Case No. SA21C50004

65.There are reports from F’s nursery school which the Court cannot dismiss or ignore as they are pertinent to her welfare. It has been brought to the attention of the Local Authority by F’s nursery school that F told her school teacher that FZ (Daddy) sleeps in the same bed as her mammy and is there at night. The first occasion was on 18th November 2022, when F had been playing with furniture on a doll’s house she mentioned a few times “Mammy and Daddy's bed”. When she was asked who slept in the bed, F replied “Mammy and Daddy.” When asked where she slept, she pointed to another bed; she was asked where does Mammy sleep and F pointed to the double bed. When F was asked who slept in the bed with Mammy, F replied “Daddy.” F was then asked when she woke up in the night who gives you a cuddle, F replied “Daddy” and had then said and “Mammy.”66.The second occasion took place on 13th December 2022, when she had been drawing a picture of Mammy and Daddy she was asked where Daddy lived, F replied in "my house". She was asked where Daddy slept, F replied in "Mammy’s bed." 67.The Court was told on 6th February 2023 that F has subsequently said similar things about her father being in the house on two further occasions. Once to her social worker (CE) on 27th January 2023 when F said her father lived in her home, and the second time to the social worker (RM) on 6th February 2023 on a visit to her uncle and aunt’s home where F is living at present. RM did some ‘Words and Pictures’ with F designed to help F understand where she is and that she would still spend time with her parents. In RM’s statement dated 8th February 2023 (which has been filed and served) it is reported that during the words and pictures work F was asked “who lives in [F’s] house…”. F replied “Mammy and Daddy”. F was asked “does Daddy have a different house too?” to which she replied “no”. As the respondent parents have not had the opportunity of responding to or challenging the reports about 27th January and 6th February 2023 (they occurred after the welfare hearing), I do not rely on them in reaching my decisions below. 68.When she gave evidence, MX was asked about the earlier two instances in November and December 2022 when it is reported F had said FZ slept at her home. MX insisted that F was confusing the past with the present and it was only her memory of FZ being there before he had moved out two years previously. The Local Authority make the point in their final submissions that it is difficult to understand how F has any real memory of FZ in the household as she was just 18 months old when he left. I agree and I find it highly unlikely that she was confused or that it was an old memory. If FZ had left F’s home as he claims when she was still an infant and never returned, it would mean that she has spent the last two years without him being there, meaning that she had spent more of her life without his being there at all and there is little or no reason for any confusion. Secondly, her memories of seeing her father and being with him from those past two years would have been of spending time with him at a contact centre. Thirdly, it is most unlikely that a child would remember her parents sharing a bed at a time she was still only a baby. Finally, the questions that F was asked were open questions about what was happening now and in the present tense and F responded equally openly.69.Characteristically FZ’s response to this evidence was so say that it was all lies. He said that the school was colluding with the social worker who had told the school to report it. It remains unclear if he was saying that F had not said anything or that she had but was put up to it by her teacher at the behest of the social worker; in other words, he claimed F had been coached and was lying or that F was just lying or that it was only the social workers and the school that were lying. Whatever his case, it is evidence that he is predisposed to dismiss what his daughter is reported as saying and/or once again to accuse other people of lying when he does not like what F is reported to have said about him.70.The report from the school had emerged at a statutory LAC review on 22nd November 2022 at which both parents were present. Unfortunately, although circulated, the minutes of the meeting were not agreed but fortunately the guardian, who was present, had kept her own notes which were then put into evidence. There was some dispute about what was said and decided at the review, in particular MX said that it was she who had been tasked with undertaking some ‘words and pictures’ life story work with F. The social worker and the guardian both gave evidence to the contrary; their evidence was corroborated by the contemporaneous note made by the guardian. Those notes confirmed FZ’s aggressive and agitated response to what F was reported to have said, his denial of what has been said by F and his accusations of some kind of collusion between the school and social services. FZ has never proffered any salient reason for childcare professionals and teachers to collude and invent evidence other than in general and histrionic terms; that the authorities conspire against him and that they are all are determined vilify him and to pick on him.71.It is the Local Authority’s case that MX refused to have the words and pictures life story work carried out by the social worker and that MX had not been asked to conduct any such work herself. I find it is simply not credible that any Local Authority would task a parent with such work especially after that parent had previously been found by a court to have little or no ability to deliver a child-centred and impartial narrative to her children in the past; it would be a negligent act for the Local Authority to have done so. Secondly, I prefer the evidence of the social worker and guardian in respect of what was said at the meeting; the guardian took a note at the time and gave oral evidence which was wholly consistent with that note. The guardian’s evidence was measured and child-centred; neither she nor the social worker had or have anything to gain by telling me what they said had happened. Thirdly, despite MX having accepted that she is not qualified or trained carry out this kind of work, she set about doing so and she failed to consult or inform the social worker of her intention to do so. On the balance of probabilities, I find this could only be because she wanted to control the narrative and what F was saying at school. It is most unlikely that F could have volunteered the information about where her father slept out of a confused memory more than two years’ old when she is only 3 ½. 72.Although unlike FZ MX did not seek to deny that F has said what she had been reported as saying or suggest that there was some sort of conspiracy, I find her explanation that F was confused unconvincing. Furthermore, there is evidence that MX had deliberately set out to confuse the child herself so that she could influence any future disclosure by F or explain it away. I have seen the book setting out some two or three pages of ‘work’ that MX did with F. It provides evidence of MX’s determination to control F’s perception of home and misrepresents the history of what happened in F’s home and to her family.73.MX had depicted for and with F a ‘dream house’ in which all her immediate family including her siblings, F and FZ live. The term ‘dream house’ will have an obvious meaning to anyone including to a 3½ year old child. If this child has lived exclusively with her mother for the past two years it is deliberately misleading; if it was anyone’s ‘dream house’ it is MX’s. It is not F’s reality and betrays MX’s desire to influence and determine that what F says about home is what MX wants her to say. It is anything but child-centred and is, I find, detrimental to F’s welfare as it is a no more nor less than her mother’s attempt to control the narrative of F’s life. Furthermore, this unilateral decision by MX to undertake ‘work’ which cannot be said to be in F’s best interests has provided further evidence of MX’s unwillingness and inability to work collaboratively with the social services; even at a time an interim care order is in place and leading up to a final welfare hearing.74.When all the above evidence is taken as a whole, I do not accept that MX and FZ have separated emotionally or physically and find that it is more likely than not that FZ has stayed overnight at MX’s address when F has been there and visited frequently. Moreover, regardless of the number of occasions FZ has stayed it is abundantly clear that in reality MX and FZ still present as a couple and that they remain emotionally and financially interdependent; I further find that their relationship will have been evident to F and that she sees “Mammy and Daddy” as being together. 75.Even if the separation had been established as genuine it does not reduce the risk and likelihood of MX forming another inappropriate and harmful relationship; Dr White’s evidence was that in her view MX would struggle to be positively discriminating in choosing a partner because of her avoidant personality and that she is likely to accept any likely partner and take what he tells her at face value, rather than “digging beneath the surface and appraising her situation more rationally based on all of the evidence at her disposal”. 76.Taking all the evidence into account and on the balance of probabilities, I consider that it is more likely than not that MX and FZ have not separated in any real or permanent sense of the word. They were a couple in September 2022, have always remained a couple, and have always been emotionally and financially interdependent. MX and FZ have lied to the Local Authority and to the Court. ‘Separated’ is a word that can have different meanings but to make it as clear as possible I find that MX and FZ may have stayed in separate addresses from time to time and that it is likely that FZ did sleep and/or stay including overnight with AS and his wife MS occasionally but that was more than likely to have been precautionary, to avoid being found at MX’s address, and not because they had “separated” as a couple. On the balance of probabilities, I find that it is more likely than not that for the most part FZ has slept with MX in her bedroom and has been living with MX and F at MX’s address.