests. It also undermines any assertion on his part that he would be willing to co-operate with that or any other contact centre or be any more accepting of supervised contact in the future. His self-centred and self-pitying approach to contact right at the time when a final decision is about to be made in respect of his daughter is redolent of his stark need to manipulate and his histrionic approach is evidence of his inability to empathise with his daughter and to put his own needs first as well as his predisposition to blame others, particularly those in authority, for his behaviour and the situation in which he finds himself.