A Local Authority v The Mother [2026] EWFC 126

This judgment was delivered in private. The judge has given leave for this version of the judgment to be published on condition that (irrespective of what is contained in the judgment) in any published version of the judgment the anonymity of the children and members of their family must be strictly preserved. All persons, including representatives of the media and legal bloggers, must ensure that this condition is strictly complied with. Failure to do so may be a contempt of court.[2026] EWFC 126Case No SE24C50424
IN THE FAMILY COURT
Date 22 May 2026
SITTING IN SHEFFIELD
Before
Mr Justin Warshaw KCsitting as a Deputy High Court Judge
Between
A Local AuthorityApplicantThe Mother1 st RespondentThe Father2 nd RespondentT3 rd Respondent
Lorraine Cavanagh KC and Helen Davey (instructed by the Local Authority) for applicantClaire Wills-Goldingham KC and Richard Veni (instructed by Sills and Betteridge Solicitors) for 1 st respondentJoseph O’Brien KC and Lance Dodgson (instructed by MKB solicitors) for 2 nd respondentSimon Bickler KC and Lucy Sowden (instructed by Howard and Co Solicitors) for 3 rd respondentHearing Hearing dates: 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 27, 28, 29, 30 April and 1, 5 and 6 May 2026
Approved Judgment.............................This judgment was handed down remotely at 2 pm on 22 May 2026 by circulation to the parties’ representatives by e-mail (having been circulated in draft on 15 May 2026).MR JUSTIN WARSHAW KCMr Justin Warshaw KC:
[1]This is a final hearing within public law proceedings relating to a 12 year old boy, named [“T”]. From his birth until early October 2024, T lived with his mother, [“M”], having infrequent contact with his father, [“F”], who had become estranged from M prior to T’s birth. M said that T was a very vulnerable child who suffered from Autism Spectrum Disorder, mobility issues and regularly soiled himself. On 7 October 2024, an order was made within private law proceedings for an interim care order under which T was placed with F. The order was made without notice to M. Since that date, which is now more than 18 months ago, T has not presented any of the symptoms described by M. He is a well-adjusted and happy boy, thriving both at school and in F’s care.[2]I must decide whether M fabricated or induced T’s symptoms and whether, in so doing, she caused significant harm to T. Once I have considered those issues, I will then consider what orders I should make for T’s future.[3]At the hearing, [“the LA”], was represented by Ms Lorraine Cavanagh KC and Ms Helen Davey, instructed by Ms Amanda White. M was represented by Ms Claire Wills-Goldingham KC and Mr Richard Veni, instructed by Ms Sarah Rowe of Sills and Betteridge Solicitors. Mr Joseph O’Brien KC and Mr Lance Dodgson appeared for F, instructed by Ms Lynn Baker of MKB Solicitors. T’s Guardian was represented by Mr Simon Bickler KC and Ms Lucy Sowden, instructed by Mr Jonathan Reece of Howard and Co Solicitors. I am indebted to all counsel in this case for the help they have given the court in their oral and written submissions and for the manner in which the hearing was conducted.

The threshold findings sought

[4]In support of their application, the LA have put forward a fourteen-page schedule of allegations and facts upon which the allegations rest. The allegations are broken down by the LA into six main heads as follows:a. That M has perpetrated factitious illness against T.b. That M has induced or fabricated soiling and constipation symptoms in respect of T.c. That M has fabricated Autism Spectrum Disorder Symptoms in T and behavioural issues.d. That M has made inappropriate use of a wheelchair/buggy and fabricated aetiology to justify that.e. That M has neglected T.f. That M in all such behaviours has caused significant emotional, iatrogenic and physical harm to T.[5]These are very serious allegations and, on their face, are likely to amount to significant harm. I will, of course, consider carefully the material before me before reaching any conclusions about the allegations and, if proved, the extent of the harm flowing from them.

Disposal and other applications

[6]It is agreed by all the parties that, regardless of my findings, T should continue to remain in the care of F under a ‘lives with’ order. In agreeing with this outcome, M is not tacitly conceding the allegations made against her but is acknowledging T’s wishes and feelings. I will in due course consider the appropriateness of such an order.[7]There is, however, an issue about contact between T and M. The Guardian, F and the LA all agree that contact should be supervised and take place once every two months. M does not agree. She seeks contact every month and would like it to be unsupervised. There is also an issue between M and F about who should pay the costs of supervision of contact and the costs of transporting T to contact. I will decide those issues.[8]In addition to considering these orders, I will be considering two applications made by F:a. To change T’s name by altering his surname, from a double-barrelled name which combines the surnames of M and F, to F’s surname alone and by removing T’s two middle names; andb. To make an order under s91(14) of the Children Act 1989 against M preventing her from making any further applications in respect of T without permission of the court.[9]The application made by F for a s91(14) order is supported by the Guardian and by the LA. They also support the change to T’s surname. The Guardian supports the removal of T’s middle names. The LA does not. The applications are opposed by M.

Fact finding – legal principles

[10]These are care proceedings. In order to decide whether or not the threshold of s31(2) of the Children Act 1989 has been crossed, the court must traverse a fact-finding exercise. The LA has set out the facts which, it maintains, cross the threshold. The burden of proving the facts it has pled rests upon the LA. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities, nothing more nothing less (see Re B (Care Proceedings: Standard of Proof) [2008] UKHL 35). Findings must be based on evidence, not on suspicion or speculation (see Re A [2011] EWCA Civ 12).[11]The LA must prove not just the primary facts, but also the causal link between any facts found and the risks alleged (see Re A [2016] 1 FLR 1 and Re L-W [2019] 2 FLR 278). Determining whether or not the facts alleged are proved must be based on a survey of the whole canvas of the evidence. Evidence cannot be evaluated and assessed in separate compartments. The court must have regard to the relevance of each piece of evidence to other evidence and to exercise an overview of the totality of the evidence in order to come to the conclusion whether the case alleged has been made out on the balance of probabilities (see Re T [2004] 2 FLR 838).[12]The court must pay appropriate attention to the opinion of medical experts, but that medical evidence must be considered in the context of all the other evidence. The judge decides the facts, not the medical experts (see County Council v K, D and L [2005] 1 FLR 851).[13]The evidence of the parents and carers of the child in question is of great importance and the court is likely to place great weight on their evidence and the court’s impression of it. The court must form a clear view of their credibility and reliability (see Re W and another (Non-accidental injury) [2003] FCR 346). In this context, the court must think carefully about the significance or otherwise of evidential discrepancies. They may arise for many reasons; they may be lies designed to hide culpability; they may be lies told for other reasons; they may arise from faulty recollection or confusion at times of stress; they may arise due to delay and repeated questioning (see Lancashire County Council v M and F [2014] EWHC 3 (Fam).[14]I remind myself that a witness may say false things for many reasons, including shame, panic, confusion, misplaced loyalty or fear. Before treating any lie as probative of central allegations, I must be satisfied that the lie was deliberate, related to a material issue, and cannot be explained by some other circumstance. The fact that a witness has lied about some matters does not mean that he or she has lied about everything (see R v Lucas [1981] QB 720 and Re A, B and C (Children) [2021] EWCA Civ 451).[15]To summarise, I remind myself that my factual decisions must be based on all the available material before and must be judged in context (see A County Council v A Mother & Others [2005] EWHC 31 (Fam) [2005] 2 FLR 129).

Witnesses and material

[16]I had before me about 5,500 pages of material contained on Case Lines, much of it contemporaneous medical and school notes. Some of the material relates only to the fact finding exercise and some only to the disposal exercise. Some of the material overlaps both exercises.[17]I heard live evidence from three experts:a. Dr Crawford, a consultant paediatrician, who was instructed as an SJE in the private law proceedings and the public law proceedings; in the latter, to review T’s medical records and consider evidence of perplexing presentations and factitious or induced illness and to opine on the likely impact on T’s emotional and physical health, in the event findings were made. She was also later instructed to report on whether or not T had failed to thrive in M’s care;b. Dr Burchess, an adult and consultant clinical psychologist with a specialism in autism, who was instructed as an SJE in the private law proceedings to conduct psychological assessments of F, M and T; andc. Professor Nathan, a consultant forensic psychiatrist, who was instructed as an SJE in the public law proceedings to undertake two assessments of M.[18]The three experts were of the highest calibre and in oral evidence amplified their reports. I will revert to the detail of their reports and oral evidence as necessary in due course.[19]The local authority called a number of witnesses to give oral evidence about factual matters including:a. a consultant paediatrician in gastroenterology, who had treated T. He had made a statement in the private law proceedings, setting out the consultations he had had with T. He listened to Dr Crawford’s evidence before he gave his evidence;b. a parent support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school which he attended until July 2025;c. a community continence nurse, who treated T;d. an independent social worker, who had produced parenting assessments for both parents;e. an occupational therapist, who gave evidence about a consultation she had with M and T; andf. the social worker with conduct of the case on behalf of the LA, who had authored the original s37 report and number of subsequent reports.[20]I will deal in due course with the content of that oral evidence in so far as it relates to matters which I must decide but I will say at this stage that all of the LA’s live witnesses were compelling and plainly doing their very best to tell the truth and assist the court.[21]In addition to the witnesses who gave oral evidence, the LA relies on written and unchallenged evidence in the form of statements from:a. the headmistress of T’s primary school which he attended until July 2025;b. a specialist nurse for children in care, who has had that role for T since he moved to live with F;c. a dental surgeon, who was T’s dentist and who extracted T’s teeth;d. the Team Manager of Parenting and Family Support whose department gave support to M in the community; ande. DWP officers. The LA also produced assessments from two occupational therapists. There are also a plethora of notes and letters from various clinicians, including T’s GP, both nurses at the GP surgery, another consultant paediatrician, a CAMHS nurse, and four of T’s health visitors. In addition, I was shown notes from the school authored by the primary school nurse, the primary school SENCO and the primary school counsellor. It is possible that I have missed out the authors of some of the material placed before me but I have taken all of it into account.[22]I will deal with that written evidence in due course in so far as it is relevant to the task in hand.[23]M called two of her adult children to give evidence, . Both were clearly uncomfortable giving evidence and both, were at times guarded in their answers. It seemed to me that at times they were both worried that they might say things which were adverse to their mother. Both witnesses plainly love and cherish T and appear devastated that neither has had contact with T since October 2024.[24]M also relied upon reports produced by a private company, CareGen, which diagnosed T with autism. These reports may have been formally adduced into evidence by the LA but I believe it right to identify them as forming part of M’s case. In addition, M adduced photographs which purport to show having T soiled himself at various dates and certificates from various parenting courses.[25]M gave oral evidence over three days. She is a vulnerable lady and special measures had been put in place which allowed her to be screened during the course of the hearing and during her evidence screens were set up to ensure that she was able only to see the front row in court. Initially, during the course of her oral evidence the court rose every 45 minutes for a 15 minute break. During the course of the first day, it was agreed that this could be extended to a 15 minute break every hour. The advocates who cross examined M have all had vulnerable witness training and I am satisfied that special measures put in place ensured that M had a fair trial and that her Article 6 rights were at all times properly respected.[26]I will later in the judgment address many specifics of M’s oral evidence and will remind myself appropriately before I do so of the case law to which I have alluded above. I will also give myself appropriate reminders when I consider the siblings’ evidence. At this stage, I will comment only in general terms about M’s evidence. I heard her evidence over three days and I found that evidence to be most unsatisfactory. On many occasions, when faced with uncomfortable questions, she simply stated that she could not recall or remember the answer. When contemporaneous accounts of her words (as recorded in school in medical records) were put to her, she often denied their truth. It is simply incredible that so many professionals would have mis-recorded her words.[27]F’s written evidence was not challenged by any party. I did not require him to enter the witness box and go through the formalities of tendering his written evidence, as it was agreed by all the parties that I should admit all that written evidence unchallenged.[28]The Guardian, was, in the usual way, the last witness to give evidence. She was not the original Guardian. Unfortunately, the original Guardian, took a leave of absence but has not returned to the office. She has plainly immersed herself in the detail of the case and has met with T and reported on his updated wishes and feelings.[29]Within the bundle of documents, I had material relating to the private law proceedings. This originally included only the material relating to enforcement proceedings issued by F in June 2023. During the course of the final hearing, CAFCASS documents relating to the initial private law proceedings which ran from late 2018 to September 2022 were provided to the court by the Guardian. They provided illuminating material relating to the interrelationship between the chronology of the medical records and events within the private law proceedings.

Background

[30]First, a little about T.[31]T is a healthy and thriving 12-year-old boy. In every aspect of his life, he is doing well, he has 100% attendance record at school and does well in tests there. T enjoys PE and plays for a football team. T has many friends and enjoys his hobbies with F including their shared interests in motorcycles and attending meetings with other enthusiasts. T has a good sense of humour, meets adults’ eyes when speaking and holds interesting conversations. F would say that when in his care T has always been like this. The parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school says he was always like this in school and that he was a model student, when he was there. The social worker, found that when T was with her alone, or away from M, he could hold good conversations, tell stories and hold eye contact.[32]The parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school said to me “…if we had a classroom full of T’s it would be lovely. He’s pleasant, polite. He has a lovely demeanour, helpful, an absolute pleasure to have in school never had any trouble from him at all.” The parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school told me that he was a good example to other children and she said “I put T in the group to befriend the new children - he helped them at lunch time, he took them into the dining hall, he sat them with him and T’s other friend – they are both lovely boys. T helped them showing them where the toilets were.”[33]T was described by his Guardian as a “really nice young man, very courteous, doing extremely well at school, lots of praise at school – star awards – doing exceptionally well at school, very bright, very studious.” T was described by the social worker when she met him at school for the first time as “…very chatty, great eye contact. He told me quite a lot about himself and his feelings and what he would like to do – chatty and confident.” When comparing T in M’s company and care with times when she has seen him since the move to F’s care she told me: “Yes, we see a different child – he has very good eye contact. T is doing very well at school, he is thriving, he proudly shows me his certificates, he goes to church youth clubs in the same church F goes to”.[34]T’s half brother, described himself ‘as so close to his brother’. He explained that T liked football and Xbox and playing games and that T would mock him when he was losing. He described him having a good sense of humour and that he would copy funny accents. They would play football for hours passing the ball until ‘the street lights came on’. T was described by his half-sister, as being fun and joking. She told me “Yes and he loved the snap chat filters….He would send them to us and he liked to use the filters on his face…He was laughing before he sent it”. T enjoyed weekends away with the family. They went to a lot of theme parks and his sister would go on rides with T which he enjoyed and they enjoyed doing that together. T would take her, hug her and sit close to her. They would go to the playing field together with his sister and her daughter. She said to me:
“Yes there is a field down my road near my Mums, yes we would play football take some of my child’s toys up, we would play tag and hide and seek.”
She described T playing with her daughter and quite a lot of times T would go after her if she ran off chasing her. He would hold her hand when she crossed the road. The sister was aware that T was quite an active boy he did PE in school and played tag in playground with his friends.[35]To summarise, T is confident young man who is thriving in F’s care. I will turn now to the history of this matter.

General history

[36]The bundle of documents presented to me at the start of the hearing contained a section of documents from the private law proceedings. This was bundle limited to material post dating F’s June 2023 application. It did not contain material from the when the proceedings began in late 2018 to the final order made in September 2022. During the course of the hearing, I was given a series of nine s7 reports (including addenda reports and an initial safeguarding letter). The material in those reports and key dates from a bundle of documents produced by M during the course of her oral evidence were incorporated into a separate chronology and the LA’s timeline of the case. I have found that material to be extremely helpful in understanding the case.[37]F and M met about a year or so before the conception of T. There is a dispute about why the relationship broke down. M alleges that F was controlling and abusive. F denies this. I am not asked to resolve that issue and do not intend to do so. Whatever the cause of the breakdown of the relationship, it was over before T’s birth.[38]At birth, T was healthy and described as being ‘in excellent condition’. He was born at 39 weeks weighing 3.47 kg. He had no abnormalities upon discharge from hospital. When born M registered his birth, choosing to register T’s surname as the name of her ex-husband. T was examined regularly by the health visitor and found to be developing well with good growth and weight gain.[39]During these first two years of T’s life, F told the CAFCASS officer in private law proceedings that he saw and spent time with T on only four occasions. For a three-month period at some juncture after that, F said he saw T four times a week but that, when M discovered that he was in another relationship, she stopped all contact until September 2017. Contact then resumed in September 2017 taking place inconsistently on Mondays and Fridays until July 2018, when it was stopped once again by M. I have no reason to doubt what he reported to the CAFCASS officer. I note that the CAFCASS officer recorded in her s7 report dated 4 November 2019 that M said she stopped contact in July 2018 because ‘F was controlling and he was not responsive to T’s needs’ and that she was ‘worried that F did not understand T’s additional behavioural needs and if T were to have “a meltdown” F would not know how to handle him and would likely lash out and hit him’. This appears to have remained M’s position throughout the long life of the private law proceedings from 2018 to 2024.[40]M stopped contact between F and T in July 2018. T would not see F again until February 2020.[41]At some point in 2018 or perhaps earlier, M began to have a relationship with a man called S, who lived at her home for a period.

Private law proceedings commence

[42]On 1 October 2018, F issued an application for a declaration of parentage in respect of T, stating that he had received contradictory information from M about whether or not he was T’s father. On 5 November 2018, F issued an application for a prohibited steps order to prevent M from taking T out of school for a holiday. On 6 December 2018, F issued an application for child arrangements orders. On 17 December 2018, an order was made preventing M from removing T from the jurisdiction without permission.[43]It is noteworthy that F had no direct contact with T from July 2018 until 29 February 2020.[44]Hard on the heels of F’s application, M forcefully began to pursue a neuro-disability assessment for T. The LA allege that this included M giving a false history of developmental delay. On 17 December 2018 and 21 December 2018, M gave the following history to the GP practice when she sought a referral to a consultant paediatrician for T:a. Developmental issues since birth;b. T does not like noise;c. T does not like sight of other people;d. T tends to be aggressive and violent including biting and kicking mum at times;e. T refused to walk most times has general pain; andf. T is not verbal.[45]M had raised issues about T’s development at an ophthalmology consultation in July 2018 but this was the first occasion that M had articulated her concerns in full form to any medical practitioner.[46]On 15 January 2019, T commenced his primary school education, where he would remain until July 2025. That same month the court directed DNA testing in the private law proceedings to determine whether or not F was T’s father. There was a further hearing in April. M failed to attend. Another direction for DNA testing was made. On 21 May 2019, an order was made prohibiting M from removing T from the jurisdiction without permission.[47]In July the court received confirmation from CAFCASS that testing confirmed that F was T’s father. CAFCASS were directed to produce a s7 report. On 25 September 2019, F made applications for parental responsibility and to change T’s name.[48]The s7 report was served on 4 November 2019. It noted amongst other things that:a. M considered that T had ‘additional behavioural needs and that she has been trying to get him assessed to see if he was on the Autistic Spectrum’;b. M believed that F would not be able to cope with T’s behaviours;c. The parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school advised that ‘T is not displaying any behaviours in school that M has described to her that he is displaying at home. She said that T is a pleasure to teach, he has a good circle of friends and socialises well at play times’;d. ‘M said that T never asks or talks about F. T has not had any contact with F for approximately 18 months, which can seem like a lifetime to a child of T’s age. T was just 4 years old when he last spent time F. Due to the intermittent breaks in contact throughout T’s young life it is likely that T did not have the opportunity to develop an emotional and enduring bond with F’; ande. T referred to M’s new partner, S as ‘dad’ but that ‘M said she was very surprised to hear T refer to her boyfriend as dad, as he has not been encouraged to do so and has never referred to him as dad before.’[49]The s7 report’s core recommendations were:a. Four supervised contact sessions;b. T to live with M;c. F to share parental responsibility with M; andd. T’s surname to be changed to a double-barrelled amalgam of both parents’ surnames.[50]At a hearing on 19 November 2019, the court made the child arrangements orders suggested by CAFCASS. There were delays to the implementation of contact. The first session was on 29 February 2020. It was the first direct contact between F and T since July 2018. It went well. The CAFCASS officer reported that ‘T gave F good eye contact, referred to him as daddy and had some memory recall from the previous time that he spent with F. T is looking forward to playing football with F at his next contact session and eventually, being able to play football with him in his back garden.’ Regrettably, as a result of the covid pandemic the other three sessions of supervised contact arranged for March and February 2020 did not occur and F and T did not have direct contact again until June 2021, some sixteen months later.[51]On 11 March 2020, T had ten decayed teeth extracted. The extraction of these teeth is relied upon by the LA as evidence of neglect.[52]On 5 May 2020, there was a further hearing in private law proceedings. The order records that ‘M indicates that she believes T suffers ‘from a condition whereby he may be well-behaved at school and yet has meltdowns at home’ and does not think F would be able to manage T’s additional needs and does not agree to unsupervised contact as originally proposed by CAFCASS’. The court directed an addendum s7 report. M was ordered to make T available for such supervised contact that the CAFCASS officer directed.[53]On 15 and 17 July 2020, M was pursuing an ASD assessment of T through calls with a nurse. The nurse advised keeping a video and written diary and approaching the school in September about a referral on the GDA pathway. M was asked about any toileting issues and she said that T ‘sometimes poo’d his pants but this was due to being out of routine or in unfamiliar places’. This was the first time that a toileting question was raised and answered in the medical records.[54]On 4 September 2020, the school made a record of M saying that she ‘went away in February on holiday and T stopped at home with older siblings (in their 20's) and while M was away T soiled himself everyday. M stated that if there is any change of situation environment T will wee himself. T will wee himself on the way home from school. M has to wipe his bottom at home - he will not use the school toilets to do a poo.’ This was the first time that M raised the issue of soiling in school or medical records.[55]There was another court hearing on 15 December 2020. CAFCASS explained that they had not been able to organise supervised contact. The court directed M to make T available for supervised contact as advised by CAFCASS.[56]On 18 December 2020, the school recorded that M reported that ‘F is pushing for contact with T. T has not seen F for 3 years. M thinks that the court will grant F supervised contact sessions. M said that F has a violent and controlling nature and is worried about T meeting F. CAFCASS are involved with the family. M said that the court are looking at F having contact sessions with T once every two weeks for 40 minutes.’[57]On 9 March 2021, there was a telephone court hearing. M did not join the hearing. The matter was listed for further directions and provision was made again for M to make T available for supervised contact as arranged by CAFCASS. On 7 June 2021, an addendum s7 report was filed which recorded that five supported contact sessions had been agreed for June and July 2021. Contact took place on 17 June 2021 and 19 June 2021. A further hearing occurred on 28 June 2021. M did not join that telephone hearing. An order was made for M to make T available for contact as arranged and a further hearing was listed. Three sessions of contact occurred in July 2021.[58]On 16 September 2021, the school recorded that the CAFCASS officer had called and reported that:
‘contact sessions with F will start on Sunday - these are 5 sessions of supervised contact. Home Issues the officer feels that M is putting barriers in the way of F seeing T. The officer has requested a chronology from school as she feels that M is using avoidance tactics to not engage with Parental Mental Health services. The officer will attend the contact session on Sunday to observe the interaction between F and T. The parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school to complete the 3 houses assessment in school with T. School to continue monitoring T's toileting (soiling himself) - again stressed to the officer that we were doing this last year and T did not have any 'accidents" reported in school and staff could not smell odour around T when in.” And on 22 September 2021 the school reported an email in from the officer saying: 59. ‘observed the family time on Sunday. It was great, no issues, no signs of sensory overload, good relationship observed, we all did a wordsearch together. T is very bright, able to find words backwards too. He is due to go to Blackpool this weekend, can you check in with him next Monday and find out if he went? Not sure whether this is an excuse by M so he doesn't have to go to see his F? (F can’t do this weekend as it happens but M didn't know that at the time) Next family time will be 3rd October 1-3. M dropping in reception and picking up from reception. Also F checked T when he went to toilet and I also checked at the end and he had not soiled and I made it very clear to M he had been checked and he had not soiled. M said she had been back in touch with early help and they have reopened the case, she also said she hasn't had missed calls from school nurse or early help. I made a point of referring to F as dad throughout the time, M said T always calls think he calls him dad. I don't think he understands about his family at all. So if work can be done with him about families that would be great. he asked F to put a photo book together of his side of the family. Thanks for all your help’

And on 22 September 2021 the school reported an email in from the officer saying:

[59]An addendum s7 report was served on 30 September 2021, it made the following points and observations:a. Contact sessions had been successful;b. The school reported that T ‘is not known to have a diagnosed learning disability and requires no additional support from school at this time’;c. M is still of the opinion that T does not know that F is his father and just a ‘mister’ he sees. It is not evident that M has tried to change this narrative in her home;d. At the observed contact it was evident that T had a relationship with F, there was no anxiety shown, T engaged really well with F. T gave F hug on his arrival and when he left, he was happy for F to take him to the toilet;e. M states that T has sensory issues and can become overstimulated. This was not evident during observed time with T. The soft play was a very noisy environment, T did not struggle, he played with other children, he responded well when a child took the football off him and when F was rubbing him playfully on the head;f. There was no evidence of T soiling during family time. This reflects what school says, “T does not display any negative behaviour when in school and he has a strong friendship group within his class”; andg. M is of the opinion that T masks his behaviours in school, this may be the case but it is also worth noting that none of these behaviours have been seen by the contact centre staff throughout their engagement with T or through observed contact. The report recommended that: a. T spend time with F in a supported venue on alternate Sundays; b. A parental responsibility order should be made in F’s favour; c. T’s medical records be supplied (on the basis that the CAFCASS officer had concerns that M’s experiences were not evident elsewhere); and d. T’s surname should be changed to a double-barrelled surname with both F and M’s surnames.[60]On 5 October 2021, both F and M attended court and the court made orders for:a. parental responsibility for F;b. contact on alternate weekends (identifying in the terms of the order several dates including 12 December 2021 and Boxing Day 2021);c. M to obtain T’s medical records; andd. An addendum s7 report; ande. A further hearing in January 2022.[61]Contact took place on 20 October 2021, 31 October 2021, 14 November 2021 and 21 November 2021. It did not take place on 11 December 2021 and 26 December 2021. On the day before contact was due to take place on 11 December, F received a text from M stating ‘T is unwell with cold, A family member recently had covid so I will keep you informed if any change ok and order a test. So please contact [the venue] to cancel tomorrow Thankyou’. F replied ‘you have to tell me and the court the name of the family member who has got covid 19 and proof they have tested positive. You need to go on-line and book a covid test for you [T] and family members before 11pm tonight so they can fit you in tomorrow for a covid 19 test at (location) you will get your results within 24 Hours. Myself and the Court will need to see the test Results. I need you to respond to this text and agree to it's content. (Or turn up with T at 12pm TOMORROW)’. The CAFCASS officer reported that M replied that she had emailed and notified the court and would provide the relevant information and that M made it very clear that F must not attend her home and stated she would have no choice but to report him and request an injunction for F to stay away.[62]F later discovered that in fact M was in Mexico on a holiday with T and other family members from 1 December to 15 December 2021. M accepted in oral evidence that she had been on holiday in Mexico at this time. She told me that she could not remember the name of the family member who had tested positive. It was submitted by Mr O’Brien KC for F that she was plainly lying about a positive covid test to hide the fact she was on holiday without permission of the court (and in breach of a prohibited steps order) and that her threat of an injunction against F was to prevent him attending the property and discovering the lie. I have no doubt that M was lying at the time she sent these emails. I also find it extraordinary that she maintained in front of me that she did not recollect the name of the family member who had tested positive, when clearly she had lied and that a covid test had no bearing on the cancellation of contact. I find that a truthful response would have been to acknowledge that she lied. By saying that she could not remember the identity of the family member, she maintained this lie before me.[63]On Christmas Eve 2021, the CAFCASS officer reported that F received a further text message from M stating “We are in Lapland I have notified court so no threatening messages or they will be no further direct contact and have to sort another way to communicate, It was booked in Dec 2019 so all been booked and paid for, for nearly 2 years changed 3 times and up to the 18th Dec”. I pause to note that M must have known at the hearing on 5 October 2021 that she was not going to be able to make T available for contact on the December dates which were specifically identified in the court order. I find that this, as with many of her actions, demonstrates the total antipathy she showed in respect of F’s contact with T over many years.[64]On 17 January 2022, the CAFCASS officer filed a further s7 addendum report. In the report she recommended that contact should over a 6 month period progress to alternate weekend contact and contact every Wednesday evening with additional holiday contact. Pick ups and drop offs were to occur during term time at school i.e. F would pick T up from school for contact and return him to school.[65]On 26 January 2022, there was a telephone hearing which M did not attend. The court noted that M appeared to be in breach of a prohibited steps order made on 21 May 2019 and made an order for M to make T available for contact in accordance with the CAFCASS officer’s recommendations. On 31 January 2022, the school recorded that the CAFCASS officer informed the school that M had said she intended to contest the contact orders.[66]On 4 February 2022, the court confirmed that its order of 26 January 2022 stood. On 10 February 2022, F made an application alleging that M was in breach of the prohibited steps order and that T’s passport should be held by him. There was a hearing on that application on 8 March 2022. The court recorded that contact had not taken place on 18 February 2022 and adjourned the passport application.[67]On 25 March 2022, the school reported that the CAFCASS officer told them that ‘M has lodged a complaint to CAFCASS about T having to stay at F’s over the weekend’ and that ‘M has told the CAFCASS officer that T is displaying negative behaviours at home and his behaviour is getting worse.’[68]On 21 April 2022, M issued an application for permission to take T on holidays to Spain to visit her parents.[69]On 21 May 2022, a further s7 addendum was produced. It noted that contact was progressing well. It recommended that T’s name be changed to a double-barrelled amalgam of both parents’ surnames, that T live with M and that F’s contact with T be extended. On 25 May 2022, the school reported that M felt that CAFCASS is biased against her.[70]On 31 May 2022, there was a further court hearing at which M admitted that she had breached the prohibited steps order made on 21 May 2019 preventing her from removing T from the jurisdiction without permission. She apologised for so doing. The terms of the PSO were varied to allow M to take T on holiday over summer 2022.[71]On 21 June 2022, the school recorded that F was concerned that M was saying that T did not want to stay with him. There seems to have been a dispute between M and F about contact commencing on Friday 22 July 2022. On 25 July 2022, F made an application for enforcement of the child arrangements orders. I presume that this arose out of the concerns he had reported to the school and because contact had not occurred at the weekend.[72]There was another court hearing on 10 August 2022 at which interim child arrangement orders were varied and the PSO was amended to allow M to take T out of the jurisdiction is agreed in writing.[73]On 28 September 2022, a final order was made in the private law proceedings providing for T to spend time with F on alternate weekends from the end of school on Friday to the start of school on Monday and every Wednesday. The school holidays were to be shared equally and T’s surname was changed from M’s surname to an amalgam of M and F’s surname with F’s surname first and M’s surname last. This was not to be the end of the private law proceedings.[74]On 11 October 2022, a continence nurse, reported that: M reported concerns about T’s behaviour and meltdowns and violence at home, how T masks this at school and when he has contact with F. Soiling and behaviour worse following contact. Feels that T’s continence problems relate to anxiety and since contact started with F, T having episodes of vomiting and meltdowns every night at bedtime. M previously asked for an assessment from school for general developmental assessment pathway, declined as T does not display any of these behaviours at school.[75]On 13 October 2022, the school recorded that M ‘said that behaviour at home has not improved and T is sometimes reluctant to go to F's and has 'melt downs' at home.’[76]F reports that contact did not occur on the weekend of 30 December 2022 and for the period from 25 January 2023 to 22 February 2023. He says that he made an application to court for enforcement because M had taken T out of the jurisdiction without agreement. On 30 January 2023, the school recorded M reporting to them that ‘there have been issues between M and F over the Christmas period and M has reported F to the police for verbal abuse. F has also contacted the police at Christmas and reported T missing as he did not come to his house on the agreed day (access arrangements).’[77]Contact did not take place over the weekend of 10 March 2023 and Wednesday 15 March 2023. Easter Holiday contact from 7 April 2023 to 14 April 2023 did not take place. As I understand it half term contact did not take place from 31 May to 5 June 2023. I am not entirely sure when T last had contact with F in 2023 but I believe it was in May or early June.[78]It was clear that there was a serious problem afoot with contact and F made an application for a child arrangements order on 8 June 2023. F did not have any further direct contact with T until September 2024.[79]On 20 June 2023, M obtained a report from a private company which diagnosed T as being autistic. I will return to the that report in due course.[80]In response to F’s application to court, a CAFCASS safeguarding letter was produced dated 13 July 2023 which reported that:a. M said: T is refusing to go to see F and he is not seeing him at all. She can't make him go, she has tried getting him in the car and he is refusing. She feels she has tried everything to get him to see F and he will not do this. He will hide under seats within school when he knows he must go. T will not say why he does not want to go, she feels it may not help with his additional needs and this may impact upon him. He struggles with his thought process. CAMHS have a meeting next to look at any support. M reported that T is now refusing to go since the last proceedings because they went on a camping weekend and potentially F's partner went. T sometimes has incontinence which he may have been embarrassed about, T then after the weekend away with F lashed out to her. He had a 'meltdown' badly with her and she had bruises.b. F said: T has told F that M had told him to tell everyone he does not want to see F. T has told F that it upsets him that M is trying to prevent him from seeing him. F reported that they have been through CAFCASS previously and feels that he now seeks a live with order as he feels no progress is being made. He feels he needs custody and will allow her to have access as he would encourage this.[81]A section 7 report was produced on 23 October 2023. It set out at length M’s concerns about T and his refusal to go to contact. It also identified F’s concerns. Some of the points he was making were as follows:a. M was alienating T from him and obstructing the development of their relationship;b. he did not accept that T has autism;c. he alleged that M was fabricating T’s issues about health and special needs;d. he stated that when T was with him there were no toileting issues, incontinence or behavioural meltdowns; ande. he believed that T was being emotionally harmed in M’s care. The report recommended amongst other things the appointment of a Guardian to represent T and for there to be indirect contact.[82]On 7 November 2023, a Guardian was appointed to represent T and an order was made for indirect and video contact. Video contact was to commence on 11 November 2023 but it did not take place until facilitated by the school.[83]On 18 January 2024, the Guardian made an application for a penal notice to be attached to the contact order. In the application the Guardian reported that she had visited T at school on 11 December 2023 and that he had told her that he was not aware that video calls were supposed to be taking place and that he wanted to see F and have overnight visits with him. She also reported that M has taken T away on days when video calls should have occurred. She also sought directions of a paediatric assessment of T and a psychological assessment of T and M.[84]On 23 January 2024, the court appointed an SJE to produce a paediatric assessment of T and an SJE to produce a psychological assessment of F, M and T. No alteration was made to the order for indirect contact. The question of a penal notice was stood over to 26 March 2024.[85]On 11 May 2024, Dr Crawford, the SJE consultant paediatrician, filed her report. She has also made reports within the care proceedings. I will come to those in due course. The conclusions reached by Dr Crawford in this her first report can be summarised as follows:a. Although T had been assessed by a private company as having autism, no autistic features had been noticed at school. This surprised Dr Crawford because such features are usually seen within a school situation and she had not come across a reluctance to refer by schools;b. By the time of his 24 month assessment, T was not showing signs of ASD and the answers to questions by M indicate that she had no concerns over his behaviour. He did not scream or have tantrums and if he did it was rarely, he did not do things over and over for example rocking, spinning, or flapping hands;c. It would seem unlikely that he could mask all of his problems to the extent of them not being recognised in the school setting;d. The discrepancy between school and home was concerning;e. When T’s behaviour has been outside the normal range for his age, it always seemed to be when he is in the company of M;f. T has had problems with soiling and wetting since 2021 but the bulk of information has come from M and it was unclear whether or not the same problems existed at school;g. There was no evidence of an underlying medical condition causing the soiling or overflow;h. F says that T does not have these problems but his contact with T has been limited; andi. M sought medical attention for T on a regular basis but it was unclear whether or not the medical attention was always needed. The report did not come to any fixed conclusions about T’s alleged health issues and M’s role in them.[86]On 31 May 2024, Dr Burchess, the SJE clinical psychologist, filed his report in the private law proceedings. It was a psychological assessment of M, F and T. He did not file any further reports in the care proceedings but the LA relied upon his report and he gave oral evidence before me. He was an impressive witness and plainly a renowned expert on autism.[87]Dr Burchess’s assessment of the parents and T can be summarised as follows. As to F, he opined that:a. He was of borderline intelligence;b. He did not present as suffering any mental health issues but has a history of persistent depression;c. He had a history of turbulent relationships and has an acrimonious relationship with M;d. He would benefit from a parenting programme; ande. If T were to live with F, he would facilitate contact between M and T. In respect of M:f. She was of average intelligence;g. It was of concern that she reported having been in two abusive relationships (including with F);h. She had been treated for depression;i. She appeared to have significant somatic complaints and a preoccupation with ill health;j. He was concerned of the possibility of fabricated or induced illness in T because many issues raised by M about T’s behaviour were not observed when she was not present and symptoms disappear when T is not with M;k. He thought it possible that M was projecting her own anxieties onto T in an attempt to access the attention and care she consciously or unconsciously craves;l. She has an acrimonious relationship with F; andm. He said it was imperative to ascertain whether M was fabricating or inducing problems and behaviours. In respect of T:n. T did not present or report to be experiencing any significant psychopathy; ando. T’s responses to questions indicated no clinically significant emotional distress, behavioural problems, problems of hyperactivity or difficulties getting along with peers. He rated himself as being kind and helpful. This was in line with the school’s assessment but was completely at odds with the responses given by M to the same range of questions. These contrasting presentations led Dr Burchess to conclude that M was inducing or exaggerating the difficulties.[88]Dr Burchess’ report had a dramatic effect on the private law proceedings. The next court hearing was on 24 July 2024. Direct contact was ordered, including overnight staying contact. The court ordered the LA to produce a s37 report by 18 September 2024, reciting its concern that T might have suffered significant emotional harm and continued to be at risk of suffering further significant emotional harm. The case was adjourned to 28 October 2024 but this hearing was moved by the court’s own motion to 7 October 2024.[89]The social worker, was appointed by the LA to make the s37 report. She made a home visit to M and T on 25 August 2024. In her notes she recorded that: M kept becoming tearful when she spoke about T and contact with his dad. She said she gets upset with this but does not show this to T. Mum says no one believes what she says, hence her filming and recording everything. She says that T tells her that he does not want to go and see F, but will tell others that he does want to see F. M agreed for me to speak to him alone on my next visit[90]On 16 September 2024, the social worker arranged for T and F to meet at school. At the meeting arrangements were made for T to spend the night with F on 18 September. On that date, the social worker made a home visit to T and M. At that visit, M said that T was refusing to go to school because of contact with F. M said T was hiding in the loft. The social worker asked to go into the loft to speak to him. M refused to allow her to do this, saying it was too dangerous. The social worker tried to talk to T from the bottom of the loft-stairs but he did not answer. As a result of the failure of contact arrangements were made for contact the following Wednesday (25 September). M was not informed about this arrangement. T attended school without incident and was picked up by F. The social worker made a home visit to T and F. She recorded: I asked what happened last Wednesday when I came to M's home and he at first shrugged his shoulders. He said he did not know. He then said M told him he was not going to school today. I asked if he was worried speaking to me as he had apparently ran off when I knocked. He said he was not worried speaking to me. He could not describe to me what had happened. M had told me he was in the loft but he told F during facetime that he was not in the loft but was laid on his bed. I asked T if he was enjoying his time with his dad and he said yes, nodding his head and smiling at me. He again told me that he wants to live with F and when I asked him why F he said it is more fun at F's.[91]M was cross examined about the incident on 18 September. She denied preventing T from going to school and maintained that he was in the loft. The social worker was also cross examined about the incident. I have no hesitation in finding that M prevented T from going to school and that M was not telling me the truth when she said T was in the loft.[92]On 18 September 2024, the LA wrote to the court explaining that the s37 report could not be completed by that date. On 1 October 2024, a Strategy Discussion was held by the LA at which it was concluded that the threshold was met.[93]On 2 October 2024, the court by its own motion vacated the hearing on 7 October 2024, extended the time for the s37 report to 21 October 2024 and listed a hearing on 4 November 2024.[94]On Wednesday, 2 October 2024, T was due to have contact with F but he was not taken to school by M because she said he had been poorly. It would seem that in response to what had occurred on that day and on the previous two Wednesdays, on 3 October 2024, the Guardian made an application for the surrender of M’s and T’s passports and for the immediate transfer of living arrangements so that T would live with F.[95]That application was listed on an urgent basis and without notice to M on 7 October 2024. The only written material before the court appears to have been what was set out in the C2, namely: The Guardian seeks an urgent hearing to consider the position in this case. The matter was originally listed for a hearing at 10 am on Monday 7 October 2024 but that hearing has been vacated following receipt of a statement by the social worker preparing the section 37 report requesting more time to complete the report. Since the order extending the time for the social worker's section 37 report and relisting the dispute resolution hearing issued the social worker has spoken to F's representative and the Guardian and has confirmed that threshold is crossed in this case and that the LA are extremely concerned that the mother is a flight risk with the child. The LA are taking the case to a legal gateway meeting and the social worker supports a transfer of living arrangements for T to F's care raising issues of- 1. Fabricated illness syndrome 2. Parental alienation 3. M's obstructive attitude towards contact taking place. Arrangements were made for T to spend time overnight with F on Wednesday 18 September and back to school the following morning. T was not in school on the Wednesday because mother maintained that he was ill but there is no evidence that T was poorly and T has subsequently told F and the parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school at school that he did not know he was supposed to be seeing F on that date. Arrangements were made for T to spend time with F overnight from Wednesday 25 September after school until the following morning at school. M was not informed in advance of these arrangements and the visit took place and T told F that he wanted to live with him. Arrangements were made for T to spend time with F overnight on Wednesday 2 October. This arrangement did not take place because M maintained that T was poorly. She told school that T had been sick at a birthday party during the evening of the 1 October. The Guardian would therefore seek orders requiring M to surrender her and the child's passports and for a transfer of living arrangements from M to F immediately on the basis that the only way in which the child will have a relationship with both of his parents is if he lives with F. The Guardian would ask that a direction is made the social worker to attend any hearing listed pursuant to this application.[96]No other statements were before the court. No skeleton arguments were placed before the court and the social worker confirmed in her oral evidence to me that she did not give any evidence. She could not shed any light on what had caused the Guardian to conclude that M was a flight risk other than the fact her parents live in Spain. M was not at the hearing and had not been given notice of it. Nonetheless the court made an interim care order placing T with F and ordering M to hand over T’s passport to the LA. During the course of this hearing, I invited the advocates to ascertain if there was any additional material explaining the basis upon which those orders were made on a without notice basis to M. Mr Bickler KC for the Guardian was unable to shed any light on the matter. Mr O’Brien KC provided a short note of the judgment which read as follows: The Judge then gave judgment and said that she was so concerned about T being at risk of harm and that the threshold was met. She felt there was a real risk of emotional harm and also a risk that the mother might well try to remove T from the country. She felt that the only way that T can have a real relationship with F would be by moving to live with him. The Judge said that she was concerned about the fabricated illness and felt that she needed to keep T safe today, but the case would have to be transferred up to Sheffield to be heard by the circuit bench. She was willing to transfer residence today to F and to do that in the form of a Prohibited Steps Order under an Interim Care Order.[97]As a result of that order, T was collected by F from school at the end of that day. He has lived with F ever since. M was informed of the outcome of the hearing by email. The procedure adopted by the judge would perhaps best be described as irregular. To transfer living arrangements in circumstances where the s37 report had not been written and M had no notice was an extraordinary outcome. However, with hindsight the impact of the decision has plainly been in T’s best interests. He has flourished in F’s care. His school attendance has been almost perfect, he walks everyday to and from school, he is happy, he shows no signs of autism and he does not soil himself. It is as though a switch was flicked between 7 October 2024 and 8 October 2024, the very next day.[98]I do however accept that events of that day must have been very shocking for M and, when I come to consider the extent to which she has or has not co-operated with various aspects of these care proceedings, I must remind myself that the unorthodox procedure adopted by the judge on that day will inevitably have had an impact on M’s trust in ‘the system’.[99]To the extent that there were any procedural irregularities, these were effectively expunged at the return date of the interim without notice orders on 14 October 2024. At that hearing, all parties were present and all represented. The court found the interim threshold met and made an interim care order and placed T with F. The LA were directed to serve a contact plan by 18 October 2024 and to serve the s37 report by 4 November 2024. A further hearing was listed for 8 November 2024.[100]Public law proceedings were issued by the LA on 9 December 2024.[101]I turn now to the medical issues in this case.

Medical history

[102]The key medical evidence in the LA’s case is Dr Crawford’s report dated 25 March 2025. The report itself is not long, running to some 26 pages. However, as part of her enquiry Dr Crawford was tasked with a full review of T’s medical history. She produced a very detailed chronology of those records.[103]To do justice in this case, it is necessary for me to refer in detail to the underlying medical history. The result is that this judgment is inevitably a long read.

T’s development

[104]At birth, T was healthy. He was born at 39 weeks and was of good weight and had no abnormalities upon discharge from hospital. T was examined regularly by the health visitor and found to be developing well with good growth and weight gain. The GP undertook T’s 6–8-week check-up and he was considered to be within normal limits save for a squint for which he was referred to ophthalmology. There was some suggestion that T suffered with colic in the weeks that followed.[105]The first reference by M to bowel issues was made on 21 May 2014 when she told the health visitor that T had not opened his bowels for 8 days. On 9 July 2014, M told the GP that T was constantly crying and would not settle which she had apparently noticed since birth, with a complaint that he could go for 8 days before a bowel movement. T had unexplained bruising to his chest which on a non-mobile baby ought, according to Dr Crawford, to have been referred to social care. On 16 July 2014 the health visitor noted that T was very rigid when placed on weighing scales and M gave a history of him bruising easily and suffering with constipation.[106]T was referred to hospital to see a consultant paediatrician. T attended clinic on 3 September 2014. The consultant’s letter records the history given by M which includes reference to excessive crying with back arching, possibly gastro-oesophageal reflux. It describes T as being very unsettled, with excessive screaming throughout the day and night for several months. It was reported that T had a high-pitched cry, that nothing seems to comfort him, that he often rubs his legs together as if in discomfort, that he arches his back, has occasional posset, his bowels open every 5 to 7 days, not improved with Movicol, if anything it makes him more unsettled. The doctor was clear with the mother that this was fairly typical of a breast-fed baby and M agreed that she was told this and said it reassured her. The consultant prescribed Gaviscon and Ranitidine for the possibility of silent gastro-oesophageal reflux. There is no reference in T’s records to him being prescribed Movicol before this appointment. Neither the paediatrician or the health visitor saw any developmental issues and T was seen to attempt crawling and weightbearing that same week. The paediatrician had advised that the baby should start weaning but M expressed anxiety to the health visitor about being worried that T would choke. A referral to the children’s hospital was sent due to the mother’s preferences. M described in her evidence that T “wouldn’t settle regardless of cuddling or of feeding and nothing really worked so he was unsettled.” At the same time M denied that at this time she was under stress or had feelings of being anxious or tired. This was an odd answer. It is difficult to see how she could not have felt stressed, anxious and tired given her descriptions of T’s behaviour. I find that M was worried about revealing to me that she felt stress.[107]At T’s 6-month developmental check on 4 September 2014, there were no developmental issues and T was described as an alert and responsive baby. On 26 November 2014, M expressed to the health visitor dissatisfaction with the care given to T at the hospital as she preferred a theory of food intolerance to Gastro-Oesophageal Reflux Disease as a result of her internet searches. T was seen by the paediatrician on 24 December 2014 who considered that he was on the right track and increased the dose of ranitidine. M gave a history of T being very unsettled and only sleeping 1 hour at a time. The doctor reassured her that he may just be a crabby baby. The doctor found T to be developmentally perfectly normal for his age. The doctor warned M that children who are very unsettled as young children and with a very poor sleep pattern can have signs of social communication disorder later in life. Ms Cavanagh KC exploring the potential origins of M’s concerns about autism pressed M about her recollection of this paediatric appointment and the doctor’s warning about potential communication disorder. M denied any recollection of the meeting and the warning. I do not need to make a finding about this but I consider it likely that this comment may have fed M’s later concerns.[108]Despite the words of warning, it is clear is that there was no indication from the paediatrician that there was anything wrong with T save for a bit of reflux. The paediatrician did not consider lactulose intolerance to be the issue. M was reported as co-sleeping with T due to it being the only way to get him to settle. She was asked whether there was a possibility that some of the anxiety or screaming was T picking up on her stress. She replied:
“No I have never been stressed until this situation [i.e. this case] – try and keep it in stay calm.”
. Again I consider this was a desire to hide from me that she found these situations stressful.[109]On 15 April 2015, the health visitor assessed T at his 12-month check and found him to be meeting all developmental milestones, attending nursery and co-sleeping with M. M reported that T had an appointment the next week at the hospital to discuss him being unsettled and screaming. M completed T’s Ages and Stages Questionnaire [ASQ] for 12 months in which she ticked yes to “Does your baby say three words, such as "Mama," "Dada" and "Baba"? (A "word" is a sound or sounds your baby says consistently to mean someone or something.)” and yes to “Does your baby make two similar sounds, such as "ba-ba," "da-da." or "ga-ga"? (The sounds do not need to mean anything.)”. On her own account T said his first words before 15 April 2015 when he was 14 months old. In June 2023, she told the private autism assessors that T did not speak his first words until he was 2 ½ years old. In oral evidence M simply denied that T said his first words before he was 2 ½. The denial was wholly implausible.[110]On 22 April 2015, a week later, M reported to the paediatrician that the unsettled behaviour was ‘much better’, that T’s sleeping pattern was improved and a bad night would be “…waking 3 times for half an hour but sometimes sleeps all the way through” and a “…good day no episodes of screaming or crying at all” and M was no longer co-sleeping. So at 14 months T had no developmental issues reported by M or the clinicians who have examined him.[111]On 14 March 2016, T had his 2-year-old check undertaken by the health visitor. T’s development scores were good; his gross motor score was 35, falling below normal, his fine motor score 15, well within normal; his problem solving 35, just within an area that might require further monitoring but not serious; his personal/social 40 which fell within normal; his communication score 30, which fell on the edge between normal and needing further monitoring. T was recorded as shy and quiet for the majority of the visit, with little eye contact, but he was playing well and could count 1 to 9. M reported that that T does not talk at nursery and that he spoke mainly single words. There was discussion about helping T’s speech. It was reported that T walked at 17 months old at nursery but walked at home before this time. In oral evidence, M was asked when he was walking at home, she said “probably 4-6 weeks before that” which would be at 15 to 16 months old. It was put to her that this was not delayed development. She responded “I don’t know all my [other] children were around 12 months when they walked”.[112]Dr Crawford’s evidence and analysis of the records is very clear: T did not have developmental delay.[113]M, however, consistently told professionals including clinicians and school teachers that T was delayed, or very delayed in meeting his developmental milestones. Some examples are as follows:a. On 21 December 2018, M told the GP, that T had had “developmental issues since birth”;b. On 10 July 2020, M told CAMHS that she queried if T had autism and stated that he was developmentally delayed in walking and in other areas;c. On 4 September 2020, M told the parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school at school that T’s walking and talking were delayed, that she had accessed groups on Facebook and was hoping to get some help/advice on the situation. She recorded “M is aware that T is masking his behaviour at school” and “M has been informed by Early Help that she needs 2 school terms of evidence before she can progress any further with her GDA referral”;d. On 2 August 2021, M gave information for a Disability Living Allowance application which included that T was delayed in walking (18 months) and talking (2 ½ years). She added that T needed a push chair to the ages of 4 or 5 years complaining of pains in his legs and refusing to walk;e. On 23 August 2021, M told a GP that T “[w]as very delayed in milestones. Walked at 17 to 18 months. Would walk at home, not at nursery, just sit crying. Slow speaking, had speech therapy”; andf. On 25 January 2022, the consultant paediatrician in gastroenterology recorded that M “says developmental milestones were all delayed including physical, fine motor, speech, language and currently has major sensory issues. His physical, fine motor and speech has been picked up and there are no concerns currently”. In oral evidence, M tried to explain this by talking about his struggles at school but that is unsupported by the school’s evidence from the school. T had no delays in his development school in the early stages of his education. This is not an exhaustive list of the untruths told about T’s development by M. I pause to note that this list commences within days of F’s initial application for child arrangements orders following contact being terminated in 2018.

T’s fall at 20 months

[114]On 20 December 2015, T was brought to A&E by M in her car. She reported that T had fallen downstairs. She said that she heard a bang and found him face down at the bottom of the stairs, limp and not crying initially, that T started crying after a few minutes and vomited multiple times on the way to the hospital. On arrival, T was limp and not responding even to painful stimulus. T had a large bruise on the left side of his forehead, no other obvious injury. In the paediatrics notes it says T was initially drowsy but normal after attempted cannulation. T was discussed with neurosurgeons who initially considered there might be a small frontal fracture. The CT report says the exclusion of a hairline frontal facial fracture would require a specialised CT scan. Clinical consideration was recommended. The neurosurgeons looked at the scan in their meeting and concluded that there was no fracture but vascular marking. T was discharged home on 21 December 2015, having spent fewer than 24 hours in hospital. This was plainly a traumatic moment for M and T.[115]On 14 March 2016, at T’s 2 year check M gave a misleading account about the incident to the health visitor who wrote M “…informed me of an accident that T had before Christmas (week before Christmas) where he fell down the stairs and fractured his skull. T was took to hospital and was placed on the high dependency unit. He has been fine since being discharged from Hospital. At the time of the accident T would not eat for 2 weeks. " **** feels that this is due to him being knocked unconscious from the accident and then when came round was sick. " **** picked T up from falling down the stairs and drove to the hospital, she did not feel she had time to wait for an Ambulance. T was being sick in the car all the way to hospital. T was admitted to hospital for 2 days and then returned home….”. The account was wrong in a number of material respects:a. T was not in the high dependency unit. He was admitted to the children’s observation unit ward;b. T was in the hospital for 17 ½ hours. He arrived at the hospital at 1836hrs and was discharged at 1230hrs the next day. The account of being in the HDU for 48 was untrue and I have no doubt was intended to make the injury sound much worse than it was; andc. T did not have a fractured skull. The records show that the neurosurgeons looked at the CT scan, confirmed no fracture and then communicated this to M. Minor head injury advice was given. M maintained that she had been told it was a fracture. I find that she was told there was no fracture.[116]The OT, gave evidence. In her statement, she said M had stated that T had been lifted from the scene by air ambulance. In cross examination by Ms Wills-Goldingham KC, it was put to her that the M had said that there may have been a need for an air ambulance. M had not said this in any witness statement. The OT was willing to accept that possibility but I find that she accurately recorded what she was told by M. There is nothing in the factual account of the accident or the contemporaneous notes that suggests that at any stage an air ambulance was contemplated or indeed necessary. M did not even call a regular ambulance herself. I find this is another exaggeration made by M. Does T have autism? The records

Does T have autism?

[117]By 21 December 2018, M began strongly to pursue a neuro-disability assessment for T. This included M giving a false history of developmental delay. On 17 December 2018 and 21 December 2018, M gave the following history to the GP practice when she sought a referral to a consultant paediatrician for T:a. Developmental issues since birth;b. T does not like noise;c. T does not like sight of other people;d. T tends to be aggressive and violent including biting and kicking mum at times;e. T refused to walk most times has general pains; andf. T is not verbal.[118]On 4 February 2019, a consultant paediatrician, examined T as a result of the referral that M had procured. M recounted to him the following history:a. T displays violence to her with T lashing out for no reason or to get his way;b. T screams, bites and punches at M and his elder siblings and does not accept what he has done including injuries to people;c. T is reluctant to walk and resistant to change in routine;d. T prefers plain foods;e. T has good eye contact and enjoys cuddles;f. M’s nephew has Aspergers;g. T does not sleep and has nightmares and night terrors; andh. T does not like change or new places and needs strict routine. The paediatrician recorded that T refused examination but advised that a GP referral to GDA pathway be obtained.[119]On 10 July 2020, M contacted the CAMHS directly reporting that she had concerns re ASD. She had also told the school nurse, the local authority and the sleep clinic. The school had refused to make the referral as they had seen no evidence of any of the issues with T’s behaviour that were reported by M. It seems that M was seeking to circumvent the usual mechanisms for a referral and generate sufficient professional concern for an assessment. On the same day, M also called the GP stating that T was violent and had sensory issues and met a nurse who recorded in her notes:a. T struggles with change and needs constant routine;b. T dislikes going outside and has sensory concerns e.g. he always wants to be naked;c. T was developmentally delayed in walking and other areas;d. T has violent outbursts with no obvious trigger;e. M queried if T had ASD and M has joined a support group;f. M reported that the school had seen no evidence of it and declined to make a referral;g. M believes that T masks at school and explodes at home; andh. T has always struggled with sleep.[120]On 15 and 17 July 2020, M continued to pursue an ASD assessment of T through calls with a nurse. Ms Kemp advised keeping a video and written diary and approaching the school in September about a referral on the GDA pathway. M was asked about any toileting issues and she said that T ‘sometimes poo’d his pants but this was due to being out of routine or in unfamiliar places’.[121]On 2 August 2021, M completed a DLA application form on behalf of T and stated the following information about his behaviours:a. T has bowel and bladder incontinence 2-4 times a day ongoing since the age of 5;b. T constantly soils himself says he does not feel it coming and will sit in soiled underwear;c. T masks at school - will come home having wet and soiled himself several times a week requiring cleaning and bathing;d. T comes home from school with either wet or soiled underwear on a daily basis and will not tell his teacher that he needs the toilet or that he has soiled;e. T has undiagnosed ASD and ADHD from birth and is awaiting an assessment;f. T was delayed in walking (18 months) and talking (2 ½ years);g. T has severe and violent outbursts and meltdowns everyday ongoing since the age of 2-3. T kicks, nips, scratches, bites, punches and grabs items in reach to throw. These are getting worse the older he becomes;h. T needs restraint every time he melts down to protect himself and others often two people required to restrain him in a bear hug;i. T has sensory processing issues since birth and uses ear defenders as he cannot cope with unexpected noises and has a weighted blanket;j. In a car, T will unfasten seatbelt whilst screaming and kicking drivers chair, screams kicks and punches pulls at door handles and bangs on windows;k. T cannot cope with any changes in routine has to go the same way to school;l. T is very demanding and impatient;m. T is constantly up and down at night struggles to settle in bed;n. T has sensory issues will not brush his teeth or take as shower and cannot dress himself fully. M has to do all self-care for him including dressing;o. T cannot manage buttons or zips and velcro;p. T is very particular about foods will not try new foods, does not use cutlery and cannot cut up his own food needs constant prompting to eat as he is very distracted;q. T does not communicate well due to anxiety he is withdrawn and avoids eye contact, has a baby tone of voice;r. T show no interest in toys, low attention span, just sits in the dark under blankets; ands. T needs prompts to use the toilet at school and to communicate but masks a lot at school when return from school melts down.[122]On 23 August 2021, M saw the GP who noted various matters including that: T soils himself; long big thick stools every day; he intermittently soils; he had a fractured skull when 20 months old; he has been under the Children’s Hospital since he was 3 months old for autism; the referral was a few years ago but was not accepted; he was very delayed in milestones; walked at 17 to 18 months; would walk at home, not at nursery; just sit crying, slow speaking; had speech therapy, does not sleep; abusive verbally and physical; lots of meltdowns; has not changed height in the last 18 months; smallest in the class; was born small; head is very small; no control of bowels and urine. Examination – he was active with a normal gait. No neurological deficit. Abdomen soft, no palpable mass. Diagnosis – mixed incontinence, ? frontal lesion secondary to congenital birth issues or aftermath of head injury. Wait incontinence nurse review, if no help need proper referral to neuro-paediatrics to investigate further.[123]It would appear that M was very interested in the possible diagnosis of a connection between incontinence and the head injury. M raised this with the parent support adviser at T’s school after the summer holidays on 3 September 2021. She recorded: “M stopped me at the school gate this morning: * T has been to the hospital over the summer holidays and the doctor asked M if T had received a head injury in the past – M informed him that T had a cracked skull as a baby. The doctor feels that T's incontinence is medical linked to his brain injury. * M informed me that T had soiled himself on the last day of term and was covered in poo when he got home. * I also informed M that Early Help tried to contact her over the summer but without success - I asked M if she still wanted the Early Help to be open - mum said that she did. * Informed M that we may need to go through the EH process again and complete a new referral. * M is going to continue working with the school nursing team. * M asked if the teacher and classroom staff can be made aware of T's toileting issues. * I have suggested that M could provide extra spare clothes for T in school[124]On 17 September 2021, M contacted the local authority’s children services reporting that:a. T had severe violent meltdowns and outbursts;b. T does not sleep or want to go out of the house;c. T has sensory issues and refuses to take medication;d. T is masking it at school;e. T’s behaviours are escalating;f. T likes to be naked at home at all times;g. Times and stipulated routine are required for T with no changes to them;h. T is having accidents by soiling himself and on the last day of school T “severely soiled himself” how the school did not notice is beyond her “it stank”; andi. T shows traits of autism/ADHD.[125]On 21 September 2021, when the children’s services advised of the screening outcome M shared that T had a four-hour meltdown because McDonalds did not have chocolate milkshake and he kicked and screamed inside the restaurant. Three days later on 24 September 2021, M called CAMHS who recorded that M reported that T was awaiting an ASD assessment with CAMHS. CAMHS advised that they do not assess for ASD and that this was done at the hospital. At this point no ASD assessment was ‘awaited’.[126]On 25 January 2022, M took T for his first appointment at the hospital with a consultant paediatrician with a gastric speciality, and told him that T had the following issues:a. All T’s developmental milestones were delayed;b. T has sensory and behavioural issues;c. T has to follow a set routine, fixed food likes and suboptimal intake; andd. When in school T would not use toilets and held urine causing accidents bowels and urination.[127]On 4 May 2022, M told the GP surgery that T had the following issues:a. He soils himself at school with urine and stools;b. M struggling with T who is prone to bouts of violence, explaining that he nearly broke her arm the day before the appointment;c. T was awaiting a diagnosis of autism or ADHD;d. Sodium Picosulphate prescribed made T severely vomit and become unwell so stopped it ande. T was very distressed at attempts to examine him and wanted to leave.[128]On 30 September 2022, M took T to the GP and pressed her view that T had autism/ADHD and expressed her feeling that she was getting nowhere and the school was not helping. The GP surgery made a referral for an ASD/ADHD assessment to CAMHS on 10 October 2022. On the same day the referral was refused as T’s school was the appropriate referring agency under the GDA. The school had no concerns about T showing signs of ASD/ADHD.[129]On 7 June 2023, M told the GP that:a. T has been referred CAMHS assessment for autism by the school and has a private autism assessment on Friday; andb. T had a severe meltdown slapping and biting his mother which lasted 3 hours she sustained bruises to her arm. I note that in oral evidence she described this as a 6 hour meltdown.[130]On 15 June 2023, CAMHS met with T and M. She noted: CAMHS consultation with T started. It is recorded by a Senior CAMHS local practitioner, that M had reported by telephone that T refuses to go to school and this was more difficult on days that he was due to be collected by F. He experiences frequent melt downs, will hit her and cause bruises. She has to dress him in the mornings. He will refuse to get dressed and will abscond from home and run to the end of the street. T was said by M to be experiencing anxiety and suffering with cold sores. He struggles to cope with clothing and does not wear clothes at home. He wears a pull up as he wets and soils himself. T does not like having his hair cut or teeth brushed. Sleep is an issue. He sometimes has meltdowns for hours at night and they are worse before he goes to stay with F. She said he masks at F’s home and at school. M said that she wants T to attend a specialist school and was in the process of applying for an EHCP for him. It was recorded that school describe T as being very settled and with a very different presentation to that put forward by M.[131]Having failed to obtain an assessment for ASD or ADHD for T from the NHS, M commissioned a private assessment from CareGen. On 15 June 2023, M arranged for an assessment by a health psychologist, and a clinical social worker. This concluded that T met the criteria for ASD primarily based on M’s self-report and an online video interview during which M was present. The questionnaires completed by the school and by M bore no resemblance to one another. M provided the following information:a. T suffers regular soiling and wetting and sits in it and doesn’t feel it.b. T won’t go to the toilet at school.c. T wears pull up nappies at home.d. Impaction regime and regular [toileting] controlled with medication daily.e. T only eats plain/beige food.f. T suffered a fractured skull in 2015.g. T currently uses special push chairs due to leg pains when walking.h. T can’t ride a bike and is not very stable running.i. T can’t tie shoe laces and struggles with buttons.j. T is very quiet and reserved, doesn’t show emotions often, doesn’t interact well with adults and at times children.k. T masks at school.l. T displays repetitive behaviour and has little concentration.m. T is sensitive to noise and wears ear defenders.n. T cannot sit still without regulating with electronics.o. T did not walk until he was 18 months but didn’t do so at nursery until later.p. T was late talking – about 2 ½ to 3 years he only said one or two words.q. T does not make eye contact when talking.r. T can’t stand people laughing.s. T doesn’t understand jokes and sarcasm.t. T struggles to show empathy and doesn’t recognise his own emotions. . The school, on the other hand, noted that:u. T had no difficulties with food.v. They had not noticed any sensory issues.w. T plays football, participates in PE and has not displayed any motor skill issues.x. T talks with adults in school and they had not noticed any problems in his relationships with adults.y. T participates in class, listens to his friends and classroom instructions and shares his ideas. He shows an understanding of facial expressions and tone of voice and responds accordingly.z. T participates in small group activities to review previous learning and always participates well. aa. T gets on with all his friends in class and doesn't complain about any issues. He seems to get on well with others. ab. T is happy in class, he gets on with others in class. ac. T hasn't displayed any difficulties in managing impulses. ad. T works independently in school. He will ask for help if needed either to a teacher or a peer. ae. T is well behaved and sets a very good example to others. af. Thas worked in small groups with his friends happily. He listens to other people's ideas and doesn't display any issues. He joins in with Art and DT activities. He is currently designing a book sleeve. He keeps his desk tidy, similar to other children. ag. T enjoys playing football with others at breaktime and plays happily on non-football days. ah. T can cope with chatter while working He is able to remain seated when required to do so. He completes tasks and doesn't need extra motivation to do so. He gets on with his work. He is a little chatty but will get on with his work and complete it to the best of his ability. He can focus while listening to the lesson and instructions. He completes tasks and participates in games in PE /playtime without difficulty. ai. T writes independently using scaffolds and word mats provided to the class. Handwriting is improving. Extra time was given to complete reading and maths assessments. He has been part of an intervention group for Reading and Maths. He has shown great improvement in reading and comprehension. He is currently working on multiplication tables and is having some intervention in this area. aj. T is a friendly boy who follows classroom instructions. He gets on well with others and helps to support his friends in school. Dr Crawford and Dr Burchess expressed grave disquiet about an assessment of autism in circumstances where a parent’s report was diametrically opposed to a school’s report. They could not understand how a proper diagnosis could be made without further investigation of the differing accounts. I share their disquiet. I attach little weight to this diagnosis.[132]On 11 September 2023, M told CAMHS that:a. T refuses to go to F’s house. He refuses to dress on those days and runs down the street.b. On two occasions T was very distressed before going to F’s home.c. T has had sensory issues since he has been born.d. T struggles to cope with clothing.e. T has meltdownsf. T has significant issues processing thoughts and feelings.g. T masks at school.h. T has had a private diagnosis of autism. A referral to CAMHS OT and an autism service was made.[133]In direct work with the CAFCASS officer on 22 September 2023, she asked T about his autism and he spoke about having “cola bottle meltdowns” at home but not at school. He said the pressure builds up if a cola bottle is shook and then it explodes. He said he didn’t know why the meltdowns happen. T said he had only hit M once that week because he didn’t want to go to school.[134]For an assessment dated 14 November 2023, M told the occupational therapist, the following:a. T has constipation and very large bowel movements.b. When impacted T tends to poke around.c. T was encouraged to sit with knees raised as part of his continence plan.d. T does not like to sit on the toilet for the 10 minutes expected of him each day.e. T masks at school and once at home becomes aggressive.f. T does not like the sensation on fingertips, picks nails and sucks fingers.g. T is orally sensitive.h. T won’t play with toys.i. T does not like bright lightsj. When washing and dressing, M does everything for T who has no interest in managing self-care tasks for himself.k. T’s behaviour has become worse since staying overnight at dad’s house. This resulted in a referral to the local authority.[135]On 14 December 2023, M spoke to the incontinence nurse and reported that T had been having meltdowns for the past 6-8 weeks, at hospital appointments and was refusing his medication. M reported significant soiling.[136]On 8 January 2024, the occupational therapist, had a call with M in which she noted:
“M apologises as missed Therapist’s calls, been in London for a week. Therapist explains ringing regarding how well T performed by motor activities. Will be discharged from OT service. ? M asked how she can be referred to other services as he does not walk far and never has. Asked if it was a behavioural or is he in pain and thinks it is more behaviour. Therapist advised booking an appointment with GP to onward refer to the appropriate service. ? M explained T has a wheelchair and a pushchair to support him with long distances. T was discharged.”
[137]For an assessment dated 24 July 2024, M told the occupational therapist the following:a. T presents with challenging behaviours including violence and he hurts his mother where she has been bruised for over a week.b. T has meltdowns at school where staff need to carry T through the school hall.c. T had an episode at a hospital where security guards were called to support and T was throwing chairs at them.

Expert evidence about autism

[138]In her report Dr Crawford concluded:
“When I met T, there is absolutely no sign at all that he lies on the autistic spectrum. I believe there is evidence that there has been fabrication by Mother in this regard”
. Dr Crawford further concluded in her report:
“I do not perform ADOS assessments for autism, leaving this to my community paediatric colleagues locally. However, I have seen probably now many hundreds of children in clinics that I do and on Children's Wards and I feel well able to recognise signs of children that are on the autistic spectrum. I detected none in T. He is a perfectly normal young man from this point of view.”
[139]Dr Crawford is not an expert on autism but, as she says, in her practice she has come into contact with hundreds of children who suffer from autism. She was categorical that T did not have autism. She explained that it was “impossible” for a child with ASD at the severity identified by M or in the private assessment to have masked for the 18 months that he has been in F’s care. She examined T five months after his move to F. She considered that T would not be able to mask even for that shorter period.[140]Dr Burchess is a leading expert nationally on autism. He examined T while he was still in M’s care at a time when she maintains that T was showing significant signs of autism. He was clear that T does not have autism and will not be diagnosed with autism in the future. It was Dr Burchess’ view that T cannot be autistic and have masked for 18 months. He said the following in evidence: Q. Please explain more about your interactions with T - he was able to watch your face understand you and respond to you how and why was that significant? A. Well, an autistic child would find this very difficult meeting an unfamiliar person trying to understand what was going on. T met me and was able to engage with me. He felt comfortable with me – we were able to have reciprocal conversation communicate back and forward, he could read my body language, I could read his. An autistic child would find this very difficult. Q. You refer to language skills and the pitch and stress used by those with autism- why was this significant? A. With autism very often particular children, didn’t assess his cognitive functioning but school report suggests he is keeping up with peers at school. An autistic child would be good at giving facts information but unable to talk about feelings and emotions. T was able to do that. Many children with autism speak in unusual ways their voice does not change. When I am anxious, as I am giving evidence in court, I tend to speak quickly or when excited speak loudly or if something is sad, I speak quietly. Autistic children will struggle to do that there weren’t any problems with that. Children with autism have peculiarities with language - talk about themselves, speak in the 3rd person, speak in mid Atlantic accents or a cartoon voice and keep repeating things. There was none of that in my interactions with T. Q. Why are those things significant? A. Autism is a social communication disorder – children with autism struggle with interacting with others. Sometimes they lack the skills to do that the fact that T was interested in his friends and has the skills to make and keep friends – not the profile of someone on the spectrum.[141]Dr Burchess said “Let me be helpful. Autism is a pervasive neurological disorder. T can control his behaviour and engage with other people make friends and get on with life. T can do that with F and do that at school, it is wonderful.”[142]Dr Burchess was asked why he had raised the possibility of FII in respect of ASD. He said:
“A number of things or factors in the description that M provided of him at home where he was extremely challenging. Having 6 hours long melt downs. Where he had difficulty sleeping, she talked about having to sleep with T, having to have baths with T – the variation, the contrast in how he presented to me – how he was perceived by his school and how mum described him they were like chalk and cheese. M told me he masked at school and when out of school he was dysregulated. I considered that carefully as children very often are different at school than at home. Sometimes the structure at school makes life easier for autistic children. There was no evidence he was masking – his interactions weren’t scripted nor was he pretending to be someone he wasn’t. I didn’t see any evidence of him masking or pretending to be ordinary. Some of the things that I had read about were very extreme: M wanted him to go to a special school. He was described as a model pupil in mainstream school, and M wanted an EHCP for T to attend a special school and that really concerned me and I am so pleased there has been a change for him [….] “I have assessed hundreds or thousands of people with autism. I get information from a variety of sources sometimes a very strong correlation what school are reporting what parents are reporting. Sometimes there are some differences but not to this degree”

Other evidence about autism

[143]I reiterate here that T’s primary school which he attended from January 2019 to July 2025 report that he showed no signs of autism. His current school have not observed any signs of autism. The LA social worker, has observed no signs of autism. The independent social worker, has observed no signs of autism. Indeed, both social workers describe T in terms which are completely at odds with M’s descriptions of T. And, of course, F’s unchallenged lived experience with T for the last 18 months is completely at odds with those descriptions.[144]M’s case is that the behaviour she has described to clinicians and to the school is true. She points to witnessed occasions when T was dysregulated and when he behaved in ways that suggest he has autistic traits. The witnesses she relies on are two of her adult children,. I heard both give evidence. Her son, T’s brother, appeared to me to be very loyal to his M. I find he was motivated to support M’s case that T has autism and had developed his own theories as to why T does not show those signs now or in his F’s care. He told me “[t]he answer to that is he got taken off M because someone in this court room that’s not a mum has been telling lies manipulating people controlling them trying to get into their heads and get their own way is why T has got taken off M”. He confirmed that he was talking about F. He said “When F was at M’s he abused me he controlled me he manipulated me. Same with sisters I have witnessed it with my own eyes. I have not seen T since he has been taken from M and when I saw him, I couldn’t speak to him, and it was under F’s permission and approval. I could have a normal conversation with my brother takes someone as controlling for me to not do that.” He said he would rather T was in foster care than with F. He told me that the “main lie is that T does not have autism”. I know, of course, that T is not autistic.[145]T’s brother told me that he had expertise in autism because he was a care worker for 6 months where some of the service users had autism. Save for this very limited experience, his knowledge of T’s autism plainly arises from what he has been told by M. The lens through which he viewed his brother was the private diagnosis of autism and M’s belief system that T had autism. When describing T’s behaviour it was not simply a tantrum or bad behaviour it was meltdown as a result of a sensory trigger. In his statement T’s brother made reference to T’s home being his safe place. This is language used by M to describe T’s home. I find that these are words and concepts which he has picked up from M despite his evidence to the contrary. He appeared worried when asked if he had been taught how to restrain T by M. He identified T’s purported need for ear defenders when overstimulated or hearing loud noises. He showed great inflexibility and unwavering support for M when asked about changes in T: Q T does not need headphones at football matches - motor bike rallies think a bit weird? A No it is manipulation and control. Q How’s is F doing it? A That I couldn’t tell you I am not manipulation and controlling. Q How is he doing it? [no answer] Q. Have you talked M about it? A. I think I have yes. Q Does M agree it must be F manipulating and controlling T? Is that what you all believe? A Yes. It’s the truth.[146]This evidence that T is autistic takes me nowhere. The evidence he gave about his positive interactions with T which I have recounted above is far more enlightening. Those descriptions of playing football and T mocking him when he was losing at Xbox games are entirely consistent with the expert evidence.[147]T’s sister was a more open individual but clearly had a strong sense of loyalty to M. In her statement, she compares T to her daughter at the same ages, which limits comparison to the time when T was 3 years old – some 9 years ago. So where the sister indicated that her daughter was different from T it is of little forensic value in evaluating whether T has ASD. She gave evidence that M treated T differently from the way in which she treated her and her siblings. She agreed that rather than trying to manage T’s reaction by being positive M would become upset because she did not want to see T distressed and upset. She explained to me that M gets carried away and is stressed about T’s reactions. She told me that, when parenting T, M gets upset, worried and anxious and does not think about planning her reaction to T’s behaviours. She accepted that M would be upset and anxious if T was in the care of other people and was anxious about T being away from her. When T was at nursery or school his mother would be worried all day. It seems to me likely that this anxious parenting may have served to increase T’s anxieties about coming home from school or back into M’s care or his anxiety more generally. She agreed that it was fair to say that M does not like to see T in any way upset and does not plan to help him get over things.[148]T’s sister acknowledged that it was M who explained to her that T had autism. When she asked to identify the signs of autism, she said socialisation, meltdowns and picky eating. When asked about when T started using the buggy, she said that T was about 7 or 8 and that he had it up to a few months before he was removed to F’s care as it broke. She agreed that the cause of T’s loss of control was often that he did not get his own way. She told me that M would give T what he wanted. If left to her own devices, with the parenting skills she now has, she explained that she would handle T’s tantrums differently.[149]T’s sister had never seen T having difficulty walking dragging his leg and/or shuffling. She did not recognise M’s descriptions about mobility placed on the DLA form. She said of M’s assertion that T is constantly walking into things and having accidents “that’s not true”. She also disagreed with M’s assertion that T had no road sense and could not walk safely by a road.[150]T’s sister was clear that there was little soiling when M was not present. She explained that she had only had to clean T up on “one or 2 times”. She could only recall two occasions that T had soiled when picked up from school. She said that these were all in 2024. The only soiling that she gave evidence about was up to four occasions between January 2024 and late September 2024.[151]Nothing in T’s sister’s evidence demonstrates that T is autistic. In fact, her evidence about her interactions with T referred to at the outset of this judgment are wholly inconsistent with a diagnosis of autism. T’s sister lives full time with M. Her evidence about soiling undermines M’s case that T was soiling three to four times a day for significant periods.[152]The objective evidence of T being overwhelmed and upset about leaving his mother’s care runs in three distinct periods of time:a. The first is from 21 February 2023 to 3 July 2023. In this period there were problems observed by the school on 23 February 2023 and 3 July 2023 and self-reported problems on Tuesday 21 February 2023 and Friday 16 June 2023 and Wednesday 21 June 2023. All the self-reported problems resulted in T not attending school and were all on days when Fs contact was supposed to take place or were reported to be linked to F’s contact.b. The second is one event on 14 November 2023 after an OT appointment.c. The third is from 22 February 2024 to 1 May 2024. In this period there were observed problems on 22 February 2024, 25 March 2024 and 1 May 2024.[153]In respect part of the first period, the school’s response in the private autism assessment questionnaire dated June 2023 is illuminating:
“After a period of 4/5 weeks absence, he was reluctant to come into school. Once he got through the door and had a chat with the family support officer, he came into class and settled well.”
This period of absence coincided with the disimpaction regime which appears to have started in very early February 2023 and ran until the second week of February 2023. At least the initial problems in February may be connected with this. This window of time also coincides with problems connected with the contact arrangements imposed by the September 2022 final order which broke down completely in June 2023.[154]The contact problems in the first period appear to be connected in part to the disimpaction regime. M unilaterally stopped F’s contact over the disimpaction regime. There was no contact from 10 to 20 February 2023. During this period, M took T on a holiday over the February half term whilst the regime was being undertaken. This coincided with F’s contact.[155]In advance of period 2 CAFCASS had advised in the private law proceedings that T should have a guardian appointed. Things were becoming more stressful for M in that period as set out above. Further M informed the parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school and the SENCO at a meeting at school on 18 September 2023 that she had placed T in panty liners inside his underwear in school for the previous two months. This was completely unknown to the school. T was using pull ups at home. This must have been humiliating for a boy, who we now know did not need them.[156]As to 14 November 2023, this was after the breakdown in contact and about a month after CAFCASS recommended the appointment of a guardian. It must have been a very difficult day for T. He had not seen F since June. He was off school for an OT appointment. He sat through a meeting in which M reported to the OT in T’s presence the following:a. M reported that T presents with behaviours that challenge and he can become violent and hurts her;b. M reports that he really hurts her when he has these meltdowns and she can be bruised for over a week;c. T has lashed out at his sister, but never hurts her daughter. T shared that she is not strong enough to manage T now;d. T has constipation and very large bowel movements;e. When impacted he tends to poke around;f. Encouraged to sit with knees raised as part of his continence plan;g. He does not like to sit on the toilet for the 10 minutes expected of him each day;h. M reports that T does not like to walk any distance as he complains of pain. They did have a major buggy, but it has broken; andi. M would like an alternative so they can go out more. The buggy also helped T regulate himself while he was outdoors, he would cover himself up, and used the hood to block out the light.[157]It is clear from the notes that M cried throughout the appointment, saying no one believed her. T was present watching all of this unfold and listening to what was said about him: The notes say “T was clean and dressed appropriately. M cried throughout the session as she was upset as she feels no one believes her due to T masking at school. T was sat on [?]phone throughout the assessment, OT involved T in conversation when discussing about [?]. when appointment ended T repeated “I am not going to [school]”. I do not accept the vast majority of the narrative that was given by M to the OT. For T to have experienced that narrative and to know it was untrue must have been embarrassing and confusing. It would have provoked very difficult feelings. It is hardly a surprise that T reacted poorly and told her he did not want to go back into school. This episode is not evidence of an ASD meltdown. It is evidence of a child being emotionally abused.[158]The third period of observed misbehaviour by T where he was refusing to come into school coincides with pressure upon M in the private law proceedings. On 18 January 2024 the newly allocated guardian, applied to court for a penal notice to be attached to the direct and indirect contact orders and for both a paediatric and psychological assessment of T. These applications were heard on 23 January 2024. At the hearing the two expert assessments were directed but the penal notice was not imposed due to lack of proper notice period.[159]On 6 February 2024, M filed a statement within the private law proceedings in which she stated that T refused to participate in facetime contact with F and, no matter what she had said to encourage this, it has led to T being dysregulated and having severe meltdowns. She said that T shows “signs of PDA profile, masking and neurodiversity” and of “PDA/ODD” and “impression management”. This narrative allowed M to place the refusals of contact onto T and contributed to a reluctance by the court to proceed with a penal notice and to force contact to take place. It was only 16 days later that the window of school refusal started on 22 February 2024. I have no hesitation in finding that these problems occurred because M inculcated in T anxiety about the school and F’s application for a ‘lives with’ order at this time. As the private law proceedings intensified, so did the apparent school refusals in T and nearly always coinciding with contact sessions.[160]I have no hesitation in finding that T does not suffer from autism. I will deal in due course with the question of fabrication When I make this finding and all other findings, I bear in mind the totality of the evidence that I have set out and that I will set out. . Did T suffer from constipation with overflow soiling? The records I have tried to avoid repetition in these paragraphs but there will inevitably be overlap with preceding sections. I apologise for any unnecessary repetition.

Did T suffer from constipation with overflow soiling?

[161]On 17 July 2020, M was asked by a nurse about any toileting issues and she said that T ‘sometimes poo’d his pants but this was due to being out of routine or in unfamiliar places’[162]In November 2020, M started to tell the school that T was having accidents at school and was soiled when collected. This was inconsistent with the school’s records and the fact that they had been sending T to the toilet regularly. T was referred to the school nurse and continence service by the school[163]On 26 January 2021, M spoke to the continence service. M reported that over the last few months soiling had become a daily problem and that T has sensory issues. M gave a history explaining that the primary issue is soiling, that it happens more at school than at home, that it is particularly bad on a Monday and Thursday, when T come home from school. She explained that she had to peel off his clothes and bath him as he is so wet and that he holds his poo in because doesn’t like using the toilets at school. She noted that on a Thursday, T’s class teacher is replaced by another staff member for a couple of hours, querying if this is relevant with T not liking to ask to go to the toilet. She explained that he does not like hand dryers. He displays different behaviour at home such as meltdowns. She was advised to seek help from a GP and to have urine tested and check for constipation. Talked about medicine that would be needed if he was constipated.[164]On 23 August 2021, M saw the GP who noted various matters including that: T soils himself; long big thick stools every day; he intermittently soils; no control of bowels and urine. Examination – he was active with a normal gait. No neurological deficit. Abdomen soft, no palpable mass. Diagnosis – mixed incontinence, ? frontal lesion secondary to congenital birth issues or aftermath of head injury. Wait incontinence nurse review, if no help need proper referral to neuro-paediatrics to investigate further.[165]It would appear that M was very interested in the possible diagnosis of a connection between incontinence and the head injury. M raised this with the parent support adviser at T’s school, after the summer holidays on 3 September 2021. She recorded:
“M stopped me at the school gate this morning: * T has been to the hospital over the summer holidays and the doctor asked M if T had received a head injury in the past – M informed him that T had a cracked skull as a baby. The doctor feels that T's incontinence is medical linked to his brain injury. * M informed me that T had soiled himself on the last day of term and was covered in poo when he got home. * I also informed M that Early Help tried to contact her over the summer but without success - I asked M if she still wanted the Early Help to be open - mum said that she did. * Informed M that we may need to go through the EH process again and complete a new referral. * M is going to continue working with the school nursing team. * M asked if T’s teacher and classroom staff can be made aware of T's toileting issues. * I have suggested that M could provide extra spare clothes for T in school.”
[166]On 24 November 2021, M told the continence nurses, the following:a. T was only sleeping through the night from 5 ½ years old.b. T was passing large type 4 stools daily.c. T was not aware when he has soiled and does so a few times a week.d. T wets at school, tells no-one and sits in soiled pants.[167]On 4 January 2022, the continence nurse saw T and M in her first appointment following the the previous continence nurse’s retirement. She recorded: “M reports on holiday in Lapland, T not in usual routine, not done well with eating, drinking or toileting. Talked about drinking. M stated she feels most of his continence issues are at school. Has his bowels open daily, large formed soft stool, soils 4 to 5 times a week, at worst a couple of times a day, mostly at school, sometimes at home. Has wetting accidentally, mostly at school. M has addressed this with school, they say T does not tell them when he has had an accident, they cannot smell him if he has soiled, T does not ask to go to the toilet. School have set times to go to the toilet; T will go and not use the toilet. Further management discussed, again M states when told a plan to get him to toilet, doesn’t feel this is the issue as he poo’s a good amount daily at home and it is accessibility of the toilet and anxiety at school. Nurse will arrange a meeting with school. M has broken her leg, will get her daughter to bring her to school for face-to-face appointment if possible or attend with TEAMS. T mostly dry at night. Also, M said cysts on the bottom may have caused T difficulties in realising when he had soiled himself. M says previously referred to a paediatrician in gastro enterology for a continence review, when she had been waiting some time for an assessment, but appointments were cancelled by the hospital, has not received an alternative appointment.”.[168]On 25 January 2022, M took T for his first appointment at DRI with the consultant paediatrician with a gastric speciality, and told him that T had the following issues:a. All T’s developmental milestones were delayed.b. T has sensory and behavioural issues.c. T has to follow a set routine, fixed food likes and suboptimal intake.d. When in school T would not use toilets and held urine causing accidents bowels and urination. T was thoroughly examined by the paediatrician and blood tests were taken. The examination was unremarkable without any major faecal loading, some perianal skin warts were found. T’s weight and height were fine at 2nd to 9th centile height and weight. Varied tests done, all normal including all blood tests, normal. Continued input from the continence service was advised by the paediatrician and T was referred to dermatology.[169]On 28 February 2022, M appeared to recognise the upset for T by his being examined by the paediatrician in gastro enterology. In respect of a meeting with the parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school, the continence nurse and the OT on Teams the following is reported:
“M reports seen by the consultant paediatrician in gastroenterology in February. He had examined him without asking T or explaining what he was going to do, this upset M as T is very private. He went along with it, not sure if she will complain about this. The paediatrician felt T was constipated but Mum reports poo daily Type 4, soft type, not complaining of tummy ache or difficulty passing. Prescribed Sodium Picosulphate but had 48 hours vomiting and loose stools so not given it since, could have been a tummy upset so advised if bowels not open for a couple of days, she could try the medication. The paediatrician referred to Dermatology for the warts. Further plan meeting arranged for April. Mum says T will not have a poo at school, will only poo at home. Doesn’t think he will ask to go to the toilet or tell anyone if he is wet or soiled…”
[170]On May 2022, T was taken to the GP for vomiting and Docusate was prescribed. On the 27 June 2022 M told the continence nurse that T was not doing well and only opening his bowels every 2-3 days in some discomfort. M told the nurse that Docusate made T have severely loose stools and vomiting, that it had not had any effect, and that she was considering starting Movicol again. The continence nurse advised giving Movicol as prescribed and if no effect in a couple of weeks to seek a review by GP[171]On 11 October 2022, M told the continence nurse that:a. T was not very good - having one poo a week in pants and soiling every day.b. T was coming home from school with it stuck to his bottom having soiledc. T came home wet as teachers were not allowing him to go to the toilet.d. M feels that the continence problems relate to anxiety and since contact started with F having episodes of vomiting each night and meltdowns.e. T not been noticed at school when he soils.f. The continence nurse could make contact with the school and the same plan could be used at F’s house.g. M was concerned about T’s behaviour and meltdowns and violence at home, how T masks this at school and when he has contact with F; soiling and behaviour was worse following contact.h. Feels that T’s continence problems relate to anxiety and since contact started with F, T having episodes of vomiting and meltdowns every night at bedtime[172]On 29 November 2022, M repeated this history about soiling and vomiting to the GP who prescribed a disimpaction regime for T which involved very significant doses of drugs and the need to be close to a toilet once the regime started. The mother did not start the regime until late January 2023. The treatment regime lasted until circa 13 February 2023.[173]T was seen by the paediatrician in gastroenterology on the 10 January 2023 and he approved the continuation of the disimpaction regime and on examination found T to be “eating and drinking well, fussy with vegetables. Takes Movicol every now and then. Discontinue use of Sodium Picosulphate, might have caused backlog. Advised continuing with disimpaction regime. Abdominal examination – faecal loading along left descending colon with minimal gaseous distension of the abdomen.” T was developing well and there is no suggestion in the notes that he did not cooperate.[174]On 18 May 2023 there was a meeting at school where M reported that T “…poos twice a day as long as on Movicol. Wears pull up at home. Does not like to wipe his bottom. Not having medication at F’s. F says no problem, M says, T says he is soiling, masking at F’s. T not wanting to come to school leading up to F collecting him from school. He can be violent at home with Mum, photo of bruises from T. The parent support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school reported that T had been asking to go to the toilet at school, which is an improvement.”[175]On 13 June 2023, F contacted the continence nurse, as requested by the parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school. The continence nurse noted: F phoned as requested by school. F stated M had said that the continence nurse had told M not to let F see T when having disimpaction, given special permission to allow T to leave the country after treatment so F didn’t see him for a month. Nurse said she thought the conversation was about continence not Court proceedings, but she hadn’t stated this. F reported no toileting problems with F. Had received a prescription bag with laxatives for 3 times a day, thought excessive so had phoned the GP, told it is as required medication. T does ask for his bottom to be wiped, and F realises he hasn’t been taught. Physically active at house. Dry bed at night. No pull ups. No medication given. T loving and caring. Thinks Mum has Munchausen’s syndrome by proxy. Mum has long Covid, brain fog, uses sticks and frame to walk but knows that Mum can walk without these. Following event: Continence Nurse discussed with ? Manager, tell Dad cannot give him information for Court. Attempts to contact school which happened later.[176]On 14 December 2023, M spoke to the continence nurse and reported that T had been having meltdowns for the past 6-8 weeks, at hospital appointments and was refusing his medication. M reported significant soiling[177]On 23 April 2024, M told Consultant Paediatrician in gastroenterology, the following history:a. T did well from the disimpaction regime;b. T continues to have regular soiling and does not have established regular toileting habits. Opens bowels once a week passing huge stools types 2 and 3;c. Then continues not opening bowels and soiling continually for the next 2-3 weeks;d. T has significant behavioural issues impacting his toilet habits; T was examined in a limited way due to refusal to lie down. Minimal faecal loading and soft abdomen were noted. T refused perianal examination. T’s medication was changed to tablets of Bisocodyl. Peristene rectal washes for T were discussed with referral to the Continence Team and last resort ACE stoma for enemas if his behaviour cannot be tackled with compliance of medication. It was noted that M agrees not to pursue this at this time.[178]The school saw only one incident of soiling in T on 30 April 2024 due to an overdose of laxative medication and have never smelt any odours suggesting serious soiling or incontinence issues.

Expert evidence about soiling

[179]In Dr Crawford’s report she noted that:a. M had claimed that T has soiling due to constipation with overflow;b. M had claimed that T had refused to take medication, that he soiled frequently and that he needed to wear pull-ups;c. Apart from one occasion, which was explained by too many laxatives, there was no evidence that T has had soiling at school; andd. T has had some signs of constipation and has needed treatment for this in F’s care, however without soiling;[180]Dr Crawford believed that the signs and symptoms had been fabricated. Amongst her written reasons were the following points:a. To pass sizable stools every day as described by M on 23 August 2021 and to have soiling is not typical of overflow soiling, where normal stools are only passed very infrequently;b. The GP (in August 2021) was doubtful that this was constipation with overflow incontinence but there was no reason to think that T was not having problems and that perhaps this was psychological soiling;c. M was slow to fill in relevant forms after referral to the continence service which was surprising with such a difficult problem to deal with;d. On the first occasion the paediatrician in gastroenterology saw T, no faecal loading was noted on examination;e. On the second occasion T was seen by the paediatrician in gastroenterology on 10 January 2023, T was said to have faecal loading on the left side with minimal gaseous distension. She said that this was not really a description of loading of the whole of the large bowel;f. On the third occasion handwritten notes show faeces were felt where they would be normally;g. On the fourth occasion, T was limiting examination and does on all other occasions when he was not behaving and was with M;h. The school report no faecal incontinence until May 2024 when there was an episode that T reported, which may have been an accident caused by all the laxatives he was on;i. Notably children that soil do have a faecal odour, which was not noticed in school and would have been if there had been any significant problems;j. It was also notable that T indicated when he was incontinent in May 2024 but had been reported by M to be hiding this fact. She opined that the evidence for soiling is very low within the chronology apart from M’s accounts of it.k. In interview with Dr Crawford, T denied he was having any problems with soiling.[181]In oral evidence Dr Crawford stated: This is a more difficult one as it is very common in a paediatric clinic to see children with constipation and soiling. It worried me more, as often parents when separated one is saying the treatment is needed and the other is saying he hasn’t got a problem. When I went through by the chronology, T has been seen by the gastroenterology but there was no evidence that the gastro felt that his abdomen was loaded. First occasions didn’t record this, second, he didn’t want to be examined. Then referred to continence nurse they go on the history: advise on medicine, advise on school and the school saw no evidence of soiling. If he was soiling that badly I think they would have seen. There was just one occasion when he soiled at school. She said he was very embarrassed he wanted changing and it seemed to be due to the large number of laxatives he was on. And: It is very unusual to be on the AS spectrum and suddenly stop having the signs. It is very unusual to have soiling and suddenly gets better and he walks normally very unusual to have sudden transition from needing a wheelchair to not needing it and undertaking activities[182]M produced a series of photographs purporting to show heavily soiled pull-ups. Dr Crawford was very unimpressed by the photographs. She told me that they might have been caused by administration of laxative or that they may not have been photos of faeces. She was disturbed by the fact that M had taken these photos of a 12 year old boy with full nappies around his ankles. She said ‘I think it’s unusual for a mother to take a photo of a child with a pull up pulled down and take a photo at that stage. Acutely its embarrassing for a child. Why were they taken? Most mothers would clean him up and get on with life. When I see pictures of faeces in clinic it is because the carer is saying he passed funny stool, so I took a pic of it to show it to you… It did disturb me’.[183]M told me that she had taken the photographs as ‘evidence’ and that she had attempted to show the photographs to the CAFCASS officer. Ten photographs were produced. Nine were taken between February 2023 and October 2024. They appear to show heavy soiling. The tenth was taken in October 2021 and show marks on the inside of trousers. It is significantly less serious than the other nine which were all taken during periods of contact difficulties. I will return to the photographs later.[184]Dr Crawford’s evidence about soiling was not challenged in cross examination. The consultant paediatrician in gastroenterology listened to her evidence before he gave evidence. He agreed with Dr Crawford that soiling of this complexity and severity, as described by M, could not disappear in the time between the move to F and her examination of the child. He explained that he had accepted M’s account of T’s presentation and diagnosed on the basis of that narrative. He was plainly very uncomfortable with the thought that he might have given medication and undertaken examinations that were unnecessary. He is not to blame.[185]I have no hesitation in finding that T did not suffer from constipation with soiling When I make this finding and all other findings, I bear in mind the totality of the evidence that I have set out and that I will set. . I will deal now with the question of fabrication and induction. Fabrication of ASD traits and fabrication and induction of constipation with soiling Origins

Fabrication of ASD traits and fabrication and induction of constipation with soiling

[186]The first time that M appears to have raised sensory issues was at an ophthalmology appointment on 11 July 2018 when T was aged 4 years 5 months. It was just after contact had broken down. The height of the concerns raised at this point is that M reported some concerns about T’s general growth and development. It was noted “she also feels that apart from his ophthalmic problem of squints, he has sensory issues like poor hearing”. This led to a referral to the specialist clinic. When M was challenged about her account of T having behavioural problems but not seeing the GP about this until December 2018, she responded “…it weren’t anything specific - we were at [hospital] and they asked if I had any issues at home I said about him being violent - struggled with sleeping and they make made the referral to the specialist clinic, I think” . There was no reference to T being violent or not sleeping in the notes or the referral letters to the clinic. This is M exaggerating.[187]The first time that M contacted T’s GP and reported issues of behaviours associated with ASD was on a significant date, namely 17 December 2018. On this date there was a court hearing at which both parents attended. The court made a PSO to prevent M from removing T from the jurisdiction. M gave an account of ASD like behaviours to the GP surgery as follows:
“History seen with " ****. pt does not like noise/ sight of other people . ten to be aggressive and *****, . refused to walk , not verbal, in private nursery. + ***** advised to contact nursery for a report of pt's behaviours at *****. will try to get reports. ***** states difficult to do videos as pt tends to be " ****, tends to " *** " and " *** ***** at times. advise to see gp.”
[188]On 21 December 2018, M came into see the GP and requested a referral for T to paediatrics “History " **** came to request ref. lo paeds. developmental issues since birth. fell and head injury at age 7months, will not walk most time general pains. , some behavioural issues, ref from opthal to neurodisability the hospital declined.” There are a number of inaccuracies in the account she gave. T was not 7 months when he had a head injury. When asked about this she tried to suggest he had another head injury, this was obviously an untrue answer. It was untrue to say that T would not walk. His 24-month developmental assessment makes clear that he was walking without concerns.[189]M’s focus on obtaining a diagnosis continued to grow. T started primary school in January 2019. She attended an appointment with a paediatrician on 4 February 2019. She told me that she could not recall that meeting. In it she developed a detailed, and largely false, narrative of T as a child with ASD in order to secure the GDA pathway referral. That avenue went nowhere and M went to the GP on 8 April 2019. The GP explained that the school must make a referral for a child over 5 years old. In the summer of 2019, the court had confirmed that F was T’s father and ordered CAFCASS to make a section 7 inquiry. On the first day of the school term M approached the school alleging severe meltdowns. M mapped her concerns about T’s behaviour into F’s application “for residency” when she approached the school visibly upset on 4 October 2019. On 22 November 2019 she mapped them onto the imminent contact arrangements and her fears that T’s meltdowns would trigger the F to ‘lose it’. This was some three days after a court hearing where the court made a child arrangements order directing contact between T and F.[190]In the period from March to May 2020, supervised contact arrangements could not occur due to the pandemic and M would not agree alternative arrangement. At a hearing on 5 May 2020, M raised T’s purported additional special needs including meltdowns. CAFCASS were directed to investigate this. On that date, T was not in school and M reported that she had been struggling with his meltdowns in the past few weeks.[191]The first mention of toileting in the records was on 10 July 2020. M told a nurse that “the only issue was that sometimes he poo in his pants but this is due to being out of routine or in an unfamiliar place”.[192]The next mention was to the parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school on 4 September 2020 when M told her that that during the February 2020 half term whilst she was away on holiday and T “stopped at home with older siblings” T “soiled himself everyday”. She was asked to explain how this could be reconciled with what was said to the nurse on 10 July 2020. Her story jumped all over the place. At first, she said T was in the care of an older sibling. Then she said he was at the older sibling’s house. Then T’s sister was also at the older sibling’s house. Then she said T soiled so much that the older sibling could not cope with him, so he went back to his home. Then she said T was at his home with his sister, or maybe her parents. When reminded that she had told the parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school that T was with his siblings, she said T’s sister cared for T. When reminded that T’s sister had told me that she only ever had to clean up soiling no more than once or twice in 2024, M said T’s sister was wrong. I have no doubt that M was lying to the parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school when she told her about soiling in the February half term and continued lying to me.[193]As time moved on, M’s narratives as to the meltdowns and soiling (faeces and urine) grew as demonstrated in the records to which I have referred.[194]One of the issues with which I must grapple is whether soiling was fabricated or induced or both. During the course of hearing, the LA amended the pleading to include specific references to prescriptions which the LA allege were used to induce soiling. It was submitted by Ms Wills-Goldingham KC that this was a significant and improper amendment. I reject that submission. The original pleading included an averment that T had been given large and sustained does of a variety of laxative medications over many years. The refinement of that allegation into specific time periods as a result of the cross examination was no more than a refinement and not in any way a new allegation.[195]Ms Cavanagh KC and Ms Davey produced a chronology of medications that were prescribed for T from 28 January 2021 until he left M’s care in October 2024. It was used a forensic tool in their cross examination of M and submissions. It is an alarming analysis:a. Between 28 January 2021 and 25 January 2022, T was not prescribed anything more than Movicol/Laxido (30 sachets) once per day which M told me T would not take, and that she may have used a few. On 2 August 2021 a GP told M that T did not need Laxido as he was toileting daily.b. When M saw the consultant paediatrician in gastroenterology on 25 January 2002, she him that “in the past T was tried with Movicol, Dulcolax in various forms or tablets and syrups which he does not take due to his sensory issues”. If true, then it could only have been over the counter and nonprescription medication and not taken in accordance with medical advice.c. The consultant paediatrician in gastroenterology, having heard a false narrative. prescribed sodium picosulfate/Dulcolax on the 25 January 2022. 300mls was collected on 15 February 2022 and placed on repeat prescription;d. On 28 February 2022, M stated that T only took this for 48 hours due to vomiting and loose stools and M told the parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school and continence nurse that T does not suffer from constipation and had not been giving him the medication;e. M obtained 300mls more of Dulcolax on 28 April 2022 despite T not taking it. She told me that her reason was that she collected all repeat prescriptions monthly;f. On 4 May 2022 Docusate and Movicol were prescribed and collected. Docusate was collected in July 2022, August 2022, late Sept 2022 and in November 2022: 1.2 litres of the medication (up to 480 doses). This was despite telling professionals that T did not take it and refused it;g. In the same period, M collected Movicol 120 sachets in September 2022 (which would last to the 21 January 2023 if given at the correct dose), then another 50 sachets for a disimpaction regime were prescribed on 29 November 2022. A regime which M did not start. Again, according to her evidence T would not take these and she used barely any of them;h. On 11 October 2022 M told the continence nurse that T was on no medications as the GP had said only to take when needed;i. On 19 January 2023, M collected another 50 sachets of Movicol. Then within 3 weeks on 6 and 7 February 2023 she was given another 160 sachets for the disimpaction regime. M could not explain why she asked and obtained more when the first disimpaction sachets remained, on her account, with her. On 9 February 2023 M obtained 300ml more Docusate despite having a large quantity at home. M then ordered 40 more sachets of Movicol within two weeks of each other on 24 February 2023 and 9 March 2023). By the 15 February 2023, the disimpaction regime was over and T was back on the maintenance dose;j. M said that during the disimpaction regime T took Movicol well and had up to 12 sachets a day. By March 2023, M told the continence nurse that T was taking 2-3 sachets a day;k. In May 2023, when completing the questionnaire for the private autism assessment M said that T was on Movicol 1-4 sachets a day. This was not the dose prescribed for T. From March 2023 to 28 July 2023, T was prescribed only one sachet a day. It would appear that T was receiving more than the prescribed dose;l. From April 2023 to the end of July 2023, M obtained 480 more sachets of Movicol (on 12 April 2023, 23 May 2023, 14 July 2023 and 28 July 2023) and another 1.2 litres of Docusate;m. M accepted in evidence that Movicol had a three-year use by date;n. In the new school term September 2023 to the end of the academic year July 2024, M obtained 600 sachets of Movicol (on 8 September 2023, 6 November 2023, 9 May 2024, 3 June 2024 and 19 July 24) and 900mls of Docusate (on 8 September 2023, 6 November 2023 and 18 January 2024 and 60 Bisacodyl tablets on 30 May 2024;o. T soiled at school on 30 April 2024 which all the other children noticed as did the teacher. M explained that there had been soiling that weekend due to the doses of laxatives given. M told the continence nurse a week later that T was using Bisacodyl in this period;p. On 7 May 2024, M reported to the continence nurse that T was refusing all medications. M was trying different ways to give these. M reported that the Bisacodyl prescribed by the consultant paediatrician in gastroenterology was taken for two weeks to very good effect but dropped a dose then T refused to take it;q. On 17 June 2024, M reported to the continence nurse that T was refusing all medication at home. By 17 July 2024, she reported that the medication regime was still being refused and was not re-established and the plan was to try at school;r. Given that M was reporting that T had taken no Movicol or medication in June and July 2024, M’s requests for large doses of Movicol in May, June and July make no sense; ands. In the 15 days between 9 and 24 September 2024 M obtained 240 sachets of Movicol and two days later 56 tablets of Bisacodyl.[196]M’s explanations for requesting and collecting these prescriptions were strange. She suggested that she would just collect monthly repeat prescriptions and place them on her shelves in the loft without any regard for how many she already had. When M was challenged about looking at the boxes and bottles on her shelves and observing what she had, she suggested that she sometimes she just left them on the stairs to the loft and therefore did not see them. I do not understand those answers. I find she was lying to me.[197]The period of 2023 and 2024 is highly significant in T’s apparent soiling progression. It coincides with the period when M frustrated F’s contact with T and when T was seen to be distressed at school. It also coincides with the periods of time when M was avidly gathering ‘evidence’ by way of photographs of soiling. As said above nine of the ten photographs were taken in this period in February, April, September 2023 and February, September, May and October 2024. They all coincide with the dates when M had access to extraordinary amounts of laxatives.[198]The majority of the images of alleged soiling are taken in the evening, many hours after school. One was taken in the early morning and one after T came home from school ill on the 3 October 2024 at about 1pm.[199]I have no hesitation in finding that these are photographs of real faeces and that on each occasion that these photographs were taken the soiling was induced by M giving T unnecessary and high doses of laxatives.[200]On 23 August 2021, M gave a detailed narrative to a GP which was full of untruths: that T was under the Children’s Hospital for Autism, that T was very delayed in his milestones, that T had no control of his bowels and urine and that T had a fractured skull at 20 months old. In oral evidence, she was asked about the doctor’s comment that T’s incontinence might have been in the aftermath of a brain injury (i.e. the fractured skull), her reaction was extraordinary. She told me “I was really, really elated after that”. She said she called her mother as she finally had an answer. When it was put to such a reaction to a doctor talking about a brain injury to her child was bizarre, M said it was a head injury not a brain injury. That answer was untrue. Two weeks later on 3 September 2021 the parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school reports her saying that “T has been to the hospital over the summer holidays and the doctor asked mum if T had received a head injury in the past - M informed him that T had a cracked skull as a baby. The doctor feels that T's incontinence is medically linked to his brain injury.” M could say no more than that that the parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school was in error. This vividly illustrates M’s distorted view of T’s health.[201]On 15 June 2023, M obtained a private autism assessment. I have addressed above a number of the inaccuracies stated by M in respect of developmental issues. It also contained other problematic and untrue assertions including:a. “No contact with F since 8 years. Just had contact.” This was not true.b. “T didn't sleep. Only when he was 6 years old that he started sleeping ok. Fed every hour up until 5 years old. Possibly needed this for comfort.” This was not true.c. “Late in talking. About 2 ½ to 3 years old only said 1 or 2 words. Putting sentences together around 4 years old.” This was not true.d. “Didn't walk until he was 18 months but didn't do this in nursery as he didn't want to.” This was not true.e. “Takes everything literal. E.g. pull your socks up would take that literally. Doesn't understand jokes and sarcasm. If you say one minute he will wait 60 seconds. Have to stick to your word or this will cause a meltdown. Cant stand people laughing. Will wack people and say that you laughing at him.” I pause to note that this is at odds with T’s siblings’ evidence.f. “T for many years (since around 2 ½ yrs old) shown severe signs of aggression and violence and getting worse. He can't sit still unless on electronics then struggles to acknowledge anything else. He's got no sense of danger runs into road, up street, kicking and screaming during car journeys. Goes to hurt others that could potentially cause severe harm and damage. He watches same tv over and over constantly.” I pause to note that there are no entries in T’s records for T being aggressive or violent when he was 2 ½ years old. There is no record of poor behaviours of that character until the GP visit on 21 December 2018 when T was aged 4 years and 10 months.g. “T don't participate in social activities, we have tried swimming, football, ice skating (offered other clubs) and he struggles with confidence and to accept instructions and holds back and just stands there alone, He refuses to participate, and says he wants 1 to 1” I note that the school wrote “He plays football, participates in PE and hasn't displayed any difficulties.”h. “M describes him as a loving young man, but he is often unable to express himself outside of his familiar relationships. He is uncomfortable in speaking in front of peers within the classroom, or to people he does not know well. If the teacher speaks to the class directing their conversation to everyone, T will take this personally and will think that the teacher is talking specifically to him, he will worry that he has therefore performed poorly or made a mistake.” This is totally odds with the school’s evidence.i. “At home he can be brutally honest. But at school he will say nothing. He struggles to process sarcasm or metaphor and doesn't seem to understand jokes or be able to 'read between the lines'. He can however, ‘learn' a joke with a bit of help.” This was contradicted by the parental support adviser and attendance lead at T’s primary school and T’s siblings.[202]M made revealing comments in the private autism assessment which are perhaps a window into the connection between her behaviour and her feelings about the private law proceedings:a. “T has just recently started having regular contact with F and due to scared and masking, refusing to go to school to avoid contact, he won't talk to him and tell his feelings and really struggles with anxiety and stress caused.”b. “Yes T masks at school (and contact with F) then release all built up during the day at home, or in car on way home. Or on his return from contact and this getting far worse and more aggressive and violent. He struggles with separation from me at the minute, saying he don't want to go to school and he wants to stay with me, he misses me too much and his heart hurts.T suffers severe anxiety and gets regular cold sores/herpes and has for years.”c. “Poor attendance due to medical treatment, struggling last couple of months and lately more frequently on daily basis refusing to go to school, a real battled daily to get him dressed and out the house to go to school and a real battle.”[203]When the medical chronology is overlaid with the private law proceedings it is apparent that there is a connection between them.[204]I have no hesitation in finding that M fabricated T’s symptoms of autism and that she fabricated his symptoms of constipation with soiling which led to him being regularly over medicated with laxatives and that on several occasions she induced him to soil by unnecessarily administering high doses of laxatives.

Use of buggy or wheelchair?

[205]There is a plethora of evidence of M telling professionals that T could not or would not walk. M does not dispute this. She told professionals on many dates including on 17 December 2018, 21 December 2018, 4 February 2019, 24 November 2021, 2 January 2024, 16 July 2024 and 1 August 2024 that:a. T suffered with pains in his legs needing a buggy or wheelchair;b. T would not walk on many occasions;c. T tires when outdoors; andd. A pushchair/ wheelchair helps T to regulate himself when outdoors he can cover himself with hood and block out the light[206]It would appear that M had been using a buggy for T since late 2021. She told, a continence nurse, on 24 November 2021 that she was trying to obtain a ‘major buggy’ so that she could take T out. This was confirmed by T’s sister, who said T has used a buggy since he was seven years old.[207]In her oral evidence M told me that she had used the buggy for safety because T could be put in it and covered with a blanket when he was violent.[208]Dr Crawford concluded in her report that there was no good reason for T to use a wheelchair or push chair. In her report she concluded “[t]here is absolutely no evidence out of his mother’s care that T has any of these problems. Indeed, he is a very active young man. I believe that this has also been fabricated.”[209]In addition to Dr Crawford’s opinion, I have an enormous amount of evidence from T’s primary school, from his secondary school, from his half-brother, from his half-sister, from F, and from the social workers that T is very active boy, who loves football, walks to school and plays with his friends. He had not been put in a buggy or wheel chair since he has lived with F.[210]I have no hesitation in finding that T did not need to use a buggy or wheelchair.

Neglect

[211]The LA authority have in their threshold pleading advanced a case of neglect based on:a. Extraction of 10 decayed teeth on March 2020;b. A school attendance rate of 89.04% in 2023/2024 and 79.55% in 204/2025; andc. M falsely claiming that T was ill on particular days when he due to have contact with F.[212]The only evidence I have in respect of T’s decayed teeth comes from the dental surgeon. In his statement he explains in response to a question about the cause of decay: The meaning of grossly carious indicates that the tooth affected is decayed to such an extent that an extraction is required and a filling would not be possible. The causes of this are usually a combination of a high intake of sugary foods/drinks and poor oral hygiene i.e. insufficient brushing. The only exception being if the teeth were congenitally malformed, i.e. enamel hypoplasia, which has not been observed.[213]Dr Crawford produced a second report dealing with the question of whether or not T failed to thrive in M’s care. She did not come to the conclusion that T had failed to thrive and she made no comment on the tooth decay issue. I do not have the evidence before me to reach a finding about neglect in respect of the tooth decay and I make no such finding.[214]As to school attendance, it is an inevitable consequence that, as a result of the findings I have made about a false presentation of T’s alleged autistic traits and his constipation with soiling and his over medication and the actual induction of soiling, M’s behaviour will have led to T missing school. I also find that T missed school at times because of contact arrangements, for instance in September/October 2025 when the social worker attended M’s home.[215]However, it seems to me that this is part of the matrix of the significant harm suffered by T rather than a particular form of M’s behaviour to be expressed as ‘neglect’. I will deal with significant harm later.

M’s behaviour or motivation

[216]Dr Crawford’s report provides an admirably succinct explanation of FII and its impact: Fabricated and induced illness (FII) is a clinical situation in which a child is or is very likely to be harmed due to parental behaviour and action carried out in order to convince a doctor that the child’s state of physical or mental health and neurodevelopment was impaired or more impaired than was actually the case. FII results in physical, emotional abuse and neglect as a result of parental actions, behaviours or beliefs and from doctors responses to these.[217]Professor Nathan was instructed to undertake a full mental health assessment of M. His report is dated 6 July 2025. He concluded that M is not and has not been suffering from mental illness and is not suffering from ASD. M has had a private assessment which diagnosed her as suffering from ASD. Professor Nathan noted the discrepancy between his assessment and the private one. He opined that there was a possibility that M may have overstated the nature and extent of her problems for some perceived advantage in the private assessment and downplayed the extent of her problems for some perceived current advantage.[218]He came to the conclusion that if I found that M had fabricated or exaggerated illness in T then: 4.4.22 Having considered all the above, I would conclude that in a scenario in which it is held the alleged behaviour in relation to her son occurred, then it would be reasonable to provisionally apply a diagnosis Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another. This opinion is offered provisionally not only because there are so many noted clinical uncertainties (which would require much more extensive assessment over a period of time), but also because there remains a question about whether there is/has been deceptiveness (a requirement for the diagnosis). However, even if it is deemed that she actually does genuinely hold her beliefs in question about her son's difficulties, then in the absence of an alternative mental disorder to explain her behaviour, I would work on the basis that Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another is a reasonable working diagnosis (i.e. one that should inform any ongoing assessment and treatment decisions and risk management).[219]In oral evidence, it was put to Professor Nathan that various elements of his potential diagnosis of Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another were not made out and that it was more likely that M was in fact suffering from ASD. He made two things plain in his responses. First, in the event that I made findings, his diagnosis was a ‘working diagnosis’ and, second, if he were wrong, then a diagnosis for ASD would make no difference to his prognosis. As he explained in his report, there are limitations on the level of understanding that M can achieve. He pointed out that M continues to believe that T suffered the problems that she reported and that he is likely to still be suffering them but is masking in F’s care. He reported that M could not contemplate that it was something within her that led to T’s issue with his health. Her problems are long standing constitutional problems, and M presents no clear indication that her state is amenable to any treatment.[220]In M’s closing submissions it was suggested to me that I could not make findings of FII without being satisfied of a diagnosis by Professor Nathan of Factitious Disorder Imposed on Another. I reject that submission. Professor Nathan’s evidence has in my view no bearing on the fact-finding exercise which is about what has happened to T not why it has happened.[221]In my view on this fact finding exercise, I am making findings about what M did or did not do. I am not making findings about why she did so. Having said that I find that it is likely that M did what she did because she was motivated by a desire to thwart contact arrangements between F and by the financial rewards of the DLA application. In respect of the former, I cannot say, and do not need to say, whether and to what extent the desire was conscious or unconscious.[222]My tentative finding may be wrong or over-simplified. Dr Burchess expressed this opinion in oral evidence: I have asked myself why M is behaving in this way to T and not her other children and one of the things I think might be of significant is what is her motivation? M has had a number of relationships that haven’t worked out - two relationships were abusive. She has five children and T is the youngest one, the others are adults and we see at the time of assessment, at the time I assessed her, she was not working, she didn’t have a job. The older children were independent, she had no partner, two abusive relationships and lots of acrimony. Having a child with lots of these types of difficulties is one way of giving yourself an identity - you have got to fight for assessment. For a diagnosis this was a woman on a mission and so in a way I am wondering whether that is what her motive was, having all the health problems was meeting some of her needs at that time.[223]Dr Burchess may or may not be right. As I have said, I do not need to reach any definitive conclusion about M’s motivation.

My findings

[224]I have reviewed very carefully all the evidence in this case and viewed it as whole, looking at the medical evidence, the medical records and hearing and reading witness evidence. As a result, I have a very full picture of the whole of T’s life. As I have said in part above, I have no hesitation in finding that:a. T is not autistic;b. T has not suffered from constipation with soiling;c. T did not need to use any mobility device;d. From 2018 to 2024, M repeatedly presented to medical practitioner’s false accounts of: i. T’s developmental history; ii. T’s head injury; iii. T’s sensory issues; and iv. T’s behaviour.e. From 2020 to 2024, M repeatedly presented to medical practitioner’s false accounts of T’s constipation with soiling and, as a result, she gave T unnecessary laxatives;f. At times during 2023 and 2024, M deliberately induced soiling in T by administering laxatives for the purpose of creating ‘evidence’ to support her case in the private law proceedings and generally to support her belief that he suffered from constipation from soiling;[225]This course of prolonged action over a very significant period of T’s life has caused him significant harm in many ways including the following:a. He has attended consultations at which he has listened to his primary carer recounting false stories about him;b. He has attended multiple unnecessary medical consultations at which he underwent unnecessary and at times intrusive physical examinations;c. He has suffered the consequences of the administration of unnecessary laxatives;d. He has been required by his primary carer to suffer the indignity of: i. wearing pull up nappies at home; ii. Using a mobility device unnecessarily; iii. Wearing headphones unnecessarily; iv. Being photographed by his primary carer after soiling himself; v. Using a weighted blanket unnecessarily;e. When in M’s care, he lacked confidence, barely spoke to professionals and could not sustain eye contact with them;f. His school attendance was poor and he therefore missed educational opportunity;g. His daily life in M’s care was unnecessarily limited[226]Dr Crawford confirmed a great deal of the above in her report and also commented that ‘it is hard to think that T was not very confused and anxious about his state of health’. It is worth pausing to remember that T was exposed to this harm from at least late 2018 to October 2024, from the time he was four until he was 10.[227]I find that, for the purposes of s31(2), T suffered significant harm attributable to the care given to him by M and was at risk of suffering significant harm from her if he had remained in her care. That finding applies to the date of the without notice interim care order, the on notice order, the date the LA brought proceedings. That risk stands now as I write this judgment. The threshold was undoubtedly crossed.[228]The LA put forward a 14 page pleading. It was a very helpful document for preparing this judgment but I am not convinced that it is the best way of presenting my findings. I will in due course hear argument from the parties about how my findings should be presented in the event that they cannot reach agreement on that point. Outcome issues With whom should T live?

Outcome issues

[229]All the parties agree that I should not make care or supervision orders. It is agreed that T will continue to live with F under a ‘lives with’ order. All the evidence before me demonstrates that T is thriving in F’s care and has been since the moment he moved there on 7 October 2024. T was a child who had been told he was autistic and incontinent, unable to participate in the normal life enjoyed by a young boy. He is now a fully active 12-year-old,. He has a full and happy relationship with F. For years, he was denied that opportunity. He enjoys 100% attendance at school. All the professionals see the positive change in him. Ms Storey reports that he has “come out of his shell”.[230]T’s wishes and feelings are very significant. He has expressed firmly his wish to be living with F. I have briefly reminded myself of the no order principle. It has no applicability here. I have considered the welfare check list and I have stood back. I have no doubt that the proper order to make is for T to live with F.

Contact with M

[231]T currently has weekly supervised contact with M at a contact centre arranged by the LA. On occasion M has not attended contact and she has not attended many of the meetings organised by the LA. As I said above, M holds antipathy towards to the Guardian and the social worker, and the LA as a result of the without notice order made on 7 October 2024. She complains that the Guardian has not met her nor observed contact. This is an unfair criticism. The Guardian has offered M meetings on several occasions but she has not taken up those offers. The Guardian told me that she had read the notes of the supervised contact and was not in any way hindered by not having observed contact. I think it likely that M has avoided meetings because she has found the process of the care proceedings very difficult.[232]The LA, F and the Guardian all concur that contact should be closely supervised (as it currently is) and that it should reduce to once every other month (i.e. there should be six sessions of contact per year). The frequency of contact advance is said to emanate from T. Ms Storey and the Guardian report that T has expressed a desire to see M once every two months. He has stated so in a letter to me. In closing submissions, Ms Wills-Goldingham KC proposed on M’s behalf that contact should be in accordance with T’s wishes, noting that the social worker stated that T shrugged his shoulders when contact once a month was proposed. She suggested on M’s behalf that contact should be up to once a month. I am not entirely sure how this would be managed.[233]It is important that T maintains a relationship with M and a child arrangements ‘spend time with’ order providing for contact once every two months will best meet T’s welfare needs. His wishes and feelings have been clearly expressed. It is very important that I should attach proper weight to what T has expressed and allow his voice to be heard. I therefore direct that contact should be once every two months.[234]T has been clear that he does not want contact with his siblings. All the parties agree that T’s wishes should be respected. I have considered T’s welfare and I agree with that.[235]To be clear, the LA, F and the Guardian all submit that contact should be closely supervised because of the continued risk of harm to T from M. As I have already explained, Professor Nathan’s prognosis for M was bleak. That bleakness was occasioned in part by M’s inability to acknowledge that the symptoms she described in T were untrue. I find that remains the position and I find there remains a significant risk that M is likely to say inappropriate things to T about his medical history unless contact is supervised.[236]Contact between T and M will be closely supervised. That is essential in the context of this case. It is important given the findings that I have made about M that T should be protected from comments which might put him at risk. The independent social worker, expressed concerns to me about possible conversations M might have with T about her view of his health problems. It is also important that food or drink is not given to T by M. It would not be appropriate for supervision to be undertaken by non-professional supervisor who might not understand the risks involved.[237]The LA have put forward a Child in Need Plan; alterations to which were agreed with the Guardian during the course of the hearing. Under the plan, there will be home visits every four weeks, or more if necessary, and contact will be reduced in a managed way. If T changes his mind and expresses a wish to see his siblings, this will be incorporated into the family time he spends with M. The LA have also indicated a willingness to work with the siblings to help them understand the harm T has suffered and its impact on him. The LA have agreed that the CIN plan will remain in place for 8 months or longer if needed and that the social worker will remain as social worker.[238]The only contact centre which can facilitate contact is in in a nearby city. There is an annual cost of about £1,000 for six periods of closely supervised contact. In addition, both parties will have to travel for contact. M has a car. F has a motorbike which is not suitable for travelling with T as passenger on the motorway. I am asked to determine how contact should be funded. M says that the costs of the centre and F’s travel costs should be split between them. F says that M should bear all the costs including the travel costs. I know very little about the parties’ finances save that both are on benefits, M takes frequent foreign holidays, F does not, M drives a relatively new Mercedes and that £38 per week is deducted from M’s benefits in child support payments.[239]I will deal with funding in a relatively arbitrary way. In my view M should pay the costs of the centre and F should bear his travel costs. I consider this to be a fair solution.

Name change

[240]Until closing submissions, I had understood that F’s application was for a change in T’s surname from a double barrelled amalgam of M and F’s surnames to just F’s surname. I think the LA and the Guardian were also under this mis-apprehension. However, Mr O’Brien KC confirmed my suspicions that in fact the application was also to remove T’s two middle names despite the fact that this was not identified in his skeleton argument on the topic. Ms Wills-Goldingham KC’s written closing submission had correctly anticipated this change in presentation.[241]T’s wishes and feelings were expressed in a short letter to me in which he said he wished to be called ‘’TW’. The other parties had had not understood this to be an expression by him of desire to change his name from the double-barrelled amalgam to simply his father’s surname. The absence of T’s middle names from his short letter to me does not in my view imply that he wishes to lose his middle names.[242]I have been referred by F to the House of Lords decision in Dawson v Wearmouth [1999] AC 308 and the Court of Appeal in Re A, Re A, Re B (Change of Name) [1999] 2 FLR 930. I do not need to rehearse those authorities. The only point which I need to take from those cases into this case is that I must decide this on welfare grounds.[243]I have already explained that my central focus in assessment of T’s welfare is his wishes and feelings. He has expressed very clearly that he wishes to be known as TW. He has explained that he does not like having a double-barrelled name at school and, indeed, he is known as TW at school.[244]F and the Guardian invite me to remove T’s middle names and change his surname. The LA say I should change his surname but leave his middle names. M says his names should remain as they are.[245]I find that it is in T’s best interests for T’s surname to be changed to W. However, I take a different view in respect of his middle names. M is an important feature in T’s life and she must not be excluded from it. She gave him his middle names. My understanding is that are connected to her mother, T’s grandmother. I do not read T’s letter to me as being a clear statement that he wants to lose his middle names. Even if I am wrong, I do not think it appropriate that I should remove his middle names.[246]I invited counsel to identify by reference to authority or anecdotal evidence cases in which middle names have been removed. They could not do so. I do not think my powers are limited in any way and I have no doubt that I have the power to make such an order but I do not consider it appropriate.

Section 91(14)

[247]F applies for an order prohibiting M from making any applications in respect of T for a period of two years. Such a prohibition would not prevent M from making applications to enforce the contact order I have made but it would require M to seek permission to make any other applications in respect of T. F’s application is supported by the LA and the Guardian. M objects to the order being made.[248]Section 91(14) Children Act 1989 states as follows:
“91(14) On disposing of any application for an order under this Act, the court may (whether or not it makes any other order in response to the application) order that no application for an order under this Act of any specified kind may be made with respect to the child concerned by any person named in the order without leave of the court.”
[249]The ambit of section 91(14) orders has been widened by section 91A and Practice Direction 12Q. Section 91A(2) states: (2) The circumstances in which the court may make a section 91(14) order include, among others, where the court is satisfied that the making of an application for an order under this Act of a specified kind by any person who is to be named in the section 91(14) order would put—(a) the child concerned, or(b) [….] at risk of harm.[250]PD12Q is contemporaneous with the new section 91A. In PD12Q section 91(14) is described as ‘a protective filter’ in the interests of children, whose welfare is the paramount consideration. The circumstances the court must look at are not limited to a history of incessant applications, but wide ranging, including the need for a period of stability, and other conduct such as harassment through social media.[251]The law is not in any way limited to or by evidence of history of vexatious applications. It is a simple test based on harm to the child in question. These are not exceptional orders (see In Re A (A Child) (supervised contact) (s91(14) Children Act 1989 orders) [2021] EWHC Civ 1749.)[252]T has been the subject of proceedings since late 2018. He has been subjected not only to the intrusive nature of private and public law proceedings but also subjected to the very serious harm that I have found was perpetrated on him by M in the period from 2018 to 2024. T needs a period away from intrusive assessments whether forensic or medical.[253]He has suffered significant harm and I have no doubt that he needs the protection of s91(14) to ensure stability and peace in his life. With luck such peace will also allow him to build a new and meaningful relationship with M.[254]Any applications for permission should be made in the first instance to Judge Afzal CBE, who will refer it to me, if I am available. If I am not, he will decide the application or allocate it to another judge.[255]That is my judgment.