Case No. SA21C50004

14.The fact-finding judgment and the subsequent assessments of MX and FZ had identified the risk or likelihood of harm as follows; this is a precis only and it is not exhaustive, reference should be made to the previous judgment and the assessments (the assessment of Dr White is dealt with below) for full details.i)FZ was physically and emotionally abusive towards A, B, C and D.ii)FZ was physically and emotionally abusive towards MX in front of the all the children including F.iii)MX failed (was unwilling or unable or both) to protect the children or herself from that harm.iv)MX put her own need to maintain her relationship with FZ before the needs of her own children, including the infant F.v)MX put defending and protecting FZ before the needs of her own children, including the infant F.vi)MX’s prioritised her relationship with FZ to the extent that she allowed him to move in and to become involved in the children’s lives within weeks of ending of her relationship with their father FX.vii)MX and FZ have consistently and repeatedly denied all the complaints by the children, have openly disbelieved them, effectively call the children liars and did not listen to what the children said.viii)MX and FZ have continued to say that the children are lying.ix)MX and FZ have failed to accept any except the most limited responsibility for the significant harm caused to the X children and F throughout the proceedings and have continued to do so after judgment was given.x)MX and FZ sought to blame the children, including singling out a child from another family, for the proceedings and the involvement of the social services in their lives and continue to do so.xi)MX’s failure to protect the children extended and extends to the maternal family (specifically but not only Mr AS and Mrs S (MX’s sister) with whom FZ has lived from time to time since 2021. The maternal family unconditionally support MX’s narrative of events and exacerbated the significant emotional harm suffered by the children.xii)Self-evidently the risk of future harm is not ameliorated by the almost total refusal to accept the findings of the Court (Cf the reports of Dr White and Ms Carboni referred to in this judgment). In essence MX has only made one limited admission that the children were likely to have been scared on occasion by shouting in the household.15.It is the guardian’s view and one with which the Court agrees that if F were to live with her mother, as MX does not accept the findings about FZ, her extended family or herself, she cannot be relied upon to provide F with a coherent or accurate narrative as she grows up nor will she assist F understanding the reasons her siblings do not live with her nor provide accurate reasons for why FZ’s involvement in her life is to be limited. It is highly likely that the maternal family will continue to collude with MX’s false narrative as they did throughout these proceedings. This is bound to have long-term emotionally harmful effects for F, who will not only grow up believing that her siblings are liars who have lied about her mother and her father, but will also be taught to approach all those in authority with hostility and suspicion, affecting her ability to engage positively with wider society as she grows up. F is likely to suffer significant emotional harm, affecting her ability to make and maintain successful relationships both in her private and public life.