Case No. ZE22C50109

74.Ms Cheetham told me during submissions that the guardian had been impressed by the mother’s obvious attunement to the children. So was I. In the Family Court, where sadly many parents have experienced trauma that affects their ability to create secure attachments in their children, it is sometimes easy to forget what ordinary good quality parenting looks like. It was obvious from the mother’s evidence (and that of the supporting lay witnesses) that in the weeks following S’s birth the mother was completely, and delightedly, absorbed in her children. Her evidence was in no way rose-tinted: she described the tiredness, the challenges of juggling the needs of a toddler and a baby, and having to learn new strategies for this when previously she had only needed to focus on one child. But it was also clear from all of the evidence that she was enjoying the challenge: “in her element” was Mrs O’s description of her. 75.From the submissions made by all parties, I gathered that all professionals involved in this case find it difficult to imagine this mother doing anything deliberately to hurt either of her children. Again I agree. By that I do not mean to exclude the possibility of a sudden loss of control, which even a loving and attuned parent may be susceptible to. What is more significant, in my view, is that I am very confident that if this mother had known or suspected that S had suffered an injury she would not have left him without medical attention, and would immediately have sought help, regardless of the consequences for her or anyone else. 76.The father was less overtly emotional in the witness box but his love for both his children, his pride in them, and his fervent wish to be as good a father and partner as he possibly could were all evident. It was similarly difficult to imagine him countenancing a situation in which he knew his newborn baby had suffered injury, but took no steps to obtain help. 77.The local authority explored with the father some evidence suggesting that he is a person who likes routine. In a special guardianship assessment the paternal grandmother described him as “particular”. Both parents agreed that they valued predictable household routines: they plan meals in advance, alternate cooking and various other household tasks, and enjoy the stability this gives them. However I have found no evidence to suggest that the father (or for that matter the mother) has ever reacted disproportionately to a disruption in routine, and indeed the fact that they both clearly adjusted very well to becoming parents to T suggests an ability to be flexible when needed. 78.I recognise that a person’s demeanour in the witness box can be an unreliable guide to credibility and have put little weight on it in this case. My observations about each parent’s credibility are based on the content of their accounts, given both from and outside the witness box, and not on the way in which they presented. 79.I am satisfied at the very least that the vast majority of what the parents have told me is truthful. Their accounts are coherent; they make sense when read alongside each other and fit with accounts given previously by each of them, and by the other lay witnesses. They are however not too coherent, in that they contain slight differences consistent with differing recollections and with the fluctuations of memory over time. Each parent has gone back and revised some of the more peripheral aspects of their accounts when they have noticed an inaccuracy. The way in which their accounts have evolved is not consistent with a manufactured, false presentation. 80.For these reasons and others I think there has been no collusion between the parents. I have had the conduct of this case since these proceedings were issued; I have taken note of how the parents have conducted themselves in court, how and when their evidence has been produced, and how they have responded as the medical evidence has come in. I have also gathered information about their family life and how their relationship works from the documentation, including the evidence and assessments of family members, and the medical notes including the family support worker notes over the period when S was in hospital and the parents were closely observed. I do not think these parents would have been able to manage a shared guilty secret over such a long period of time. It would, I think, have torn them apart. In fact one of the lay witnesses said that the experience of the past year, horrific as it has been, has strengthened their relationship and “gelled” them together. 81.Both parents from time to time gave answers to questions that went against their interest. For example, at the outset of his evidence the father corrected an estimated time-frame he had given for leaving the children alone in the living-room on 22 April 2022, from “5 to 10 minutes” in his witness statement, to no more than three minutes. The reduction in the time estimate potentially limited the father’s exposure to the local authority’s allegation of neglect, but a far more significant potential adverse consequence for him was that it reduced the time available for T to fall and land on S, and therefore weakened the likelihood of the injuries having occurred unnoticed on this occasion. 82.Throughout these proceedings the parents have passed over opportunities that have arisen for them to bolster or strengthen their case. A significant concern for the medical experts has been the parents’ failure to identify any occasion when S’s injuries could have been caused accidentally. It would have been easy for them, as the evidence developed, to suggest that they had on reflection remembered an occasion when S screamed more loudly than usual during the night; or for the father to say that when he returned to the living room on the evening of 22 April S’s crying was louder than when he had left. Even an innocent parent might well feel a temptation in the circumstances of this case to embellish or exaggerate their evidence. These parents have not done so. 83.There is one final small, but perhaps significant, point in favour of the parents’ credibility. During S’s time in hospital, the mother stayed with him and the local authority put in place arrangements to ensure that he was constantly supervised by a family support worker. During this period the police and/ or the local authority asked the parents to put together a timeline of events leading up to the hospital admission. It is clear from the FSW notes that the parents worked on this document together, in the presence of various family support workers. They did not need to do that: there were times when the mother left S to be watched by a FSW and, for example, went to the cafeteria to spend time with the father and T (who was not allowed on the ward). If there had been any intention to deceive, either or both could have taken steps to ensure that the timeline was prepared in private, without a third party listening in. They did not. 84.From the parents’ evidence alone I cannot exclude the possibility that somewhere in the evidence of one of them there is one big lie; but if it is there, it is isolated, and the rest of what they have told me (subject to the expected variations due to the fallibility of memory) is true.