Portsmouth City Council v Mother & Ors [2026] EWFC 136
[1]The Local Authority (Portsmouth) invite me to make findings of fact, as set out in a composite final schedule, which all turn on the cause of bruising to a child, B. In short, Portsmouth say that bruising was caused by one of the first and third respondents (Mother and Mr U) in a moment of either anger or loss of control. Portsmouth have made clear Mother and Mr U are not in their view bad parents indeed they have returned B and his brother, C, to Mother’s care (while under an interim care order) pending this trial. Mother and Mr U deny that they caused the bruising. There is no question, but that B was extensively bruised. They suspect that the bruising is caused by rough play between B and a Cocker Spaniel puppy.[2]The second respondent (Mr W) who is the father of A and has had her living with him since the beginning of these proceedings, agrees with Portsmouth as to the cause of the bruises. The Guardian has not come down on one side or the other. This is a case which will turn on conflicting scientific evidence and she says that if I find the bruises are ‘linear bruises’ then the local authority is right. If I find they are not linear bruises then they are not right. She notes she is no scientist and cannot assist me with that.[3]I do remark that I have to weigh the scientific evidence in the context of all the circumstances of this case but the clear issue with which I have to grapple with is that I have one doctor who tells me that bruises are likely to be caused by gripping (in the sense of whole finger or hand squeezing) and one telling me that they are not and it is possible that they are caused by rough play with the puppy.[4]Further, Mr Miller, for Mother, has made an application for another blood test on B. It is his case that a secondary level test is necessary to rule out the possibility that B bruises easily. I will deal with that below.[5]I shall not repeat in the body of this judgment the representation of the parties. It is as set out above. I do however want to compliment all counsel for the helpful and co-operative manner in which they have conducted this case.Summary Background
[6]These proceedings concern Mother’s three children: A (7 nearly 8), B (3 nearly 4) and C (2). Mr W is the father of A, and Mr U is the father of B and C.[7]All the children had been living with Mother and Mr U at the time these proceedings started. Mother and Mr U had recently revived their relationship and each had a separate property. Mother a house; and Mr U a flat. The properties were close and the family would move between the two homes. Mr W would have time with A.[8]On the 17 October 2025 proceedings were initiated following staff at B’s nursery noticing significant bruising to his arms and legs. Police protection powers were used that day and Emergency Protection Orders were granted on the 20 October 2025 and Interim Care Orders on the 27 October 2025. B and C were placed with their paternal grandparents. A was placed with Mr W (her father) with a supervision order and a child arrangements order.[9]Mother and B and C went to a residential assessment unit in November and then following a positive assessment moved back to live with Mother where they have had time with Mr U. Mother has had regular and frequent unsupervised contact with A but not overnight contact.[10]Before the 17 October 2025 the children were not known to Portsmouth’s Children Services.[11]Both Mother and Mr U were voluntarily interviewed by the police. I have been shown transcripts of the interviews. The police took no further action.The law
[12]I have been given helpful summaries of the law. It has not been in dispute between the parties. The principles that I have distilled from the summaries that will guide me I state shortly as follow:a. The burden of proof is on Portsmouth.b. The standard of proof is the balance of probabilities.c. I need to consider all the evidence.d. I need to take a balanced approach to oral evidence.e. I need to hold in mind that there are many reasons to deceive, and one lie does not mean a witness has lied about everything.The medical evidence
[13]There have been three medical doctors giving evidence before me. Dr Rowley, who conducted the Child Protection Medical on the 17 October 2025 and provided an addendum report reviewing other expert evidence on the 24 April 2026. She is a Consultant Paediatrician. Dr Peer Mohamed, who was instructed as a single joint expert. He reported on the 19 February 2026 and provided an addendum report on the 14 April 2026. He is also a Consultant Paediatrician. Further I heard from Dr Allameddine, another single joint expert. He is a Consultant Haematologist.[14]Dr Allameddine’s evidence caused some consternation, which save for Mr Miller’s application for a further blood test has subsided. So I will deal with it before the lengthier consideration that I need to give to the paediatricians’ evidence.[15]Dr Allameddine asserted that what everyone else had considered bruises were not in fact bruises at the time they were photographed. They may have subsequently developed into bruises but they were erythematous lesions when photographed. He said that the critical test would have been whether they blanched: bruises do not, erythematous lesions do. Dr Rowley gave clear evidence that they did not blanche. She was there and had checked that. The possibility that they had been lesions when photographed but developed into bruises during examination was considered but had to be discounted as an explanation because Dr Rowley’s evidence was that she took the photographs after the examination. (It needs to be noted that it was not a medical photographer who took the photographs but Dr Rowley because the collective view was that rendered the quality lower.)[16]Dr Peer Mohamed agreed with Dr Rowley that these were bruises. Further both considered that this was an issue that did not fall within the expertise of a haematologist but a paediatrician, or if there was some particular oddness, a dermatologist. I find that what was seen and photographed were bruises.[17]Dr Allameddine also expressed in his report the view that the marks (bruises or lesions) were patterned grip marks and therefore ‘a sign of physical abuse until proven otherwise’. He accepted during his oral evidence that he had followed where Dr Rowley had led in this regard and that this was not his area of expertise. I therefore attach no weight to his assertions that the marks indicate physical abuse. I further note that entirely properly no counsel proposed that I should.[18]Dr Allameddine had in his report said that it was highly unlikely that B had an underlying bleeding disorder. He had been asked to consider this because it was thought that might explain why B had so many bruises. He did propose some first line laboratory investigations to check for abnormalities. He did in his report note that there is a difference between RCPCH and BSH on whether second line investigations (‘an extended coagulation screen with Factor VII and von Willebrand factor’) should be undertaken. He did not express a view on this.[19]In his addendum report he records that the haematological investigations have shown that there is no evidence of an underlying bleeding disorder. Unfortunately he says these investigations included the second line investigations when they did not. He was asked whether once he had realised this mistake, he had changed his view as to whether B had an underlying blood disorder. He said it did not. He pointed out that(i) in fact before he wrote his first report RCPCH’s recommendation had changed so their guidance would not advise a further test;(ii) that he would only consider a test necessary if either of B’s parents appeared to have either of the conditions;(iii) given B’s age any problems sufficient to explain the bruising would have emerged.[20]Dr Rowley was an impressive witness. She was clearly a busy consultant and it is appropriate that this court acknowledges that the time she gave to give evidence to this court must have been difficult for her to find. She was the doctor who assessed B when he was taken to hospital. Her summary in the Child Protection Medical Report remains the core of her evidence. I shall cite the critical paragraph. The number, extent and pattern of B’s bruising is highly concerning for physical abuse…..The parents had no clear explanation for the bruises. They thought they could have occurred through play fighting with a sibling or a puppy. In my medical opinion neither of these explanations would account for the bruising that B had.[21]In her addendum report she records that her view has not changed.[22]In oral evidence her view remained the same. There were three distinct elements which led her to her conclusion. 1. The number of bruises: counsel endeavoured to give me figures which varied between mid-40s and mid-60s depending on how they were counted. There was agreement between Dr Rowley and Dr Peer Mohamed that this amount of bruising substantially exceeded what one would expect for an active child such as B. Dr Peer Mohamed suggested 10 bruises would be expected on average. 2. The location of the bruises: right upper arm, right forearm, left upper arm, left forearm, right lower legs. 3. Their pattern: linear parallel bruises. These three elements combined to cause her to maintain that the bruises were ‘highly concerning for physical abuse.’ In particular, elements 2 and 3 made her suspect the cause of the bruises were grab or grip marks – what Dr Peer Mohamed would call squeeze marks – where someone’s hand had gripped the child forcibly when holding an arm or leg. The linearity was the line of the fingers.[23]Dr Peer Mohamed impressed me as an intelligent man doing his best to assist the court with his experience. His disagreement with Dr Rowley turned on two points, first that the linear bruises were not linear bruises and second that the bruises could have been caused by the dog. In his first report he says as follows about the linear bruises on the limbs: Although these bruises appear to be linear bruises, some of the photographs clearly demonstrate that this is an appearance caused by circular and oval bruises placed next to each other and overlapping with each other.[24]In relation to the dog explanation he wrote: On the balance of probabilities, being struck repeatedly by the paws of a dog on the exposed parts of the body would be a compatible explanation although the appearance of the bruises would not be diagnostic of such a mechanism of injury.[25]In his Addendum report Dr Peer Mohamed made a pertinent observation in relation to whether or not the puppy hitting B with force sufficient to cause the bruising would have been painful. He wrote: …had B been deeply engrossed in playing with the dog and enjoying the contact with the dog at the time he sustained the bruises, then it is likely that any perception of pain would have been less prominent than otherwise.[26]During cross examination the linearity of the bruises was explored. Dr Peer Mohamed took us to some of the photographs that Dr Rowley had taken and it was relatively easy by enlarging the images to see that the bruises did not constitute a simple line but, as he said, were a circle and an oval. It was put to him that this might be the bruise a finger would make – some parts pressing harder and being the focus of one of the circles. His evidence was that these circles and ovals were not the bruises one would expect from a squeezing finger. Ms Parker in her closing submissions provided me with the following excerpts from her notes of his oral evidence: If you zoom into the top photo on that page, I do not see the linear pattern that I see when gripping by the hand. These lines would be very clear, well demarcated, follow the outline of the finger, and the finger crease as well, branching of the bruises at right angle. I don’t see any of those things. I see these are formed by circular or oval bruises placed next to each other…. …linear bruise outlines the finger itself. Pattern I see here is not typical of that. Linear bruise I see with the outline of the finger is characteristic. I have seen in so many publications and articles. This is not that. … What I am saying is this pattern is not characteristic of that gripping linear bruise at all.[27]He agreed that these bruises could come from a series of fingertip grips – as that would make the oval or circular bruise. (He did, however, say a series of fingertip grips arranged in a line was unlikely. Albeit in response to a further question as to the process by which a parent might inflict them on a child he did say that was beyond his medical expertise.) It was put to him that it was unlikely that the beating of the dogs paw would have resulted in bruises in a line. He considered that there were similarities between the isolated bruises elsewhere round the body and those that appeared linear – in that they were all circular or oval – and that what might have happened is that the dog was beating his paws on an exposed area.[28]He was questioned about the dog being a cause of the bruises and made clear he could not say that the dog was the cause of the bruises, merely that he could be. He had seen a video, as had I, of the dog playing with B. He said that the force used by the dog in that video was not sufficient to cause the bruising. It would need to have been rougher. He confirmed however he had previously seen similar bruising caused by a dog.Mother and Mr U
[29]The other witnesses who gave live evidence were Mother and Mr U.[30]Mother: impressed me as someone who was desperately sad to have had her children taken away. She struck me as someone who would do what she could to get them back. By and large her answers struck me as genuine – at least to the extent that she believed she was telling the truth. There were two areas where she came under sustained attack and her answers require more consideration.[31]The mobile phone, text messages and internet history of Mother and Mr U were obtained sometime after these proceedings commenced. From those messages it was clear that they had had an argument on the 15 October 2025, two days before the bruising was discovered on the 17 October 2025. The argument caused Mr U to leave Mother’s house, where he had been for the evening and expected to stay for the night, and go back to his flat. It appeared to have opened old wounds in their relationship from the vitriolic texts that passed between them that evening.[32]Mr Miller’s cross examination of Mr U, by reference to phone mast data eventually established that Mr U returned early the next morning and it appears that the problem had passed.[33]Neither Mother or Mr U had referred to this argument in their accounts of where they had been in the run up to the 17 October incident. Indeed, they had said that Mr U had slept at Mother’s house on the night of the 15 October.[34]It was put to Mother that she deliberately mispresented this – that she covered up the row. Her answer was that the argument was minor and in the light of the upending of her world that followed it was overlooked. When she looked back at her phone to work out where she and Mr U and the children were over the preceding week, she looked at photographs and did not go through her texts which would have reminded her.[35]Against this I note that she had prepared on the 31 October a four-page timeline for the week culminating on the 17 October. That sets out in terms that on the 16 October all 3 children got into bed with her and Mr U at 6 /6:30 in the morning. That seems highly unlikely to be correct if Mr U were coming back from his own flat that morning.[36]It is highly unlikely that having put her mind carefully to where she, Mr U and the children were over that week she would not have recalled the row and night separation on the 15 October. I consider that it is much more likely she concealed that argument and separation on the basis that she feared that a fight between her and Mr U would have been considered a black mark against her by Portsmouth. I make a finding in those terms.[37]The second point where she came under attack was her knowledge of B’s bruising prior to dropping him at nursery. It is clear that she gave B a bath the night before – the 16th - and Mr U got him dressed before nursery on the 17th.[38]It is clear that Mother knew about the bruising and the scratches to B’s legs. She and Mr U drew these to the attention of the nursery staff before dropping him off. What was contentious was whether she know of marks on his arms, and whether she was aware of the extent of the bruising to his arms. In her first statement she said she did not. In her second statement, just before the hearing, she said she was aware of some scratches on his arms but she was not aware of the bruising which subsequently became the focus of medical attention.[39]The owner and manager of the nursery, gave a statement which was not challenged that Mother had said to her that ‘the bruises to his arms had looked bad’ and that the bruises (not specified to be ones on the arms) looked ‘horrendous in the bath’. Mother said that the manager had misheard comments about the bruising to B’s legs, which she agreed had looked bad, particularly those on the back of his leg and attributed them to the arms. The bruises to the legs (including the so called linear one to the back of the leg), I remind myself, were drawn to the attention of the nursery. I do note, as I have said, that the manager was not challenged. I also note that it is entirely plausible that Mother was flustered at this time.[40]Dr Rowley set out in her handwritten notes at the time of her examination that Mother had said to her that she had ‘noticed bruises on arms and legs last night after bath often little bruises from accidents’. In her initial report she recorded that Mother had told her that she noticed bruises in the bath the night prior to examination and that they looked like grab marks. Dr Rowley says that Mother had said she had told the nursery about the bruises on his legs because he often needs changing and did not tell nursery about the bruises on the arm. Dr Rowley also recorded that Mother thought the bruises were caused by a dog. In her oral evidence Dr Rowley said it was the mother who volunteered that the bruises looked like grab marks.[41]Mother answered that she had been told by the nursery that the bruises looked like grab marks. Her oral evidence remained as it was in the second statement that she was not aware from the bath the night before of the extent of the bruising to the arms. She was aware there was some small bruises as Dr Rowley’s recorded in her notes.[42]It was put to me that Mother knew of the extent of the bruises to the arms, was withholding that information, and was playing on the probability that B’s top would not be changed at the nursery so nobody would notice the bruising.[43]I hold in my mind when considering this point that I can see from the exchanges between Mr U and Mother that on the 27 October 2025 Mother was reproaching Mr U for not having spotted the bruising when he got the children dressed on the 17 October only for him to respond by saying she should have seen the bruising when she bathed them the previous evening. That generated the following responses, which I consider notable: I did! I see he had the bruising from D [the dog] he didn’t have full on grab marks did he !! I said look at the bruising thinking it was ur stupid dog !! … No Mr U I showed you Thursday but they was on his legs and a few on his arms which were the puppy marks! It doesn’t matter anyway we’re going to loose our kids its alright for u as u have your own shit anyway flat / job ect iv lost my whole entire life in one day[44]I do not consider at all credible the submission of Mr Carroll that the text messages must be considered as suspect because Mr U and Mother might have been laying a false trail of evidence knowing that the text messages would be put before the court. Instead I consider the above exchange as corroborative of the account that Mother gave in her second statement, namely that she was aware of some upper body marks on B but not what was subsequently considered to be the grab marks on the arms. That is what is recorded in Dr Rowley’s notes that she said to Dr Rowley.[45]I am fortified in this view by the reflection that Mr U and Mother made a point of showing the bruises on the legs to the nursery. If Mother was aware of the bruises on the arms it is highly unlikely that she would not have mentioned them and taken a gamble that B would not have needed to have the clothes on his top half changed.[46]As to the reference to grab marks made by Mother to Dr Rowley, while I don’t doubt that Dr Rowley is right that Mother volunteered this phrase, I consider Mother’s answer that she had been told the bruising looked like grab marks by the nursery as a probable explanation of why she said the bruising looked like grab marks.[47]As an aside to the point, I am now considering, but relevant to my overall considerations, I do further reflect on the text exchange repeated above that it must indicate that neither parent knew that the other parent had inflicted the bruises on B. If they had that would have been the matter for reproach not the failure to notice the bruising. Of course, that is not decisive of the main issue. It is possible, more particularly with the mother, that she might have harmed B when Mr U was not there and was either deluding herself about that or deceiving Mr U about it.[48]On balance I accept Mother’s case as amended in her second statement, that she knew of some marks to B’s top half but not the full extent of the bruises, which were thought to be grab marks.Mr U
[49]He was a less satisfactory witness than Mother. It is appropriate that I hold in mind that he was cross examined for an extended period and did not have the benefit of an overnight break during his evidence. He had referred in written evidence to having a poor memory. He repeatedly relied on his poor memory when asked questions. There were occasions when he did appear to remember things, but when pressed waived an amnesic white flag rather than hold his ground. This got worse as the day progressed.[50]I do however want to make clear that I do not conclude from this that he was lying. One notable example is the morning of the 16 October, after the row. He said he went round early to Mother’s house the next morning before texting. Some texts which appeared to make up after the row in the morning were put to him, and he said he could not remember what happened, but that in the light of the texts he agreed he must have made it up by text and subsequently gone round – perhaps that evening. It was not until Mr Miller’s cross examination involving reference to mobile masts that we could see Mr U must have already been at Mother’s house before sending the texts. That is, his first account was right, and pleading forgetfulness led him into error.[51]He did give me some useful evidence about the dog, Baxter. Baxter was a working Cocker. He was from a farm and had not been socialised as a family dog but had lived outside before moving to Mr U’s. He was walked by Mr U, but it appeared he did not get reliable long walks. Just a short walk in the morning and sometimes something longer during the day. His walks fell second place to family demands, and he would sometimes just be pushed out into Mother’s garden. He missed a morning walk altogether as a consequence of the row with Mother on the 16 October.[52]As a consequence of what has happened Baxter has now been rehoused.[53]My overall impression was that Mr U was scared giving evidence. He was not aggressive and he was not difficult. He was clearly very upset at losing his children and the allegations made against him and Mother. I cannot jump from the manner in which he gave his evidence to any conclusion about his overall truthfulness.[54]He was cross examined about the two same issues as Mother. His oral evidence gave me little to go on. As with Mother I think that he would have remembered the row on the 15 October and took the view it was best not to mention it.[55]On the issue as to minimising the bruising that he saw, he had said in both his statements that he saw no bruising on B’s arms before taking him to the nursery. I had been given evidence by all the doctors that the time when bruises come out is not capable of simple calculation, nonetheless, I think it odd that the bruising on B’s arms had not come out when Mr U dressed him on Friday morning sometime between 7 and 8. It was not long till it was noticed by the nursery at 11. I note further Mr U did say to the Police, that he did see marks on B’s arm when he dressed him in the morning, ‘just like tiny little puppy marks’. He did not correct his account in his second statement, as Mother did; to say he was aware of marks on the arms before dropping B at nursery. Instead he notes what he said in the police interview and, without any explanation as to why he said that to the police, he tells us, ‘I genuinely cannot remember seeing these and certainly not the extent of the marks pictured on his arm’.[56]On balance the conclusion I reach is that Mr U had seen marks, as he reported to the police, not to the extent which were eventually recorded by Dr Rowley, but sufficient to tell the police that he had seen something. I consider that in his statement when he says he saw nothing was minimising what he had seen.[57]I am not at this stage in my judgment able to rule out the possibility that he was minimising because he knew more than he was revealing about how the bruises were formed but I do think an obvious alternative possibility is that the reason for the minimisation might be the criticism of him implicit in the question put to him by Mother preceding the text exchange set out above: How didn’t you see them Friday when getting him dressed? In short, the possibility is that he had seen something but was afraid to admit that given how Mother might have responded.[58]Mr Carroll makes a sustained attack on Mr U in his closing written submissions in which he advances the case that Mr U in a number of respects attempted to tailor his evidence so it fits with that of Mother. This he says is evidence that he was holding things back and covering things up. The points are founded on the telephone and internet records: text messages, emails, and timing of phone calls between Mr U and Mother. That Mr U and Mother are trying to work out what did happen, where they were when it happened, and put a consistent case to their lawyers does not appear to me evidence of deceit. It is what I would expect. The fact that they sometimes speak to each other on the phone rather than on text is again normal, and not evidence that they are covering things up. They are two parents whose children have been removed and a big finger of blame is being pointed at them. It would be odd if they did not talk about what had happened and what they were going to say to their lawyers. I agree with Mr Carroll, that the repeated answer from Mr U that he could not remember things was annoying but as I have said already, I consider likely to be generated by fear and I cannot ascribe it to deceit.The arguments and my conclusions
[59]Mother and Mr U are presented to me by the local authority as two basically good parents either of whom might have had a moment of loss of control and harmed B.[60]I am not given any past history in relation to either that might incline me to think that they may have harmed a child of theirs.[61]I do consider that both Mother and Mr U deliberately kept from the local authority their argument on the night of the 15 October 2025. I think that this is explicable as something that they feared would be held against them. I do not think as it turned out that it was in fact an argument which had any material impact on the circumstances in which B was being looked after.[62]I accept Mother’s account in her second statement that she had not previously focussed on the smaller marks to B’s arms that she had seen (and had told Dr Rowley she had seen). I do not think this was a concerted attempt to minimize the injuries.[63]I consider that Mr U did seek to minimise the bruises he saw on Friday morning when dressing B. I think that it is possible that he is doing that because of his fear of the wrath of Mother but I also consider it is possible that he is doing that because he knows more as to the cause of the injuries than he is saying.[64]I consider then that I need to approach this case by balancing the evidence of Dr Rowley and Dr Peer Mohamed. I have no strong push from the other features of the case either for or against the injuries being caused by either of Mr U or Mother.[65]The factors seem to me to be as follows:a. Are the linear bruises actually linear? If they are then they are caused by fingers and therefore highly likely to be caused by Mr U or Mother. As I have already said a close look at the photographs makes it look as Dr Peer Mohamed says that they are composed of a circle and an oval aligned to look like a line. His evidence is clear that they are not linear and are not the type of bruise he would expect from a finger. I reflect however that Dr Rowley says they are linear. She I remind myself saw the bruises in real life.b. Does the fact that parallel apparently linear bruises appear to be present on the right forearm, the left forearm, the left and right rear upper arm and the back of the right leg indicate that we are looking at the mark of a hand, i.e. they are lines from more than one finger? This is a strong argument it seems to me. It might be that we are looking at an exposed area where the dog persistently beats his paw and by chance the bruises aligned, but instinctively that does not seem probable. In that regard I should note that in all the other parts of the limbs there are circular bruises not aligned. Dr Peer Mohamed says the bruises are consistent throughout and so we are over reading causation into the alignment where it exists. In effect it comes back to the same point: the apparently linear bruises are not according to him the bruises one would expect from squeezing fingers.c. We have no evidence that the dog did play roughly enough to cause these bruises. If we did would Mr U and Mother not have stopped him, not least because B would have cried in pain? Mother says there were occasions when she did intervene to stop the playing. And Dr Peer Mohamed has given evidence that B might have been so engaged in the rough play that he would not have cried out.d. Why were there not more scratches if this was the dog? This I am told depends on the length of the dog’s claws. If they were short there would not be scratches – though of course the children would have scratches from other life events.e. Why does only B have the bruises? The answer is easier here. A is old enough to protect herself (though I do note I am told that she also had a 5cm linear bruise, which has been no part of the argument before me). C is too young to enter into rough and tumble with the dog and was probably looked after more carefully.f. What about the number of bruises? It is not disputed that something has happened to cause bruising. The question is whether what has happened was intended to hurt B. Dr Peer Mohamed says that this could be the rough play with the dog. Strangely the sheer number of bruises must increase the odds that some of them align to appear linear.g. Should I attach more weight to Dr Rowley’s view because it has, as she has told me, been peer reviewed in the hospital and considered sound? I do not consider it appropriate for me to do so. Those other doctors have not given evidence before me and I do not know how they would have responded to the arguments of Dr Peer Mohamed.[66]Ultimately, I am forced back to the position that one doctor tells me that the linear bruises are just that linear and caused by fingers, and another doctor tells me that the linear bruises are not caused by fingers squeezing B. When I look at the apparently linear bruises they do appear to be made up of a circular and an oval bruise as Dr Peer Mohamed says. The issue boils down to which evidence do I prefer when it comes to saying whether the apparent bruise is caused by a finger.[67]It is for Portsmouth to prove this on the balance of probabilities and I conclude that they have failed to do so. I cannot fairly say that the evidence of Dr Rowley prevails over the evidence of Dr Peer Mohamed.[68]I can however and do say that Dr Rowley was right when she said that the ‘bruising is highly concerning for physical abuse’. It is just that when set against the counter analysis of Dr Peer Mohamed it does not out weigh it.[69]I must conclude therefore that the core of the findings sought are not made out.[70]Finally, I turn to the application for further blood testing of B. It is obvious given the conclusion that I have reached that I do not consider a further test necessary. I do record that in the light of the evidence of Dr Allameddine I would not have considered it necessary in any event. Mr Justice Trowell 8 June 2025