“That a tribunal's Lucas self-direction is formulaic, and incomplete is unlikely to determine an appeal, but the danger lies in its potential to distract from the proper application of its principles. In these circumstances, I venture to suggest that it would be good practice when the tribunal is invited to proceed on the basis , or itself determines, that such a direction is called for, to seek Counsel's submissions to identify: (i) the deliberate lie(s) upon which they seek to rely; (ii) the significant issue to which it/they relate(s), and (iii) on what basis it can be determined that the only explanation for the lie(s) is guilt. The principles of the direction will remain the same, but they must be tailored to the facts and circumstances of the witness before the court.”
“Recommendation/s 51. I respectfully recommend that a Child Arrangements Order is made for CS to live with her father. 52. I respectfully recommend that a Child Arrangements Order is made for DS to live with his father with a fortnightly long weekend with his mother, from Friday until Monday 53. I recommend that there is a Prohibited Steps Order granted preventing BS from removing DS from his father’s care, or from anyone he entrusts to care for DS or from school, apart from for the purpose of the spending time arrangements agreed by the Court. 54. That parents should be directed to complete the Separated Parents Information Programme (SPIP). 55. I recommend that the parents consider attending the online Freedom Programme. 56. I recommend that therapy takes place in accordance with Dr Willemsen’s recommendations (173 – 176, Report dated 4.10.2021). It should take place locally to be manageable for the children after school. 57. I strongly recommend that the proceedings are concluded as soon as possible as the high conflict litigation is, in my view, having an enormous strain on all members of the family and in particular the children in having decisions made for them.”
“This is a complex case of two children who have suffered in the care of their parents, and CS in the care of her mother. CS was able to describe how she felt she needed to live up to her mother’s demands and expectations and how she felt her mother was aggressive when CS did not want this, more so as she became older. As a child I think CS was able to adapt and be close to her mother but as she grew older, the overclose relationship caused CS to be violent to her mother, to free herself from her mother’s hold on her. It is the level of violence, from CS to the mother, that makes me consider that CS was not set up by her father to abuse her mother. The father does not carry that level of hatred for the mother. To assume the father would have encouraged CS to attack her mother can be seen as denigration of CS’s rage towards her mother. The father’s role has been one of a lack of protection, in that he did not intervene adequately between CS and her mother, to help CS separate from her. CS is angry with her father about this lack; she also appreciates him, loves him and sees him as the parent she can trust and hold on to. “DS suffered from the high levels of conflict between his parents but also from his mother pulling him into her difficulties with CS, as the videos provided clearly show. He may have suffered trauma. ... CS spoke openly about her experiences. She told me she had self-harmed and had suffered from suicidal ideation. She spoke about the rage she felt her mother had towards her; of her mother hitting her and her mother shouting at her. CS’s presentation was one of a subdued adolescent; not clinically depressed but one whose emotional presentation was concerning because she spoke in detail about her experiences albeit being emotionally inexpressive. ... The father recognises how important he is to CS describing himself as her ‘rock’. I think CS knows that her father loves her, but she is also angry with him for not fully acknowledging the harm she feels she has suffered in the care of her mother. She thinks that he does not always want to see what the mother is like. From the father’s account it is clear he has spent many hours with CS, talking to her, but also that he can find being available to her exhausting. ... CS’s experience of her mother is one in which she felt her mother was in control. Perceptively, she says that her mother needs to make her problems someone else’s. I will make the point that of this family system of four people, CS is the one who mostly thinks about the dynamics and processes emotional distress on behalf of her family.” ... The father’s narrative is that the mother is volatile with CS, and he relates CS’s experiences of her mother to his experiences of the mother, about which he spoke in detail in the interview and in his statement. The mother’s narrative is that CS is influenced by her father who is emotionally abusive and sets the children up to lie (DS) and to treat their mother the way CS does. In the local authority documents, which were provided, the mother is reported to have said at p.14: ‘This man is brainwashing the children. He is actively working with CS to give false testimony against me, it is a crime,’ and at p.15 she refers to him as: ‘... like an ISIS brainwasher for teenagers.’ Accordingly, CS’s behaviour towards her mother is the father’s infliction. The mother’s narrative, in my opinion, does not hold, for the simple reason that the mother’s explanation does not address the level of violence CS exhibits both to herself, by self-harm and suicidal ideation (her fantasies of killing herself are of an aggressive nature, such as killing herself with a gun, or hanging), and through the attacks on her mother.”
“DS has indicated that he wants to live with his father. When he was with his mother, he indicated he did not know if he wanted to live in between his parents, or whether he wanted to live with his father. At school, seen by himself, he said he wanted to be with his father, unprompted. DS is eleven years and six months old; his wishes and feelings are important to keep in mind. DS has found himself in difficult and complex family interactions, in which he was exposed to the volatility between BS and CS, and between the conflict between his father and his mother. DS spoke about his mother denigrating his sister, calling her ‘kak’, which the mother denied she had said. CS has spoken about her mother speaking about her father, and her, being abusers. DS made allegations he was physically harmed by his mother (see social services’ documents). One of the consequences of a recommendation that CS lives with her father is that DS spends less time with his sister. He may feel more excluded from his father’s life. I raised concerns about the parents’ inability to co-parent in light of the continued conflict between them but also about the very different understandings the parents have of the children’s behaviour. There are, however, concerning examples of the mother pulling DS into her conflict with CS, from which DS, at this stage, cannot be adequately protected. It is with these considerations in mind that I suggest DS lives with his father with a fortnightly long weekend with his mother, from Friday until Monday. ... I am not without concern about the mother’s behaviour and her need to pull the children into her conflict with the father, and the mother’s view that the father is the abuser without the mother being able to address her behaviour. I thought a great deal about there not being any contact at all, between DS and his mother, but that option appears to be harmful too, in that there are also good aspects of his relationship with her. I consider that once the financial and child proceedings come to an end, there might be less conflict, at least overtly, between the parents. ... The current prognostic indicators are poor due to mother largely seeing others as responsible for some of the difficulties she is facing. If the mother does not change, it may be difficult for CS to renew her relationship with her mother, which may then not take place until CS more fully understands her mother and is able to see clearly her mother’s difficulties as separate from hers. I have earlier set out my thoughts about DS’s contact with his mother. If the mother does not (sufficiently) change, there is a risk that DS will remain subjected to the mother’s behaviours which could cause him further emotional harm, by speaking to him about her thoughts about the father and CS, for example. Or by seeking information from him. DS might remain exposed to the mother’s conflict with the father but also to the mother’s demands of him, as DS alleged. Although the father does not need to sit in when DS has indirect contact, he needs to have access to DS’s phone, and at times may listen in to contact (FaceTime or similar) between DS and his mother.”
“I told [DS] I thought things had changed over the last few weeks; could he tell me about it. He said from October until the end of December 2021 he decided to live one week with dad and one week with mum. Then he decided to stay with his mother. ‘My dad is not very capable of learning [teaching] with me, he does not understand.’ In the weekends and in the holidays, he told DS not to do work, according to DS. DS said his father always lies about stuff. I asked him to give me an example. ‘If he took the last chocolate, he would lie about that.’ He said his father accuses him of things he did not know, like stealing money from his father’s credit card even when DS was not at his father’s house. DS thought his father said DS stole two hundred pounds and then he changed this to three hundred pounds. Then his father said, to his mother, that it was five hundred pounds. I asked him what DS had used the money for. DS was not sure, he said. He said he decided to stay with his mother because he can learn there; his father was also giving him pills which he was not supposed to give DS. They were green. DS had a migraine after his father gave him medication, or a day or two after his father gave him the medication. His father said it helped him digest better; it was a Wellkid tablet. DS never saw the box; he only saw the tablet. He did not see the box. It felt like the medication was making him dizzy. He had opened one, cracked it open and there was some white dusty powder inside; it tasted disgusting. ... In the meanwhile, DS now lives with his mother. He has not seen his father or his sister and there are no new arrangements for contact. In my view the way in which matters developed reflects and exposes the pathology that was identified in relation to CS. It seems very difficult to introduce a limit to the mother. There are no boundaries. ... The mother’s need to have CS close, something CS began to fight and resist, now repeats itself with DS. He, however, has an entirely different character from CS. He is more accepting, loves his mother, wants to appease her and seeks the route of the least resistance, not to be exposed to the high conflict between his parents. The mother’s pathology, as described in the first report, is once more exposed. ... I considered DS’s demeanour to be very concerning. He presented without much feeling or emotion and appeared to have adjusted to what has just happened to him. There were no feelings of loss or emotions reflective of transition. He spoke of the matters raised in the mother’s fourth statement, and was aware of his mother researching the internet to identify the medication he allegedly was given. He criticised his father, not firmly or with any sway, but rather seemed to parrot what he had heard. His criticism did not appear to have an emotional underpinning. I was concerned about the lack of separation between the mother’s concerns about the father and DS’s love for each of his parents. I was concerned DS could not express his love for his father, that his father was now portrayed as somebody who stole, was not reliable and could not be trusted (with his education, for example). I am concerned that DS is pulled into the conflict by his mother with the father once more not being sure how best to act. ... The recommendations I made have not changed. In fact, as is clear from my understanding of the events in the recent months, the court is now aware of what I consider to be a need for firm orders, or in any event an outcome that secures the children’s placement, in whatever form. I do not consider it safe for DS to have long weekends with his mother. I am of the view that the court will need to assess the risk the mother poses to the children, based also on the assessment of the harm each of the children, and CS in particular, suffered. My thinking verges towards considering a period of supervised contact between DS and the mother. The court should be under no illusion that I consider this case to be a very serious matter and understand that a fear for DS, even when placed with his father with unsupervised contact with his mother. The recent events have come across as a ‘mini-’abduction, and I have wondered to what extremes this mother will go to keep her children with her and continue her undermining of the father who cares for her children. This case is characterised by the determination of the mother, with a pathology that is largely self-serving, and the absence of adequately intervening father.”