Case No. SA21C50004

33.In my previous judgment I found that the significant harm suffered by the children was compounded by the conflict between the families of MX and FX; the hostility between members of the extended families particularly emanated from the family of MX and included the maternal grandparents, the children’s maternal aunts and uncles (especially AS) which in turn incrementally increased the level of distress caused to the children. There is no evidence to indicate that that conflict between MX’s family and FZ and their hostility to social services and professionals or anyone who is not seen as being on their side has dissipated. As FZ continues to live with MX’s sister and her husband AS (who was found to over-involve himself with the proceedings to the detriment of the children) it is plain that AS must support FZ’s version of events or FZ would not have remained a constant visitor. 34.Further, as was abundantly clear from the recent oral evidence of MX, she remains embroiled in the inter-familial hostility and her antipathy towards FX has not diminished, as she complained repeatedly about what she perceived to be partial treatment by the Local Authority in respect of his involvement in B recently absconding from foster care. Such was the level of her antipathy that MX considered it to be a legitimate excuse for failing to take F to nursery the following day. MX demonstrated little or no insight into the fact that she had chosen to put her hostility to FX before the needs of the child who had remained in her care and that her decision was detrimental to Fs welfare.35.The Court has found that MX is, to use Ms Carboni’s term, a risky parent. The extent of the emotional damage caused to F’s older siblings by inadequate parenting on the part of MX included the undoubted harm caused to A’s and B’s education as both A and B missed schooling. In B’s case, the fact that she missed the entire first year of secondary school year was found to be largely attributable to MX who had accepted she had the day to day care of B; yet in her oral evidence in January 2023 she again revisited all the arguments she had used in 2021 which were dismissed in my previous judgment and, for example, again tried to blame Covid-19 rather than accepting that she had failed to enrol B in a secondary school in September 2019. All the children suffered emotional harm while in the care of MX and their father (FX) and further emotional abuse and physical harm and the risk of physical harm when in the care of MX and FZ.36.To consider F’s welfare now and in the longer term it is necessary to remind myself of all the emotional and psychological harm which was suffered by the X children; they continue to suffer its consequences and A and B will undoubtedly carry those consequences into adulthood, in addition to which the harm to their education means each has been denied the opportunity of reaching their full potential. A as the oldest has had the most manifestly damaging childhood because it was already evident at the fact-finding hearing that he had not only missed out on schooling, he had also suffered abusive treatment from a very young age because of what his parents had decided was his difficult behaviour. Not only did FX single him out at home, he also had little or no support at home from MX either with his schooling or the other developmental difficulties as a result of which A developed a language impairment. Dr P, the clinical and forensic psychologist who assessed him, highlighted A’s missed schooling and reported that his specific language impairment seems to have resolved but that A had a residual stammer. A remains a very vulnerable and damaged young person.37.B was described by Dr D, the clinical psychologist who assessed her, as presenting with significant psychological difficulties, including depression, anxiety and the symptoms of trauma. According to Dr D, B exhibited an ambivalent attachment style when she feels overwhelmed and her behaviour serves to communicate her distress (referred to more colloquially as acting out). B has a borderline learning disability which has not been assisted by missing the entirety of her first year at secondary school. Although this was accepted by MX during the fact-finding as I referred to above, in January 2023 MX once more made excuses and tried to blame others and Covid for this missed first year of secondary school. In my previous judgment I found that it was likely that MX found it useful to have B available to assist with child care.38.Both A and B were placed by the adults and their extended family at the centre of the inter-familial conflict. FX’s longstanding antipathetic parenting of A (which had been tolerated, if not condoned, by MX) undoubtedly led to his taking B’s ‘side’ and led to the irreparable breakdown in the relationships between A and his father and within the sibling group. MX was ambivalent at best in her parenting of A and B at a crucial point in their development as adolescents, during which she also repeatedly failed to protect both from the aggressive and abusive behaviour of FZ after he moved in, and allowed him to assume a premature paternal role which was antipathetic to their needs and demonstrated beyond question her determination to put her relationship with FZ before the needs of her children. Further, there is evidence from the Local Authority that A has recently been told by about issues which have arisen in F’s case either by his mother or members of the maternal family. Not only is this inappropriate and unfair to A, it is indicative of MX’s continued need to recruit others to her cause regardless of whether or not it is appropriate or, in A’s case, in her already damaged son’s best interests. It is further evidence that MX continues to put her own needs and concerns before those of her children.39.Although C was only 9 at the time the incidents leading to the proceedings occurred, Dr D assessed C as being likely to have experienced parenting from his parents (MX and FX) and carers (FZ) that did not consistently meet his needs, resulting in “quite avoidant and independent attachment style”. Poignantly C had tried hard to look after his younger brother D. D was just over 6 years old when the proceedings started and Dr D reported that D spoke about being afraid of FZ which was consistent with his previously reported complaints to others, and said that D repeatedly recalled events which had been traumatic for him. D was traumatised by the behaviour of FZ, behaviour which MX did nothing to stop.40.F was only a baby of 12 months at the start of the proceedings; then as now F is vulnerable by reason of her youth and her dependency on the adults around her to keep her safe and secure. It is a matter of fact and common sense that F would have little memory of living with her older siblings or with FZ now as they had all left by February 2021 when she was only eighteen months old. It is unsurprising that reports from F’s nursery school that she has said FZ is sleeping in her home have alarmed her teachers and her social worker. I repeat now the finding that as an infant F would have been affected by the milieu in which she was being raised in the midst of FZ’s abusive and aggressive behaviour and her mother’s unwillingness or inability to protect her from it. It is now a matter of statutory law (Cf. s3 Domestic Abuse Act 2021) that domestic abuse is harmful (has an impact on) a child of any age who sees, hears or experiences the effect of the abuse regardless of whether or not it is directed at the child herself.41.It was largely as a result of four older children’s complaints to others about the abusive behaviour of FZ towards them and their mother that public law proceedings were commenced. The children said FZ was physically abusive to MX and to A in particular. As they had made clear in their complaints about FZ shouting at them, being verbally abusive and physically abusive both to them and their mother the two youngest boys were scared of FZ. Even so once again it was A was picked out for abuse and his complaints about FZ emerged not long after FZ had moved in during the summer of 2019; when back at school that September, A complained that FZ rammed his head into a wall. A had provided a written statement, said that FZ had gripped his arm in a separate incident and told the school that FZ drank alcohol every day.42.This abuse and the other abuse found by the Court is still denied by FZ and by MX, but the Court had found to the requisite standard of proof that (amongst other incidents) FZ threw a shoe rack at A when MX was in the way causing a cut to her finger; that FZ had physically assaulted A by shoving his head into wall; on another occasion FZ had grabbed A by the shoulders and pushed him through a door; and that the other children had seen FZ’s ill-treatment of A. The children had heard FZ shouting at MX and heard her screaming and they had seen him try to strangle her. They witnessed FZ smashing household items, including a plate which broke by baby F’s cot. 43.In addition to the physical violence, FZ was verbally abusive to the children and when he shouted at them he used threatening and derogatory language, swore at them and called them by abusive names and terms. All the children, including F who was present in the home, experienced FZ’s anger, his aggression and his emotionally unpredictable and volatile behaviour including threats to leave and to kill himself by jumping off a bridge. This threat was part of the coercive behaviour he used to control MX and her children. That threat has significance now because in January 2023 FZ told the court about an occasion in or around December 2022 when he had jumped off a bridge onto the verge of the M4 motorway, sustaining minor injuries for which he had sought no medical attention.44.The significant harm suffered by her children attributable to MX is set out and particularised in my previous judgment and includes findings of her repeated failure or inability to protect the children from FX and later FZ. In my judgment I considered and determined that the complaints of domestic violence and abusive behaviour in the MX/FZ household and the acts of domestic abuse against MX as perpetrated by FZ were witnessed by the children. This included F. During the fact-finding MX implicitly and explicitly accused her own children of lying and the fact is that she continues to do so, as does FZ. From her oral evidence in January, I have to conclude that MX displays a chronic lack of insight into the undoubted effects of her disbelief on her children. There is now evidence that MX has begun to take the same stance with F.